Goldy, I got your back on this one. Consider emails to Murray and Cantwell sent. The dwiddling of the Estate tax is just another nail in the coffin of hypocrisy that is the Neo-Con agenda.

“hmmm… how can we ensure the rich get richer and the middle class and poor get stiffed?”

“I know! We will call the estate tax (which is rarely ever seen any taxation at all) the “Death Tax!”

“Brilliant!”

On a more personal note, which I am well aware will make great fodder for Puddy, PacMan, and other Neo-Con apoligists, I once dated a comely lass in the 1990’s who was an avowed conservative. Did I mention she was very lovely? She also believed in Astrology, but that is a minor point.

Anyway, she asked me what paper I read. I told her “The Seattle Times”.

She was very happy at this pronouncement! She told me that The Seattle PI was a liberal rag!

I was ever so much closer to getting into her panties!

I did not want to blow it by telling her that I could not see any difference between the two papers (and I actually thought that the PI was slightly more editorially conservative) and my real reason for getting the Times is that I prefer an afternoon paper.

Of course, the Times soon shifted to being a morning paper, and I cancelled my subscription.

Did I “get” the comely conservative female in bed?

Mind your own business!

Chuck, you are a monument to the wingnuts.

Did you even read Goldy’s post?

1

Try to imagine a bitchy right-wing freeloader calling you up every payday to harass you for her child support! I sure hope, for your sake, that she found out you were cheating on her (i.e., reading the P-I) before it was too late.

6

No, you’ve got them pegged. News publishing is a business, and they go for circulation, because circulation is what sells ads, and selling ads is what brings in money to pay for presses, paper, ink, and editors’ salaries. That’s why our local TV news programs are nothing but glorified police blotters.

No taxation without respiration! (Thanks Steve Forbes.)

RR –
I know that this has nothing to do with the current conversation, but you started it…..

You are right, those women that get themselves knocked up, should go on public assistance. It should never be the responsibility of the fathers. Dang, they were just there to have a good time. What a buzz kill. Too bad there wasn’t a way to force women to have abortions, so that men never had to suffer any consequences.

Just for the record, that “ad” has been running regularly for the last couple of weeks in the Times, daily and Sunday.

A quarter-page in section A … methinks Blethen is foregoing a big pile of revenues by selling ad space to himself. Or perhaps he’s trying to get his net worth beneath some specified level where the estate tax rate changes.

It’s sure funny how the holier than thou lefties want to screw someone out of their hard earned $$$. If they inherited it and just used it in a riotous lifestyle, I’d agree with your assessments. If someone from nothing built an empire and was giving charitably, why does your side want him/her to bend over and drive him/her to Newark upon death? I can see some fairness arguments, but your side doesn’t take into account how their $$$ were implemented to potentially:

Help the fellow man/woman with charity
Provide jobs for people
Proven benefit to his/her community
Revered by his/her peers

If these were taken into account, why take the balance of his/her legacy out in high taxes? This is not a black and white issue. Your side complains about how righties love to hoard. I deliver links on how many lefties talk about someone else money but don’t you use their money. Al Gore, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, etc. have low charity $$$. When they die I want you lefties going after their piles of gold!!!

Solution: keep all inherited assets at their original cost basis. When the assets are sold, the heir pays the full capital gains. This includes family businesses. No reason to liquidate on the event of death of the founder.

Of course, this isn’t punitive to the successful, but it does honor the right to private property. Believe it or not, the govt does not own everything except what it allows citizens to keep.

Lawerence @ 17

‘His wealth is thus, undeserved.’

Yes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Punish all who earn their wealth, or those that do good things with inherited riches so that jealous lefties feel better.

11

So what’s the Neocon program? Keep ’em barefoot, ignorant, and pregnant?

Roger Rabbit @ 22

Capital pays taxes via corporate income tax. Also, Federal receipts for capital gains is up big time the last couple of years. (I will try to provide some links/data.) Cut the rates and the rich pay more.

Roger Rabbit @ 22

Links promised in 23
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....051554.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02134.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....270902.asp

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-2863r.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006842

Everyone is Laffering except the rich folks.

Concentrated wealth is a threat to the economy and to democracy. If a rich guy dies, is he still going to need the money?

I don’t have a problem with any rich guy taking care of his kids while he’s alive but he’d better give back to the society that made it all possible for him and by society I mean the soldiers who die and are maimed in wars, the scientist who discovers and invents on a meager salary, the hospital workers that save his ass in emergency rooms and on and on and on.

People can strive for riches all they want and enjoy them to the hilt – while they’re alive. When they’re dead riches don’t matter a hoot to them!

