Politics: A new beginning

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots

It does. More weathly people can hire tax planners to avoid much estate tax. And their holdings tend to be in publicly traded stocks, which can be sold to pay the rest. Small farms and family businesses can't pay the tax without liquidating the business. Moreover, the tax doesn't contribute much to revenue, but costs a lot for IRS to enforce and people to comply with.

The proponents have yet, so far as I have heard, to produce a single small/family business or farmer (or their heirs) who can demonstrate that the estate tax required them to sell. Although I suppose that a special exemption then doesn't matter, since no one will take it. Of course, Burger Inc. will soon be founded to run the family business of managing my wealth.

Second, even if true, what prevents a small business/farm from hiring a tax planner to accomplish the same thing? If your business is big enough to be subject to the estate tax, you're rich enough to hire a tax planner.

Third, why should the manner in which the assets are held matter? What of the widow whose entire wealth is in her family house. So much for giving it to Sonny--you have to sell half of it to pay the taxes. Alternatively, get a loan to pay the taxes. If your business is worth saving, you should be able to get a loan. If not, get a partner with cash.

The argument is pure political pablum. I'm not a fan of the estate tax, especially at the low limits it's now at. But this argument has been and remains a joke. If you want to make the case, make it on moral grounds--that is, people shouldn't be punished for saving. (Or people shouldn't be born with silver spoons in their mouth). But let's dispense with the disingenuity.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
(a) I don't recall this quote, but we have found evidence of WMD (though, I admit, not in the quantities that this quote would imply). The jury is still out on the quantities.

(b) Arguably true, depending on the definition of "benefits"

(c) Impirically true. A recession is defined as negative growth. We have not experienced negative growth during the Bush term.

(d) Again. Arguably true. If the economy was high flying enough, even with tax cuts could theoretically we could have run a surplus.

(e) True, depending on the estate value of the small business/family farmers.

(f) No idea on this one, but I'd suspect that at least several 100,000 procedures are performed each year.

(a) I know I used quotes, but I meant them to paraphrase policy arguments. Club -- you must watch Fox News. We have found evidence of development programs and banned activity -- zero weapons, period. A few vials of toxins we found simply aren't WMD. They hadn't been weaponized and had no military use and little terrorist use. The jury is not out on quantity. The jury is out on whether we'll find any. In any event -- it is far from he picture painted by the Administration.

(b) Nonsense. Bush made that argument in a speech talking about direct tax relief to individuals during his campaign. In fact, the bottom 60% of taxpayers received 14% of the tax relief. This argument was close to an outright lie.

(c) Check the statistics. You're incorrect. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We had that -- though each year was net positive.

(d) A non-partisan (CBO?) reprot showed that the deficit and lost surplus could be attributed roughly 1/3 to increaed defense spending, 1/3 to other increased spending, and 1/3 to the tax cuts. Your argument doesn't fly well, because one can't make policy on the assumption that economic bubbles will continue indefinitely.

(e) I know that the estate tax -could_ harm small family business and farmers -- but the bottom line is that it was tremendously hypocrticl for the Rrepublicans to pretend that was the motivation. it affected only a small portion of such business -- mostly affecting a bunch of very well off people who give the Republicans a lot of money.

(f) Your'e being sold a bill of goods. I doubt that there exist any reliable statistics, but the procedure is widely considered to be very rare. Plus -- I fail to see how banning it will "save lives" -- unless it is only a last resort. If you're right, we can look to a huge upsurge in the numbes of unwanted and deformed children, whom the Bush administration will do nothing to help because they are vry selectively small-government types.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
To be fair, I think the pre-war talk was about the threat of WMDs and the program to develop them.

Not what I remember. I remember that Iraq had real, live genuine stockpiles of real, live WMDs and they were gonna use 'em less we took 'em out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
A few vials of toxins we found simply aren't WMD. They hadn't been weaponized and had no military use and little terrorist use.

