Don't let them call it a "death tax"....

[kentuck]

It's an "estate" tax. But they don't like the word "estate". It conjures up images of mansions and guarded gates and a lot of property. And that makes people think of "rich" people. The would prefer people thought of it as simply a "death tax". They don't want to call it what it really is - just another little deception by the GOP...

[MADem]

1. Damn, it is a DEAD RICH GUY'S TAX

He's DEAD, dammit, he does not NEED THAT MONEY ANYMORE!!! May as well take HIS money to help the poor, instead of YOUR middle class cash!!! People love helping the poor with some dead rich guy's money!!!

Phrase it that way, and you can keep the DEATH in there.

[Melodybe]

3. I've heard it called the Paris Hilton tax, I think that seems fitting

[MADem]

7. Naaah, some folks like Paris Hilton, so that would just divide people

Far better to conjure up some MEAN, OLD, UGLY, RICH...and best of all...DEAD asshole that everyone dislikes.

Which mean, unfriendly son of a bitch died recently? We need a real shitheel to make the point; then figure out how much money that his heirs are squandering could have gone to reduce the deficit, help the hurricane victims, improve community services, and lift up the needy?

People do not have a problem with taking money from a rich, dead, asshole to give to the poor or fix that highway they drive on.

They just don't want to part with their OWN money.

[mongo]

9. The Mr Potter tax?

Or is "It's a Wonderful Life" too obscure a reference?

Actually, I have my reservations on this. I am not exactly sure what the original laws were like, but at some level, an estate tax only puts more assets into the hands of the few.

I am not saying that Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay estate taxes, yes she should. So should anyone whose wealth over some arbitrary amount is tied up in liquid assests.

But we shouldn't make people sell the family farm or small business to pay the estate taxes. That only puts more assets into the hands of the fewer.

[kentuck]

10. How much does this family farm or "small business" have to be worth?

Before any estate taxes are paid??

[mongo]

18. I don't have a magic number

I think it all depends on what kind of assets we are talking about, and how they are being used.

[kentuck]

21. I mean, where does it start being taxed ??

At a million and half dollars? Or close?

[mongo]

25. Here is an example

I don't remember the name of the show, but it was on marble mining.

Not too many companies mine marble anymore - this one was in the Pa. mountains, I think.

They had ONE of every machine they needed to operate the business. We are talking huge machines capable of carving 20x50x20 feet blocks of marble out of the side of the mountain. Millions of dollars of equipment.

It was a small family business, with about 10 employees. And they gave the impression that they were not doing that well - they could not invest in new equipment, for example.

Do we put them out of business just because they are worth more than 5 million dollars on paper?

Should the mountain be sold to some italian firm because they are already in the business and want to corner some more of the market? Hell, they may buy it just to shut the mine down.

Like I said, I don't have a magic number. Perhaps the amount of revenue the estate generates should be a factor. I really don't know.

[Finder]

14. That is why it is difficult...

the Paris Hiltons of the world are not affected since a good accountant can shelter most money.

The people hurt by the tax are middle class for the most part. If someone bought a simple store back in the 70s, today it is assessed well over a million although the store probably netted under 50g a year with the children working for for small wages.

However, getting rid of the Estate tax will be beneficial to many rich individuals who will no longer have to hire creative accountants.

As many have said before, there should be exemptions for small biz/family biz and farms.

[Yupster]

30. We paid the estate tax

when my aunt died.

This was when the tax kicked in at $ 600,000. She died with an estate worth a little over $ 1 million.

She was just a middle class woman who had a good education and a good job. She never married, always invested, gave tons to environmental and animal charities.

When she died my parents, my self and my siblings and our kids, the church, the World Wildlife Fund, and a myriad of other charities mostly involved in pet adoption and caring for mistreated animals all got smaller amounts because the government took its large chunk.

The limit today is $ 1.5 million which I think is still to low. I think a limit of $ 3 million or so would get most successful but middle class people and small busineses out of the system.

I disagree that the estate tax only hits the upper 1 %. The reason I know this is that it hit me, and I'm not in any 1 % of anything.

[kentuck]

35. What did you do to deserve any of your aunt's money ??

If I may ask?

[Yupster]

55. Deserve it?

What an odd question.

Are you a parent?