Like those whacko marxist leninists, Bill Gates Sr., Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger say – it’s simply a matter of fairness.

Smoke, there’s a lot of CEOs who are taking advantage of their shareholders. They’re collecting eight and nine figure salaries from captive boards while their companies underperform. The bottom line is shareholders are left with little or nothing. Add to that, outright fraud, dishonest financial statements, and the government’s refusal to regulate accounting practices that leave shareholders vulnerable. What’s happening is people are fleeing the stock market into real estate because there’s no benefit for the average shareholder in putting their money in stocks.

Another sector in which rich people are reaping trillions they didn’t earn and don’t deserve is government. When the taxpayers had to spend $500 billion on the S & L bailout, that money didn’t go to the middle class or working people. It was stolen by the wealthy class, including one of Dubya’s brothers, who was in top management of a crooked S & L that ate more than $1 billion of taxpayer funds. But the S & L debacle pales next to the trillions of public money the Bush administration is giving away to its corporate pals.

What you don’t want to acknowledge is that a massive transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the wealthy class is occurring in America as a result of government policies designed to favor the rich. To add insult to injury, Bush wants to shift the entire federal tax burden to wages, while the capital-owning class pays nothing. If you’re among the wealthiest 2%, you are benefitting from Bush’s policies. If you are not, you’re getting the shaft.

Wow! Happy supply-side days are here again!

Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived. Indeed, after a four-year absence, the Treasury Department announced yesterday it is considering reissuing its 30-year Treasury bond to help finance long-term government debt, jolting the bond markets and pushing down the price of existing 30-year securities.

And

April, however, turned out to be a far better month than anticipated. Taxpayers were confronted with unexpected tax bills, many from capital gains and the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system designed to hit the rich but that is increasingly pinching the middle class.

Yes, indeed, happy voodoo economics days are here again.

Here is one of the many exact quotes: “Thirdly, you know how the tax code works. When they say, “tax the rich,” those are the folks who have got the accountants to see to it they don’t pay tax,”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....805-8.html

And here: “Just remember, when you’re talking about, oh, we’re just going to run up the taxes on a certain number of people — first of all, real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....809-3.html

And again: “He said he’s only going to raise the tax on the so-called rich. But you know how the rich is, they’ve got accountants. That means you pay.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....731-2.html

And again : “People need to be aware of this talk out of Washington, D.C. that says, oh, don’t worry, we’re just going to tax the rich. That’s not the way it works in the tax code. The big rich dodge taxes, anyway”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....14-11.html

So, the wealthy don’t pay taxes according to Pres. Bush. Well then you can’t fault us for wanting us to tax them when they are dead!

Goldy, Thanks for linking to NPI, as a reminder that these are the jerk offs who posted that “Rossi=Eyman=Craswell” article a few months back. Andrew lost all his credibility long ago with that BS. Why should anybody care what that political hack has to say about policy?

proud leftist @ 33

‘If affirmative action is poor policy because everyone should have the same starting position..’

Affirmative action is poor policy because with it the Government discriminates based on race. (i.e. racist) The “starting position” argument was one of the valid ones used by the Civil Rights movement.

..’unearned riches to the sons and daughters of the wealthy..’

Raced-based discrimination affords benefits even to the wealthy, as long as they are the right color.

“Unearned” riches? Not usually. Sounds like the Left needs a better way to specify rich folk to focus on the inheritance class.

According to the EPA the “average” vehicle gets 22 miles/gal. and is driven an “average” of 225 miles/week.

Now, baynative @ 37, you claim an average of 3 gallons/day which would add up to twice the 225 miles/week average. (3 X 22 = 462)

So your 25 billion is actually closer to 12 Billion/year.

Baynative @ 37

Your numbers are wrong. Washington’s population is 6.2 million, of whom a third are children and elderly, so the 8 million vehicles a day figure amounts to twice the number of driving-age people in the state. The $25 billion figure is roughly equal to the entire state budget. The actual figure for transportation spending is about 1/10th of your number.

From: The Neo-Con Bible:And the rich man asked, “How shall I enter the Kingdom of Heaven?” and Jesus answered, “By investing your money and letting some of the profits trickle down to the poor.”

Why don’t you Reps keep your re-fried Freidman to yourselves. There’s never been a free market and there never will be. These corporations couldn’t exist without society propping them up. Chrysler and GM and Lear and Boeing. They owe us. It’s not the other way around.

Commenting on 43

It’s true that unregulated capitalism eventually collapse on itself, if it isn’t first overthrown by the ever-growing population of marginalized citizens. The reason for this is because one of capital’s prime objectives is to destroy competition, and when competition has been destroyed, there is no longer a free market but only a monopoly market that doesn’t work any better than any other market that’s controlled from above.

