Image hosted by Photobucket.com To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Aunt IRiS


Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that tomorrow is Tax Day- April 15th. That's right, boys and girls, it's that one day of the year that we render unto Uncle Sam far more than what is due him, enabling him to blow all that cash on ridiculous programs with iffy results.

More importantly (for 2nd Amendment lovers), tomorrow is also BaG Day. Just in case anyone was curious... PSAs are our specialty... or something like that...

But April 15th tax deadline isn't the tax I'm annoyed with today. The Estate Tax is being debated... again. This is a tax that needs to go away and never come back. Die, as it were.

First, this is not a "death tax"- it's kind of hard to tax a dead person. "Estate tax" is probably the kindest term for it. I prefer "fleecing of the bereaved," but that's just me.

This is how it works. You work your rump off for years to leave something for your family, paying taxes on your income like a good citizen. You live a long, full life, and then you go on to your Final Reward. Your lawyer takes care of your estate, handing out the savings you worked so hard (and paid taxes on- did I mention that?) to leave for your family.

In comes Mr. Taxman. You see, the IRS thinks that your savings (which you earned and paid taxes on) is income for the family you left behind. Not a gift, not an inheritance- it's income. And, guess what? Uncle Sam (or more specifically, your evil Aunt IRiS) wants a piece of the action. Doesn't matter that taxes have already been paid on it- the grieving widow didn't pay it.

A few years ago, legislation was passed that slowly got rid of the Estate Tax. One problem. It disappears, only to re-appear in 2010 (which was a political calculation- the Democrats in Congress wouldn't approve an out and out removal of the tax from the rolls). So, now, it's time to debate it again, with Republicans trying to get rid of the tax once and for all.

Democrats are quick to point out that almost no one in the country has to worry about this tax.
Many Democrats challenged the bill's $290 billion, 10-year cost as too dear for a country burdened by deficits and fighting terrorism at home and abroad. They said the bill benefits a few wealthy families to the detriment of almost everyone else.

"This is the reverse Robin Hood," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "We are taking money from the middle class and giving it to the super rich, and not only the super rich but the super, super, super rich."

Most estates already are exempt from federal taxes. The Internal Revenue Service said just over 2 percent of people who died in 2001 left estates subject to taxation.
Reverse Robin Hood? Give me a break. This isn't about how few people are subject to it, and it isn't about rich versus poor, Ms. Pelosi. This is about what is fair and right. A person earned that money, and they should have a right to decide what happens to that money.

Proponents of a "fair economy" would say that not having an estate tax is unfair- they're wrong. "Fair economists" are socialists at best, but probably communists. Here's a sample of their ideology:
First, there was the belief that the hereditary transfer of concentrated wealth is incompatible with American values and democratic aspirations... A second belief was that society played a significant role in the creation of individual wealth and therefore had some claim upon the wealth of the very rich.
Incompatible with American values? Which values are they refering to? Personal responsibility? The American Dream? Society played a role in the creation of individual wealth? In the past, I would have said that the only role society plays in the creation of individual wealth is that it got out of the way. Now, I'd have to say that "society" (IOW, government) does nothing but hinder the creation of personal wealth.

Most Democrats (and other liberals) might not admit it, but they would love nothing more than for American citizens to hand over 100% of their income, and then the people who want nothing better than what (they think) is best for us, will give us only what we need- nothing more, nothing less. The rest could then be spent on the important stuff... you know, stuff like studying the mating habits of various endangered animals. There's only one little bitty problem with that- that's not a republic- that's communism. We defeated that, for the most part- it fails every time it's tried.

Since the Dems can't have their dream tax, they're content with taking as much as they can from the people who fuel the economy- the rich- as often as possible. They impose a higher income tax rate (because, of course, the rich can afford it, right?), they tax the gifts the rich give (because they can afford it, right?), and they tax what they leave behind for their family (because they can afford it, right?)

You know what I would love nothing more? Either a national sales tax (that way everyone would pay taxes, not just those over a certain income- you use services, you should pay for them- that's only fair) or a flat tax. What rate? Well, to quote a wise American philosopher, "if 10% is good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for Uncle Sam." Add in another 5% to cover city and state, and we're good to go.

What's that? Government can't function with that level of revenue? Hmmm... Joe Citizen has to make a budget and stick to it- he can't just go to the person "giving" him his money (his boss) and say, "gimme more." Nope. He has to adjust his level of spending so that income =/> spending. Uncle Sam might want to think about trying that.

Well, that... and leaving the bereaved alone. They have enough on their minds without worrying about their tax bill.



<< Home
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?