“House Democrats Demand Changes to Tax Deal” [UPDATED]
[...] he House Democratic Caucus was brimming with fury at being excluded from the negotiations that produced the agreement. In a closed-door meeting Thursday, the caucus passed a resolution stating that the tax-cut deal would not be brought to the House floor for a vote unless it was changed.
“Just say no!” Democrats chanted before the vote, according to an aide in the meeting.
Despite the angry caucus vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) signaled that she did not plan to stall the debate altogether.
“We will continue discussions with the president and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote,” she said in a written statement.
A senior aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution “doesn’t mean the deal is dead. It just has to be altered.”
The proposed tax-cut package includes a 13-month continuation of extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, a one-year payroll tax reduction for nearly all workers and measures intended to help lift the economy.
The anger among House Democrats reflected more than opposition to the emerging legislation. It also showed the frustrations of a party badly bruised by heavy midterm election losses.
“A number of us are very frustrated. It is finally time for us to stop being spear-carriers here,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D.,Ore.). “It’s time to tell the White House they are wrong.”
The change Democratic critics most want to make involves the tax treatment of inheritances. The federal tax on estates expired at the end of 2009 and is set to be reinstated from 2011 at a rate of 55% charged on estates over $1 million.
The new tax package would renew the tax at a rate of 35% on estates over $5 million. House Democrats want a higher tax rate, applied to additional estates.
This morbid desire to suck the money out of the recently dead — a reprehensible thievery of wealth already taxed (creating cottage industries that allow opportunists to swoop in robber baron-like and buy up family farms and small businesses from those who aren’t cash rich and can’t afford to pay the governmental punishment on the death of their family member, etc.) — is probably best described as progressive ghoulishness, and it should raise the ire of every American not already brainwashed into believing that all money belongs to the government, and that we’re just allowed to keep a certain percentage of it as a show of state benevolence.
The Democrats, for all their supposed consternation, will agree to this deal — essentially, leaving the GOP with a “victory” that includes massive unfunded spending, the status quo on certain tax rates, and the resumption of the death tax for “the rich.”
It also sets the Democrats up to play the class warfare game again come 2012, having focus-grouped a more salable line for who we’re to punish for being “rich” — arriving at the trigger mark of $1 million in earnings — this despite the fact that in 2008, those in the top 5% (AGI at around $160K) earned 35% of adjusted gross income in the US, yet paid 58.7% of the federal income tax, far more than the bottom 95% paid. The top 1% of earners (AGI at $380K) paid 38% .
The Democrat ghouls run on stoking envy.
And yet increasingly, the tax burden in this country is paid for the few, while those with no skin in the game assume the power over taxation by electing those who will agree to soak “the rich.”
I mentioned the other day that a flat tax or fair tax should become a leading issue for the TEA Partiers going forward. Progressive taxation — a tenet of Marxism — leads inexorably to what we’re now seeing: the masses taught to define down “rich” until they have effective control over the wealth of everyone else, at no expense to themselves.
This is institutionalized, legal theft. And it is anything but American.
update: Read more here:
Here’s an example. Say you inherited your mother’s home this year. She bought it for $200,000 and today it’s worth $4 million. If you had inherited it last year, you would’ve had to pay estate taxes on half a million (the value of the house, minus the estate-tax exclusion). But since you inherited it this year, you pay no estate tax and instead get taxed on a whopping $2.5 million gain (the $3.8 million gain on the house, minus your $1.3 million exclusion). The irony, of course, is that some people who never would’ve owed estate taxes now might take a capital-gains hit. See why you don’t want to kill off mom this year?