Direct TV DirecTV
Direct TV Source DirecTV Direct TV

spending over the next two years by 12 percent. That figure, reached by saying yes to far too many appeals, is higher than the “private economy can possibly grow and will fall heavily on selected parts of it.

The previous budget, designed by state Sen. Dino Rossi and Gov. Gary Locke, raised spending by 4 percent. That was done by saying no to state employees, no to teachers and no to many others. That was painful to them, but it gave breathing room to the battered economy. The economy has improved. State revenue in the new biennium will be up 7 percent. The state can now begin to say yes, selectively. It cannot afford to triple the growth rate in state spending all at once.”

He is not against taxation he is just against, frivelous
taxes like we are getting hit with repeatedly.

“There will be another billion-dollar gap two years hence. Legislators know it and ignore it. One party has power, and it wants a Yes Budget. It is a painful lesson in the risk of one-party government.”

Yet another great point. You are shooting in the dark Goldy and guess what… you aren’t hitting anything.

The estate tax has put no small businesses out of business. It’s a lie fabricated by the ultra wealthy. Beware.

I wouldn’t object to getting rid of the estate tax if they stop adjusting the inherited property to current value when it is transferred. Then, when it is sold, capital gains tax would be due. But you don’t have to sell until you want to. Of course, the tax should be indexed to inflation as well.

To some extent this reminds me of the Washington lottery winner from a few years ago who won $10 million and complained to the reporter interviewing him about how much income tax he had to pay. There are some people who always want a little bit more.

Goldy:

I suspect you are committed to taxing the remaining posessions of the recently deceased, and that there are no arguments that you will find persuasive. Ever the optimist, I shall try.

We come into this world with nothing, dependent upon our parents for everything. They attempt to teach us, but we also come with a genetic makeup they produced but cannot alter.

We mature, they obsess, and a workable compromise is rerached.

You work for 50 years. You buy a home with after-tax money, and make payments and pay taxes and insurance with after-tax money. You invest in stocks or land or housing or a business with after-tax money. Some things like 401-Ks and similiar things are pre-tax, meant to be taxed upon distribution. And you accumulate a substantial current net worth. These are rewards for your work over many years.

You have paid every tax demanded for your entire life. And you die. And you have a substantial range of owned assets.

Question. What portion of your life’s work is the government entitled to?

All taxes normally due hae been paid. The money is legitimate.

The only source of untaxed wealth embobied in an inheretance is capital gains, or an increase in the value of already held asetts. The capital gains tax s relatively low, and is trigggered by a sale at a price greater then the acquisition price.

A more pressing question may be why the government would have a greater claim then the family, since all applicapable taxes have already been paid. Why would any tax be due? Ahh, it is because you died.

A tax that is enforced only upon your death and only upon what you own when you die you claim is unfairly called a death tax. When a tax is triggered by a sale we caklit a sales tax. When it is triggered by ownership of property we call it a property tax. So what is the problem calling a tax triggered by death a deathe tax?

Make the case that that the death tax shuold be more than the states’ or federals’ capital gains rate.

Terry @ 9

Well crafted rationalization for paying no taxes on windfalls people didn’t work for while taxing the shit out of wages, but thoroughly illogical. Why are you complaining? Gregoire and the Democrats just cut this state’s estate tax in half.

Oh good grief…from the article:

*The tax would apply to estates of $1.5 million or more this year and those of $2 million or more beginning next year. It would raise an estimated $135 million over the next two years, affecting about 250 estates.*

If these 250 families haven’t been able to hide their worth to the tune of $2mil then they deserve to get taxed on it.

16% of the unguarded $2mil is $320,000 leaving the poor heirs only $1.68mil to quibble over…how will they ever get along?

G Davis @ 13

You’ve got a point. Redistributionist tax schemes are unnecessary to prevent excessive concentration of wealth and power in a few families. Fratricide will accomplish the same thing.

9. Terry J. : great points. trouble is, libs like Goldy think government should get ALL your money. there are just so many “troubles” they think they can, but don’t, “fix”.

Marks…cogito ergo sum.

