stephenandrew
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 148
A quote of a portion of an editorial from today's (11/7/10) NY Times:
"Most Democrats have called for restoring the estate tax to its level in 2009, which would exempt 99.8 percent of estates from ever facing the tax. The tax would not kick in until an estate is worth more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), with a rate of 45 percent on property above those levels. The proposal — which could cost $250 billion over 10 years — is more than generous.
Republicans and some Democrats want to raise the exemptions to $5 million ($10 million for couples), and lower the rate to 35 percent. That would be a huge break for mega estates, an unconscionable giveaway (emphais mine) that would cost $130 billion more than the Democrats’ plan over 10 years."
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about what appropriate tax policy is. What I find troubling though, is the language used by the Editorial writer. To claim that a lower tax rate and a higher exemption is a "giveaway" pre-supposes that the money in question belongs to the government (which it does not). The government is not giving anything away--it is just taking less of what was earned (and saved) by those individuals over the course of a lifetime.
The editorial writers could just have easily said, "The higher rates proposed by most Democrats would cost the families of those who worked and saved all of their lives $130 billion more than Republicans' plan over 10 years."
"Most Democrats have called for restoring the estate tax to its level in 2009, which would exempt 99.8 percent of estates from ever facing the tax. The tax would not kick in until an estate is worth more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), with a rate of 45 percent on property above those levels. The proposal — which could cost $250 billion over 10 years — is more than generous.
Republicans and some Democrats want to raise the exemptions to $5 million ($10 million for couples), and lower the rate to 35 percent. That would be a huge break for mega estates, an unconscionable giveaway (emphais mine) that would cost $130 billion more than the Democrats’ plan over 10 years."
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about what appropriate tax policy is. What I find troubling though, is the language used by the Editorial writer. To claim that a lower tax rate and a higher exemption is a "giveaway" pre-supposes that the money in question belongs to the government (which it does not). The government is not giving anything away--it is just taking less of what was earned (and saved) by those individuals over the course of a lifetime.
The editorial writers could just have easily said, "The higher rates proposed by most Democrats would cost the families of those who worked and saved all of their lives $130 billion more than Republicans' plan over 10 years."