Jun 08 2006

Rep Senate Folds On Estate Tax

Published by at 11:57 am under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

I will link to KOS because this is what happens when hard liners fracture the conservative base:

Senate rejects effort to cut estate tax.  The AP reports: Senators voted Thursday to reject a Republican effort to shrink taxes on inherited estates during this election year.

GOP leaders had pushed senators to end the tax once and for all. It disappears in 2010, under President Bush’s first tax cut, but rears up again a year later.

This is the ‘nothing’ side of the all-or-nothing mentality.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Rep Senate Folds On Estate Tax”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    This is the ‘nothing’ side of the all-or-nothing mentality.

    but if you look at the Left side, it is the ‘All” side. See, this is the case where the Repubs don’t believe in it strong enough. If they did, they would still be talking about it until the Dems were ready to scream in surrender. Then they can get nothing they want until this issue got really solved, not just shoved down the road. For some reason, the Repubs don’t seem to realize that they COULD control the senate if they wanted to. But for some reason they are content to let the Dems rule the day. For some reason, the Repubs see a “tax cut” as a political liability going into the fall election. They figure they can just wait until after the election. I don’t see where this strategy is worth a flip.

  2. HaroldHutchison says:

    Sounds more like there is a pressing need for Senmators McGavrick, Steele, and Kean.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    Amen there HH.

  4. ivehadit says:

    Was this a senate temper tantrum or what? I don’t get it.

  5. hehe…Stretching pretty far to incriminate the conservatives eh? When it was the “moderate” who sunk this game…those people who never seem to be able to make up their minds.

    Besides I thought you identified yourself as a conservative?


  6. syn says:

    Guess the moderate Senate needs more money to pay for their illegal legalized permanent underclass socialist welfare state they are determined to create. Protecting the new illegal legalized voters and all that jazz.

    Personally I don’t have children and won’t have to worry about their future propects of living in equalized poverty for all.

  7. syn says:

    Well at least the government can continue supporting a person I know from Dominican Republic who has lived in NYC for years despite the fact he only had a student visa from years ago BUT is able to collect a monthly government check because he declares his grandmother as a dependent living with him despite the fact that she lives in the Dominican Republic.

    Emotional blackmail can be expensive and costly don’t ya know.

  8. syn says:

    In other words, the Senate figures it needs more money to pay for their illegal legalized permanent underclass socialist welfare state they are determined to create in order to protect their new illegal legalized voter base.

    I guess I should find relief that I do not have children who will inherit a future of equalized poverty for all.

    I’m sticking all my wealth into a trust fund for pro-lifers.

  9. retire05 says:

    This has nothing to do with the “all or nothing” mentality (and yes, we all know what you were referring to). It has to do with the Republicans not having the cajones to do what their base elected them to do. It has to do with elections and them not being secure enough in being sent back to “The Club” without caving to the Dhimmicrats. It has more to do with the “spread ’em” mentality. Spread ’em, as in cheeks.

  10. MerryJ1 says:

    No, I think my stand on this from here out is that anyone, any party, voting to keep inheritance taxes/voting against phasing them out, is on the pad.

    The “rich” do not pay inheritance taxes. They pay lawyers to slip their money through the foundations and other (insurance) loopholes. So, who makes money by keeping inheritance taxes in place? Insurance companies, who stand to lose their (future) patoots if the taxes are repealed.

    As far as I’m concerned, Rinos (and Dems) voting against repeal are either in the hip pockets of insurance interests and should be voted out for corruption. There is NO other reason to vote against repeal!

  11. Terrye says:

    I heard there might be a compromise in the offing. I hope so.

    Unless of course some fanatics decide a compromise is not good enough for them.

    And syn, if there is a underclass most of them were born right here. And illegal immigration has been around forever I fail to understand why some people have decided it is something to come unhinged about all of a sudden. It is almost as if they were looking for something to whine about.

  12. syn says:


    Mass illegal immigration has not existed forever, nor has our multi-cultural approach towards mass illegal immigration existed forever. The unclass exists when we prevent migrants the opportunity to assumilate our language. Why do we cater specifically to the Spanish language as America’s second language and not Chinese, French, German, Arabic etc etc? If Spanish-speaking citizens are not encouraged to adopt our language they will forever remain at the bottom of the heap. Non-assumilation of language is the governments way of keeping people ignorant and poor and in today’s case it is directed towards Spanish-speaking immigrants both legal and illegal. It is said that the children of immigrants naturally assumilitated our language but this existed before multi-culturalism influenced policy. Why is it that at tax-payer expense school teachers are having to learn Spanish in order for illegal and legal Spanish-speaking children to learn?

    Europe has provided an excellent example of what happens when a culture does not properly assmimulate its immigrant. They too have allowed mass non-assumilated, illegal and legal, immigrants to ‘do the jobs Europeans won’t do’ and today they paying the high cost of having cheap underclass labor.

  13. The Macker says:

    Republicans are too ready to accept the Democrats’ assumptions. Then the debates are lost. The “death tax” causes family farms and family owned businesses to break up to pay the estate tax. This results in third parties losing their jobs. But the Repubs can’t make that case once they have accepted the idea that any tax on the rich is good.

  14. MerlinOS2 says:

    Hmm the Death Tax

    Tell me folks did any one see a spike in government revenues from the death tax when Sam Walton of Walmart fame passed from this earth?

    I mean 30 or more percent of his estate should have caused a blip on the radar.

    Actual effect was zilch , nada, zero and so forth.

    The real effect of the death tax is on those that meet the minimums but don’t have enough to do the tax avoidance planning.

    The mega money people know how to protect thier stash.

    The numbers being bantered about are high spook numbers of net value obtained if you considered the upper 1percent to be subject to the tax. It is a total spin smokescreen, relying on any even superficial review of reality.

    Wow am I suprised.

  15. Retired Spook says:

    Actual effect was zilch , nada, zero and so forth.

    Slippin’ a little Spanish in on us, Merlin? Catering to the illegals who read this? Heh, just couldn’t resist, in light of Syn’s comments above.

    Actually, your analysis about who pays the death tax and who doesn’t is right on the money. It would be interesting to see just how much of Sam Walton’s estate ended up in Federal coffers — not much, I’d wager, certainly not 55%. But die and leave behind a small tool and die company worth, oh say, 5 million, and see whether or not it stays in business after your kids sell it (or liquidate it) to pay the inheritance taxes.

    I and over 98% of the population will never accumulate enough wealth to have to pay inheritance taxes, but that doesn’t make the tax any more right or fair. There is just something inherently repugnant to me about the government taking 55% of an individual’s estate at the time of death. (It’s just not their @$#%^&*! money!!) It does sound, however, according to the Yahoo News article AJ linked to, that there are some potential compromises on the table that most everyone could live with, but I’m not holding my breath. “Tax breaks for the rich” has been slogan numero uno (a little more Spanish lingo for you, Merlin, heh) for the Donks for about as long as I can remember. I don’t see them giving it up anytime soon.

  16. MerlinOS2 says:

    Retired Spook

    Those who actually pay the death tax were earning above average incomes over thier lifetimes. Thus they already were paying the highest marginal tax rates on the money they were accumulating. Sort of like a salmon heading upstream. When they die the goberment wants a large percentage of what they have already paid taxes on.
    I have to admit though..I have an interest in this because I fit in your 2% group. But I am sheltered in many ways and that tax will have zero effect on my estate.

    Fumbling around for some spanish lingo..nah

  17. MerryJ1 says:

    Yesterday’s (www.opinionjournal.com) had a good editorial on this, names a couple of the 2% who lobby to keep the tax but have protected their own wealth from it.