If you decide to buy your daughter a new refrigerator, must she have done something to deserve it? I just figure it's your money and if you choose to give it to your daughter it's your own business. Certainly not mine.

Before you take your kids out to dinner do you ask them what they've done to deserve the free meal?

It was my aunt's money. In her will she carefully apportioned it to her relatives, friends and charities because that's where she wanted it to go. Is it anyone else's business?

[kentuck]

56. It was a gift?

You did not work for it, right? She "gave" it to you? Yet, you think that it is somehow deserving of taxbreaks that someone else will have to take up the slack? Why?

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Yeah, just think, people might start dying left and right so that they

could take advantage of that lucrative loophole in the law.

[kentuck]

60. No. greedy people tend to cling to life....

with the best care their last dollars can buy...even if they have to twist it out of their gnarled and greedy fingers...

[Yupster]

67. Yes of course it was a gift

When you write a will, you write down who you want to give your stuff to.

That's give as in gift.

Why would taxes even enter into the discussion?

Still, I recognize that we are pretty much broke as a country, so we need more money in the government and that means that some estate tax is probably in order.

I would think $ 3 million to $ 5 million would be a reasonable compromise where middle class people like my aunt wouldn't have their money taken, but the mega rich would have to pony up. I also recognize that the generational rich will probably not be hit with it anyways as they have their wealth hidden in family trusts.

[kentuck]

68. Do you believe in a progressive tax?

And do you believe gift taxes should be different from say....uh...income? What taxrate do you think should be the highest? Would that be different for your $3-5 million estate? Why?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Unless you want to do away with Capitalism and Private Property entirely

"Deserving" it doesn't have jack diddly squat to do with what his Aunt wanted to do--- with her OWN money.

[kentuck]

59. It's about taxes....

I pay taxes that I do not wish to pay. And it's my own money. I earned it through the capitalist system and considered it my own private property. Yet, I was asked to pay a certain amount of taxes. It's the price we pay I guess to live in a society that we appreciate. If you get some "money" from a rich aunt as a gift, society has laws on the book that there are different taxes that should apply to these types of "gifts". Perhaps you agree more with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party on this issue?

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Oh yeah. I'm a TOTAL republican.

Read my other posts.

I happen to think there are some very good reasons for raising the cap on the estate tax to $5 or $10 Million, as outlined elsewhere in this thread. If that makes me some kind of closet Republican.. well, um, actually, it doesn't.

And reading your other posts in this thread, I have to say you sound awfully bitter about the whole thing, particularly talking about "greedy people clutching money with their grubby fingers" and the like. Look, my dad died and left me with about $5,000... and, more importantly, he left me a damn good reason not to smoke cigarettes. But I don't begrudge people who may have inherited a bit more money, or property, or a business, or a farm.. I'm certainly not pissed off or grinding some kind of big ol' jealous axe against them. The reality is, the estate tax is a form of double taxation. It is reasonable for rich people to pay more in taxes; as I outlined elsewhere, I think that people making less than $30K a year shouldn't be paying ANY taxes, at all, and people making more than $1,000,000 a year can damn well afford to pay a high rate.

But it's also reasonable for people to want to leave things to their kids, particularly the product of a lifetime of hard work. Is that reason to be pissed off at the kids for not "earning" it? I don't think so, myself.

Is there a place in there for reasonable estate taxes, as well? Perhaps. But I do think that when you're talking about "money-grubbing, greedy rich people" and also about estates worth 1.5 million, including real estate or small business assets, you are stretching it a bit. and including a lot of people who aren't "rich, money grubbing republicans" but middle class democrats.

What I REALLY would like to see is a re-prioritizing of what our taxes GO to. If we had, say, a SPHC system, it would be one thing. If we stopped fighting bullshit wars abroad and the bogus drug war at home (here's an idea for revenue- legalize and tax POT. Wow, there's a real Republican position for you) some of these issues might actually be moot.

But my hunch is, you'd still be grousing about Paris Hilton.

