Why Repugs don't want Bush tax cuts to expire: They will have to Kill their rich Grannies in 2010

[HamdenRice]

The Bush estate tax cuts were sometimes jokingly referred to as the "Kill Granny in 2010" tax cuts. Here's why.

The Bush estate tax cut was the worst of all tax cuts in terms of policy. It cut taxes on inherited wealth, which even many rich people, like Bill Gates, thinks is wrong. That's because it's not a tax cut on people who earned or created wealth; it's a tax cut for people who were brilliant and talented enough to choose to be born to wealthy parents.

The estate tax cut was graduated. It was phased out more and more each year until it disappeared completely in 2010, and in 2010, rich people would be able to pass down unlimited amounts of wealth without any inheritance tax at all.

The obscene cost estate tax cut was disguised, however. The federal government generally has to estimate and publish the cost of tax cuts. That number would have been very big if it had to estimate all the revenue lost by abolishing the estate tax. So the Bushites came up with a fantasy: it would gradually reduce every year until 2010, and would come back to full pre-Bush levels in 2011. In other words, they tried to make it look temporary, so that its true cost could be hidden. It was assumed that a Repug would be elected in 2008, and that they could then make the estate tax cuts, "permanent," the word you keep hearing in the news.

For people in the financial field, however, this gave rise to a lot -- I mean a lot -- of mordant, morbid humor. That's because rich heirs now need their rich Grannies to die in 2010. The fact that the Democrats surged back into power make all those jokes all the more prophetic.

If you have a rich Grannie, you need to keep her alive at all costs during 2009. Then you need to make sure she dies sometime between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. Maybe Grannie needs a bit of help, you know, to prevent Uncle Sam from taking a big chunk of the estate.

So keep that in mind when you hear Repugs gnashing their teeth about making the Bush tax cuts permanent. If they are not made permanent, the party of "family values" will become the party of "Kill Granny in 2010."

[Raven]

1. I know. Goulish isn't it. Purely Republican. Watch out for a ton of living

wills being shoved under the noses of little old ladies.

[Common Sense Party]

2. I think we may be in for a new "Logan's Run" society.

Far too many people are heading into retirement years, and will soon be drawing lots of money from Social Security and Medicare. There's not enough revenues coming in to sustain all these payments, so payroll taxes will have to be jacked up. Republicans will scream about this and decide it's easier to just get rid of the retirees.

Baby boomers, watch your backs.

[rateyes]

3. I hear that Dr. Kevorkian's phone is ringing off the hook.

:hide:

[Myrina]

4. Why didn't Gibbs reframe that question in the Daily Briefing?

I was flabbergasted when some pundit asked him "when the tax increases will take effect" and he didn't counter with "THEY ARE NOT TAX INCREASES, THEY ARE RESCINDED TAX CUTS" ie, back to where you were pre-Bush if you make over a certain amount.


STOP letting the media set the terms, dammit!!! :spank:

[zbdent]

5. Sunday, I had to explain to my Mother-In-Law

why it wouldn't matter financially to her daughters if she died this year, next year, or in 10 years ...

she isn't leaving them millions of dollars in inheritance ... nowhere near the level that they would even have to be concerned about paying taxes on the "inheritance" ... they're more likely to inherit debt from hospital bills ...