I hadn’t imagined that Goldy would move so quickly during a nice spring weekend. Back to a few ideas on FP: economic, energy, physical, intellectual security…globalization, resource demands, relative decline, and bad guys realities…and domestic policy as a base for foreign policy, and the interconnectedness of all of these. For example, globalization. What are some of the problems we need to overcome if we want to prosper in this brave new world? One problem is ignorance. While much, perhaps most, of the rest of the world is getting more knowledgable about almost everything, we seem, as a people, to be becoming less knowledgable. My premise is that if we are to deal successfully with the world, we need to know as much as we can about the world. All of us, not just a few leaders in business, politics, and academia. This is based on the belief that an informed citizenry is necessary to maintain a democracy and quite possibly the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. As a part of domestic policy, foreign language study should be a prerequisite for a college degree. For every college degree. The irony is that this used to be a common thing, but as it became more and more important, it became less and less required. If you have studied another language, you know that it is not only that language you are learning, but also more about your own. The study of language necessarily entails the study of other cultures. I won’t go on about this, but dispelling ignorance about the world among all groups of Americans is an important task for all levels of government, and in a world where we are increasingly dependent on other countries, necessary for citizens to understand and support or reject FP initiatives. Language study isn’t of course the only way to enlighten the public. My point is that education about the world outside our borders must become an important objective for government, labor unions, trade associations, you name it, if we are to coninue to be a vital force in the world. Military might alone won’t suffice. That should be enough to get started.

Fairly or not, I am attributing my lack of eloquence in 19 to fatigue. An additional comment on eradicating ignorance as a part of foreign policy, I think a reasonable goal is to try to achieve among the citizenry here a level of sophistication about what is going on in the world similar to that in western Europe
(old Europe, as the disgrace at Defense puts it). Opinions here may still differ from prevailing thought there, because our history, heritage, and interests are different, but my reasoning is based on the observation that the world today is as tightly knit for most purposes as Europe was as recently as 40 years ago. Except for military action and surface shipping time, the oceans have become no more than rivers flowing through our commercial and intellectual worlds. Somehow, we have to break out of the intellectual smugness our relative geographical isolation has fostered. If we don’t, someone will write a non-fiction series of books that really are scary, and title them the Left Behind books.

Goldy, how ’bout that preview function?

Sorry…

BTW, when this gets close to burial, bashing gays at MS might be fun.

bashing gays at MS might be fun.
Shame! How intolerant of you…
On Latin, I forgot about veni, vidi, vici and semper fidelis…

I do not think I was too far off the reservation. It is simple enough to say we should understand the people we interact with, yet the opposite would be the case when it comes to implementation, I think. Just how large in scope is your vision for engendering cultural understanding? It seems it may be a generational transition, from my point of view. Leadership is difficult to find, nowadays, and there are plenty of people who will refuse to adapt. I guess they would be amongst the first left behind…

With your knowledge of East Asian history, however far removed it is, I would surmise that you may see the present situation in China a bit differently than I. I see the Chinese leadership allowing protests against Japan and think Beijing is losing the grip it had on its populace. Perhaps you see it differently? Is it nothing beyond a gambit at keeping Japan off the UN Security Council?

A change of plans finds me here (briefly). Apologies for an almost incoherent post at 28. The lesson is, never write more than two sentences when rushed.

Re leadership and education…although not entirely analogous, the change in attitude and habits about smoking in America is an example of what can happen when leadership from a number of organizations commit themselves to a concerted effort. Of course, there are still people who smoke, and some who even dispute that smoking is harmful, but overall there has been a massive shift to the good in the last 25 years. Lobbying for the good is a legitimate government function…check out the preamble to the Constitution.

An article in the NYT this morning speculates that the anti-Japan protests in China may reflect a power struggle within the governing group there. An editorial in a state run Shanghai newspaper yesterday condemned the protests, while other factions in the government seem to have encouraged the protests. I wouldn’t consider this a sign of the government losing control, though. If there is a massive uprising in the making in China, it is much more likely to come from the rural interior than from the urban east, because of the great disparity in benefits reaped from China’s adoption of and adapting to capitalism. But the government has the firepower to quell any foreseeable rebellion. The civil war that brought Mao to power occurred in circumstances which do not exist today. More later.

I had read about the rape of Nanking. I also read not too long ago that Iris Chang had taken her own life. She had authored a book on it in the 90s. The horror of the crimes conducted and her research of them has lead to speculation that she could not deal with it.

No, I never think of China as communist in the USSR sense. I think of them as totalitarian more than anything else. Oligarchy is the better term, perhaps.

On engagement, which seems to tie in closely with knowledge of the culture you are dealing with, I would gather that one size does not fit all. Engagement with Canada is not the same as Mexico, yet we have NAFTA. The EU’s conglomeration of nations poses some interesting questions, such as what use is NATO?

I have to cut short here. Got things to do, but will try to post before I go to sleep.

Maddening, isn’t it? I’ve never gone into the archives, but if this thread runs out before Goldy releases your comment, I’ll give it a try. Otherwise, after your reply appears, I’ll meet you for a drink.

Marks…David Brooks today in the NYT has a different take on China. He’s wrong…a not unusual event. I’ll elaborate later.