[kentuck]

62. I don't know your positions on other issues but....

on the estate tax, yes, you sound like a Republican. And nobody is going to tax the $5,000 you got from your Dad. We're talking about the big picture here. A few families will end up with all the wealth in this country. It is wise to prevent that. I am not a slave to the capitalist system. I do not have complete faith in it. However, I do recognize the need for small businesses to continue to do business. I do recognize the value of labor. In fact, I believe capitalism could never have existed if not for labor. And I could see a reasonable limit on "estates". I do not believe anyone is deserving of inheriting unlimited wealth from the labors of their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or whomever...And I don't give a shit about Paris Hilton one way or another.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I'm not worried about having to pay taxes on that $5,000

My dad's been dead for a looooong time.

My point was, I'm not bitter at people who may have inherited more money than that. (Although that money actually went a long way, as the year my Dad died, I was making slightly above minimum wage at the time.) And furthermore, if you're talking about the tendency in a capitalist system for wealth to accrue into the hands of a few, the estate tax doesn't have much to do with that at all. The truly mega-rich can afford to pay it, and my point about raising the cap has everything to do with protecting small businesses and farms.

If your aim is mitigating the inequities of crony capitalism, the estate tax in any form is, frankly, a piss-poor way to go about that. Progressive income taxes, in my mind, which operate on a per annum basis as opposed to every time someone croaks, are far more effective in the real world.

Me? I consider myself left-libertarian, actually, although I know the "l" word gives certain people here hives. I do believe in free markets and level playing fields, bounded by worker protection laws, liveable minimum wages, and solid environmental protections. (And I think some things, like health care, are not well handled by the free market alone.)

But unfortunately that's a far cry from what we see operating in this country, today, as I'm sure you're aware.

I just think when you spend an awful lot of time talking about "deserving", and who is "deserving" and who isn't, it sounds like bitterness. Particularly since the estate tax doesn't really bring that much money into the pot, anyway. And labor is getting screwed more by certain big corporations and their CEOs (many of whom pay no taxes whatsoever) than it is by rich kids not paying taxes on inheritances.

[kentuck]

66. I'm not bitter - just pissed off...

mostly at Democrats that have swallowed the Republican propaganda. I think perhaps a more equitable tax would be one that applies to "inheritances" (such an aristocratic word) and wealth at the same rate? Perhaps fifty percent of every penny after one million dollars should go to improve our society rather than enriching a few individuals. Notice I did not suggest we go back to the 90% tax rate we had up to and through WWII...But I would not have a big problem with that either. But I have a hunch that might trouble you immensely.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the 90% rate was during the Eisenhower yrs

and I do think its reasonable to expect that the mega-rich give back to society. But maybe you haven't been paying attention, today it's not "millionaires" who comprise the ultra-elite mega rich, it's actually billionaires-with-a-b. Not that I'm anywhere close to being either. But the 400 richest people in the world have a higher combined net worth than the 100 poorest countries, or some such craziness.

That's the world we live in.

And the post WWII years with the high rates on top earners oversaw the creation of a vast, unprecedented middle class. So, no, that doesn't 'trouble me immensely'...

But I think ANY discussion of "soaking the rich" really ought to come with serious talk of our government's spending PRIORITIES. Not in the sense of "dammit, my money is going to bon bon eating welfare queens", but rather in the sense of "why is my money going to a bloated military/industrial complex and corporate welfare, among other things?"

[kentuck]

70. OK......

:)

[MADem]

15. There are ways around that, through trusts and whatnot

But certainly no one should lose the family home, the family business...but those ten houses scattered from the Bahamas to the Riviera, well, some of those might need to go--poor Ken Lay only has ten or so homes, and gosh he had to put some on the market to pay his legal bills, poor fellah....

How tough would it be to eliminate a home that the survivors lived in, or intended to live in? Probably not too difficult, with a willing Congress. Same with a family owned business...

They could tag that on to the repeal...

[Finder]

16. And here is where it gets complicated...(nt)

[MADem]

19. Sure, but we pay those bastards in Congress plenty

If they can churn out bills for pork projects, surely they can put their damn noses to the wheel and churn out a RICH MEAN OLE DEAD GUY's tax that does not screw the small family business, the kid living in the house taking care of old Paw who just died, and so forth.

We CAN do anything, we simply must develop the will and do the unglamorous work. It's up to us, and Congress.

[Yupster]

31. Supposedly the Democratic leadership

has offered a compromise of about $ 3 million.

That's probably a pretty reasonable level.

Still have to do something about trusts though, because the truly inherited rich like the Kennedys have little money in their ownership. It's all in trust funds.

