Estate Tax Amendment Both Unnecessary and Unaffordable

[Jagger]

On April 2 the Senate adopted an amendment to the budget resolution by Senators Blanche Lincoln and Jon Kyl that would substantially weaken the estate tax.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_111_1.htm

The amendment is fiscally irresponsible. It would pave the way for a significant increase in long-term deficits and debt.

It is unnecessary to protect small businesses and farms because nearly all of them are already exempt from the tax under the 2009 estate tax rules, which President Obama has proposed to extend.

The amendment would lead to significant reductions in charitable contributions, while benefiting only the wealthiest 0.28 percent of estates.

[glockmail]

Why do you want to tax the dead?

[Jagger]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.

[glockmail]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.

The costs are burdened by the surviving relatives. Please explain to me how you think that is compassionate, or even fair.

[hjmick]

Nice, double taxing.

[PostmodernProphet]

The proposal would benefit only a tiny number of estates but it would carry a large cost.

can you give us an estimate of the cost of this amendment....it is surprising it would be that expensive, since it benefits such a "tiny number of estates"......

also, can you point out which amendment you are referring to.....your link lists 154 different votes....

[5stringJeff]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

[Kathianne]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

Tried to rep, alas. Indeed.

[PostmodernProphet]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

you buy something from me and you pay a 6% sales tax.....I take that money and buy something from Fred.....I pay a 6% sales tax.....Fred buys something from you and pays a 6% sales tax.....it's the same money, taxed three times....it's all immoral.....

[sgtdmski]

The estate tax my ass, it is the Death Tax. Tell me why is it that liberals and their Democrats in Congress insist on taxing people twice. If you want a Death Tax, then get rid of all other taxes and tax people only when they die, for if you continue to tax them during their life, you have no right to tax them when they die. To the families this is not income, and to consider it so is to tax it twice.

Perhaps we the people should demand a bill be passed that taxes all members of Congress when they die to be taxed in the amount of the monies they spent during their time in Congress. IF they do not have the full amount upon their death, we can collect it from their families until the amount is paid in full. See how they like it.

dmk

[Jagger]

The costs are burdened by the surviving relatives. Please explain to me how you think that is compassionate, or even fair.

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.

[Jagger]

All the money that is taxed by the death tax has already been earned and taxed once. It's immoral to tax that money again.

Our nation’s founders viewed concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.

[PostmodernProphet]

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.

actually, they proposed far more than $91 billion in cuts....they proposed reducing the stimulus package by $1trillion.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Our nation’s founders viewed concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation.

odd....the estate tax was first imposed in 1916.....why did our nation's founders wait so long to let their views be known?......

[glockmail]

The proposal would reduce tax revenues by $91 billion in the first ten years that its effects would be fully felt. The advocates of the proposal did not propose $91 billion in spending cuts.

As usual you failed to even address, never mind answer, my question. Try again.