The vial found in the guy's refrigerator was a form of botulism that you can also develop if you dent canned food and leave it sitting around. The fact that Kay was forced to point to garbage like this in his report shows how little we found.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Not what I remember. I remember that Iraq had real, live genuine stockpiles of real, live WMDs and they were gonna use 'em less we took 'em out.

so you're misinformed? do you watch Fox?

the main arguments were:

1 We know Iraq HAD the weapons, it was suppose to show it destroyed them. it didn't.

2 We believe Iraq has programs to make more.

as to 1, most all of the UN agreed. That is why there were sanctions.
as to 2, evidence has been found to support the claims made.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you're misinformed? do you watch Fox?

No, I don't watch Fox. It's why I'm not misinformed.

the main arguments were:

1 We know Iraq HAD the weapons, it was suppose to show it destroyed them. it didn't.

2 We believe Iraq has programs to make more.

as to 1, most all of the UN agreed. That is why there were sanctions.
as to 2, evidence has been found to support the claims made.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003



Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003



I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

[Hank Chinaski]

before politics went the other way billy the C and the NYT also felt there were wmd in Iraq. Iraq did had the programs. all we failed to find, yet, are the weapons:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/153620.shtml

taking little soundbytes out of longer pieces is cool. you can really make a point. do you try that in legal briefs?

the point is why were the statements you quoted made? because of my point 1. why were there UN sanctions? see my point 1.

Oh. why did we think Iraq might use chemical weapons at the battlefield? was that a silly fear? Well, no we found fucking chemical suits at the front line for fucks sake.

if you think I am simply an apologist, again, see how Bill and NYT felt BEFORE it might be something they though might help get a dem back in the White House.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Second, even if true, what prevents a small business/farm from hiring a tax planner to accomplish the same thing? If your business is big enough to be subject to the estate tax, you're rich enough to hire a tax planner.

Let's assume a farm(er) has an income of $200,000 /year. I would value it at $2 Million at the very least (assuming it could be sold to someone looking for a 10% ROR). A 200k/year operation is not something that can easily afford a lot of expensive tax lawyers. Moreover, the costs of legal svces don't contribute to the productivity of the business. They are a deadweight cost.

Third, why should the manner in which the assets are held matter?

So you see no difference between a stock or a bond? A condo or coop? Restricted stock or an NYSE stock?

What of the widow whose entire wealth is in her family house. So much for giving it to Sonny--you have t
o sell half of it to pay the taxes. Alternatively, get a loan to pay the taxes. If your business is worth saving, you should be able to get a loan. If not, get a partner with cash.

You forget that the house (and business) were purchased with after-tax dollars. How many times do you have to tax the same dollar before it is "fair"?

The argument is pure political pablum. I'm not a fan of the estate tax, especially at the low limits it's now at. But this argument has been and remains a joke. If you want to make the case, make it on moral grounds--that is, people shouldn't be punished for saving. (Or people shouldn't be born with silver spoons in their mouth). But let's dispense with the disingenuity.

How about the argument that it doesn't contribute much to national fisc? How about the fact that huge amounts spent on estate planning could be put to better uses? High crime doesn't benefit the economy even though people buy more locks and alarm systems because they are spending money that they otherwise would have spent on suits and televisions. Making complicated estate tax laws benefits lawyers who interepret them but do so at the expense of the future decedent and the small dealers and worthy men from whom he would've purchased other goods.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
before politics went the other way billy the C and the NYT also felt there were wmd in Iraq.

Golly, then it must be true.

It's fun when conservatives start insisting that Bush and Clinton were on exactly the same page. You know they're getting touchy.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the fb would be a dangerous place for you.

Honeypie, I am case-sensitive. FB = Fashion Board. fb = me. Please be more careful in future. Thank you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Golly, then it must be true.

well, maybe not true, but certainly not a pipe dream/lie dreamed up to increase cheny's oil stock or whatever evil motive you're buying into this week.

It's fun when conservatives start insisting that Bush and Clinton were on exactly the same page. You know they're getting touchy.

they might have been on the same page, but how that figured they should address the problem differed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Let's assume a farm(er) has an income of $200,000 /year. I would value it at $2 Million at the very least (assuming it could be sold to someone looking for a 10% ROR). A 200k/year operation is not something that can easily afford a lot of expensive tax lawyers. Moreover, the costs of legal svces don't contribute to the productivity of the business. They are a deadweight cost.