[mongo]

20. The problem with trusts and whatnot

is that if a small business can use them, then so can Ken Lay.

[MADem]

24. Yeah, but Kenny has more floating cash than a small business

...even with his legal woes. It's all a matter of finding the money that is just laying around, as opposed to the money that is going to support family salaries, or homes that are being used as HOMES, and not income property for some rich layabout.

[chaska]

33. NOBODY over the age of 14 likes paris Hilton... That's the perfect name.

[CrispyQ]

43. and besides, calling it that doesn't denigrate Paris Hilton,

it simply makes clear that it's a tax cut that will benefit someone who everyone recognizes as extremely rich.

[MADem]

51. I dunno

I know some of the young fellows about seem to like her for her home movies....

[petronius]

2. I'll agree to call it a 'death tax'

just as soon as they show me one person who has been dragged back to life by the IRS for failing to pay it...

I've always used just 'inheritance tax', but you have a good point about "estate".

[ClassWarrior]

4. Agreed. It's an estate tax. And Bush**'s welfare for the wealthy is...

..."The Paris Hilton Tax Cut."

Two can play that game, right?

B-)

NGU.

[MADem]

52. Funny, Bill Clinton calls it the BILL CLINTON TAX CUT

It has to make the GOP seethe every time he mentions it. And even though it benefits him mightily, he feels it is time to repeal it!

[daninthemoon]

5. What's the calendar on this thing?

[Yupster]

34. In 2010 the limit goes up to $ 10 million

Then on Jan 1, 2011 it falls back down to $ 1 million.

That's IMO too low. Hopefully a compromise will be reached before then so we don't have old people killing themselves on Dec 31 to avoid the estate tax.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. Call it the Spoiled Children of Rich People's tax

[MADem]

8. I really think focusing on the DEAD ***PERSON*** is better

When you do that spoiled kid thing, people have a tendency to think you are beating up on GOP children.

But finding a mean, disliked, dead FACE (with spoiled heirs is fine, but they should not be the focus) just might move the issue a bit.

But hey, more than one way to get there...perhaps a multi-pronged strategy would do the trick!

[sakabatou]

11. Why not the "wealth tax"?

[Liberal In Texas]

12. I call it "The Paris Hilton Welfare Program." n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. It is an inheritance tax. It taxes a windfall that comes to someone

who had nothing to do with earning it.

It does not tax the dead person - it taxes the recipient, just as if he had won a car on a game show, the value of the car is taxed.

I think if it is a business or farm, it should be untaxed for a large degree, because the inheritance is not of the profits but of the generator of the profits. IOW, Daddy owns a successful shoe store. The store, with all its assets, should pass down untaxed to the person who is taking control of it. The $200,000 in cash, stocks, etc., that Daddy earned from the business should be taxed heavily, as they have nothing to do with the store, and the store will operate without it. The new owner can earn his own way.

Not remotely involved in the business world, I don't know how this differs from what exists now.

[mongo]

22. Sounds reasonable to me....

And I think the point that gets missed here is that if the family farm gets taxed, so that they would have to sell 20% of the land, that could make such a dent in the future revenue that they might as well sell the whole farm.

Who is going to buy the farm? The only person that can afford to is the giant agri-corp that is already farming 50% of a 6 county area.

Same thing with the shoe store. The business folds, the inventory and assets are auctioned off, and the building is bought by some giant real estate holding company.

Sometimes a tax that is geared at the "wealthy", is more suited to putting more of the wealth into fewer hands.

[kentuck]

23. Bullshit.

If you qualify for the estate taxes, you can afford to pay them. They are still trying to find that one farmer that couldn't pay his taxes...It's a Republican argument.

[mongo]

28. Yeah - farmers are all rich

That's why the family farm has been dying since the 70's.

Once ADM corp owns all the farms, I'm sure they can pay the estate tax - they'll be able to pass it on to us.

I don't think that trying to keep all of the wealth of the country going into fewer and fewer hands is a republican argument.

[kentuck]

29. They're still looking for that one farmer....

that had enough property to qualify for the estate tax that had to sell it and dispose of the farm....If you can find that one person, farmer or a guy that owns a marble mine, do you think that would justify changing the entire law? For one person?

[Finder]

40. Not true....

the assessment of taxes is much different than the cash available to pay said taxes without selling the assets.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Here's a NOW transcript discussing that very thing.

True or false: many family farms must be sold off to pay for the Federal taxes due on them when the owner dies.

COLLINS: That's false. A number of investigative reporters have gone out to the midwest, they even went to Iowa, and they asked the American Farm Bureau, one of the proponents of repeal, to produce a single example of a farm that had been lost to the estate tax and they could not find one.

And they...the president of the Farm Bureau even sent out an urgent e-mail across the country saying, please, send us examples -- but produced none. ...


http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_inheritance.html

[SoCalDem]

27. "Family farmers" succeeded too well

Farmers wanted "better' for their kids, and sent them off to college. Is a guy with an engineering degree and a nice salary going to transplant his family to Dad's farm when he dies? Nope.. If there are multiple siblings and they are all "in the will", there are 3 choices..

1. Everyone moves to the farm, runs it, and shares the profits/expenses

2. One sibling "buys" out the others and runs the farm..

3. The farm is sold and the money split..


A farm is only a farm when there's a farmer running it. Once the farmer dies, it becomes land, equipment and buildings...and debts..


Lots of farmers have taken on massive debt. and selling the farm is usually the only way to settle up..

[MADem]

53. The question should not be the value of the business per se

especially when it is family owned, or a small business, and the business will just keep on moving along after Paw goes to his reward--I agree with your concept that those situations deserve exclusion.

Perhaps the question is, how is the money or assets utilized? If they are just settin' in the bank earning interest, whack a branch off that tree. If, on the other hand, the money is invested in a business that creates jobs and moves the economy, that is another kettle of fish...

[SoCalDem]

17. Until we control the media, things get called what the "favored ones"

want them called:(

[proud patriot]

26. It's the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut"

:hi:

[annabanana]

32. The Paris Hilton 5th Summer Home tax............

Do we really want to deprive poor little Paris of that 5th Villa?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Hate to interrupt the bashing of silver spoon heirs and heiresses...

but, for a moment, there are a couple things to consider-

One is, with a cap at $1 Million, and the crazy run-up in real estate values, some people are going to be in a position of having to sell mom or dad's house just to pay the estate taxes ON THE HOUSE. Now, you can piss and moan about real estate prices and undeserving brats, but the reality is, no one should have to sell their family house to pay the taxes on it. Or consider this: Northern California has the highest number of per capita small, organic farms in the country. Northern California also has CRAZY real estate prices. You really want small organic family farms to sell out to Monsanto because they can't pay the estate taxes on the land they own that has gone through the roof in value?

A $1 Million cap does cover lots of small businesses and family farms. It may sound like lots of money, and everybody loves to grouse about Paris Hilton, but the reality is many middle class people could be affected by that. And not to pee in the punchbowl, but it IS double taxation- taxes were already paid on that money.

Cap the thing at 10 Million, and you'd still nail Paris Hilton, if you'll excuse the expression. Maybe what we should be focusing on is trying to get the super-wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share, And not going after small business owners and people who may live in places where real estate has gone through the roof.

[Finder]

41. You are a voice of reason. (nt)

[swag]

45. For a couple the cap is $3 million. For an individual, $1.5 million.

But you and I have discussed some of this in the posts below.

Your points are well taken. But the laughably named "Club for Growth" and others aren't shoving a cap-increase down are throats. They are pushing for elimination of this tax, on top of all the other tax-cuts the top 2% of the wealth-holders in this country have already received.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Ergo, I disagree with the club for growth on this

Just like I disagree with them on everything else.

I think a cap of $10 million, or even $5 million, addresses the economic realities of today's world, in that single people (bear in mind, since gays can't get married, they are discriminated against in this as well) who die with $1.5 million in assets (including real estate) aren't always "rich".

[CrispyQ]

47. "no one should have to sell their family house to pay the taxes on it."

Should that apply to regular folks who cannot afford to pay property taxes on their home -- the home they are paying mortgage payments on, not a home they inherited. Or is that a totally different issue?

I agree totally with this sentiment:

"what we should be focusing on is trying to get the super-wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share..."

[Pepperbelly]

50. Easy enough ...

Exempt a home worth more IF it is their primary domicile and the family business IF junior is going to run it, up to five or ten mil. After that, we're dividing the carcass.