If I have an income of $200k a year, can I afford a lot of expensive tax lawyers? No. But I don't need them. Nor do they.

Why is making an estate-tax friendly plan for a small business more complicated than one for a family. Moreover, unlike the small businessman, I could not deduct whatever expenses I have from my income. Finally, the benefit is potentially the same in avoided taxes--if it's significant, it's a move you should make. The "less access to estate tax planning" argument is a plain loser.

So you see no difference between a stock or a bond? A condo or coop? Restricted stock or an NYSE stock?

not as forms of wealth. And the estate tax is a tax on wealth.

If you're saying that liquidity isn't priced in, then you simply need to come up with a better method of asset valuation. That's not a reason to eliminate the tax.

You forget that the house (and business) were purchased with after-tax dollars. How many times do you have to tax the same dollar before it is "fair"?

Huh? The estate tax has never made this distinction. Why should it employ it just for farmers?

Besides, your IRA/401(k) is taxed at death, even though it contains pre-tax dollars. So is your house; so is any asset.

If you want everything to be a Roth IRA, fine, but pass a bill that allows everyone to buy any asset and place it in a Roth IRA where it will be tax free. Why limit it to farmers and business people whose business are worth more than $1M?

How about the argument that it doesn't contribute much to national fisc? How about the fact that huge amounts spent on estate planning could be put to better uses? High crime doesn't benefit the economy even though people buy more locks and alarm systems because they are spending money that they otherwise would have spent on suits and televisions. Making complicated estate tax laws benefits lawyers who interepret them but do so at the expense of the future decedent and the small dealers and worthy men from whom he would've purchased other goods.

How about some other lame arguments:

1) It's worth at least $50b/year. If it weren't sizable, it would already have been permanently repealed.
2) Sure, let's have a flat tax on everything. THat would eliminate even more paperwork. Relatively speaking, the estate tax is easy from a paperwork standpoint because it requires only the totalling of assets, less the applicable exemption, multiplied by the tax rate.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Honeypie, I am case-sensitive. FB = Fashion Board. fb = me. Please be more careful in future. Thank you.

Why do you think the advice wasn't refering to you?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the fb would be a dangerous place for you.

I think a job that you earned with your wittiness and charm would be a dangerous place for you.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
before politics went the other way billy the C and the NYT also felt there were wmd in Iraq. Iraq did had the programs. all we failed to find, yet, are the weapons:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/153620.shtml

Wait, we haven't found the weapons yet? Uh, I think that was my point?

taking little soundbytes out of longer pieces is cool. you can really make a point. do you try that in legal briefs?

No. Are you saying anything here related to the subject under discussion, or is that just another ad hominem attack? Calm down, Hank - geez, you'll pop a vein that way and nobody wants that.

the point is why were the statements you quoted made? because of my point 1. why were there UN sanctions? see my point 1.

No, the statements I quoted were made because the Bush administration wanted us to believe Iraq had real live genuine WMDs. Go back and review your point 1, which addresses the fact that Iraq didn't prove a negative about WMDs they previously had (which no one disputes).

Really, Hank, it's simple - the Bush administration said, over and over and over again, they had proof that Iraq was at that time in possesssion of WMDs. To date, in spite of great efforts, we have found none.

Oh. why did we think Iraq might use chemical weapons at the battlefield? was that a silly fear? Well, no we found fucking chemical suits at the front line for fucks sake.

Our troops found 3,000 chemical suits at one hospital. Granted, that's a lot of suits, but I've always wondered why we never found any more, anywhere else. But that's still not a real, live, genuine WMD. You can find chemical suits at lots of hospitals, armories, and commercial sites here in the US - does that prove they possess WMDs?

if you think I am simply an apologist, again, see how Bill and NYT felt BEFORE it might be something they though might help get a dem back in the White House.

Careful --you're starting to get incoherent. For God's sakes, man, remember your blood pressure.