[MADem]

54. I think family homes should be excluded entirely

Ten family homes, no, but your childhood home, sure...

[Furity]

65. That's not true

The tax basis on the parent's house is determined on the date of their death, not on what they purchased it for. In other words, if they bought a $50,000 house in the seventies, and it is now worth a quarter of a million dollars, they're heir has a basis of $250,000 if they sell it, no taxes due. Same with stocks. Why do you think rich folks concentrate on real estate and stocks, instead of 401(k)s, IRA's, etc. Just wondering.

~Furity

[Warren DeMontague]

71. So you're saying real estate and stocks aren't part of a taxable estate?

I'm not doubting you, I honestly don't know all that much about it. But it seems hard for me to believe that someone with $50 Million in Real Estate and Stocks isn't going to have to have their estate taxed on the value of those items at their death?

Or, re-reading your post, here... is the argument that capital gains taxes are avoided on the increased value? I guess that's where the estate tax comes in, although I think the estate tax rate is higher than the capital gains tax rate. I can't believe they'd be subject to neither.

You've got a point, there, that's one argument for the estate tax, at least with regards to investments- although I still think a cap is proper. If the estate is 1.5 Million and that's ALL in real estate values, the money for the tax on that 1.5 million is going to have to come from somewhere, and you still may be forcing someone to sell a house to pay the taxes on it.

[swag]

37. Estate tax facts

http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETWhoPays.html

Two percent of Americans are now subject to the estate tax. These are people with estates larger than $1.5 million ($3 million for a couple). Half of all estate taxes are paid by the top 0.14% of Americans. These are people with estates larger than $5 million.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Then if you made the cap $5 Million

ONLY the top .14% would be subject to it, correct?

[swag]

39. You are correct. And you would cut revenues by half,

and when real estate and other asset prices inevitably correct, the revenue stream would deteriorate even more.

Either way, I don't see your proposal being championed by Club for Growth, et al.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. No, because the club for growth is much more interested in protecting

the assets of people whose estates are worth a fuckload more than $5 or $10 Million.

And how big, precisely, is this "revenue stream?". How much of it could be made up by, say, trimming the military-industrial complex budget back to something remotely reasonable for a nation that already has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over?

Or by ending the $40 Billion-a-year (not counting incarceration costs) drug war?

Or by stopping corporate welfare and making the REALLY big guys actually pay their fair share?

I realize, those things aren't as much fun as bashing Paris Hilton (despite the fact that whatever estates she had an interest in were, I'm certain, worth much more than $5 Million) but frankly, I'd rather see my government start spending my money SANELY before I run around like crazy trying to get them more-- particularly if it has to be at the expense of some of the organic family farmers that I'm friends with.

[swag]

48. Good luck with that.

Especially when long-term interest rates give in and really start to rise, and the financing of the debt on all these tax-cuts kicks in and the idea of spending "sanely" takes a back seat to the struggle to pay interest on the monster debt created by all these tax cuts at the inevitably higher future rates on US Treasury notes. The national debt is just getting started.

I prefer to stanch the budgetary bleed now, by stopping these indiscriminate tax cuts for the people who, by and large, least need them.

If you want to cry for little guys getting caught in the tax trap, I'd suggest you look at AMT rather than the estate tax, which catches fewer in its snare and which can be at least partially relieved through judicious use of estate planning tactics.

Best to your organic farmer friends. But what's being pushed now isn't a cap increase, it's an elimination.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I'm all for balancing the budget. We managed to do it under Clinton.

But it drives me fuckin' Batty to see what our tax dollars actually pay FOR, from the highest rate of incarceration of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world to no-bid cash extravaganzas for Halliburton-- and contractors hauling $$$ out of Iraq literally in duffel bags.

Fairness in taxation is a big issue for me, too. I personally think people making under $30K a year shouldn't have to pay ANY taxes, at all. People making over $1,000,000 a year can afford to pay a very high rate IMHO. But I WISH someone on our side would start talking about some of our government's priorities on the spending side (If my tax dollars were going towards a SPHC system, I wouldn't care nearly as much) along with taking shots at easy targets like Paris Hilton.

[Pepperbelly]

42. estate is good word for us to use.

Particularly when you consider how its repeal would create an even larger population of aristocratic families, passing on every cent that the old robber barons could steal.