The 'Death Tax' is a tax because you die. It's not like you can choose not to incur it or do anything to avoid incurring it. It's not like you're around to pay it or to benefit from it. Our lawmakers should be taxed on lunacy.
Even poor Americans don't want their children straddled with taxes because they died. Even Middle Class Americans want whatever they've amassed from meager lives to be left to their loved ones, not government. This feels like a science fiction movie.
When Obama announced a few days ago that he planned to raise taxes on Americans this January 2013, he wrongly couched that (again) as "taxing the rich." This cued his "street fighters" (their words, not mine) gang of Democrat bangers that they should start making noise and getting up to snuff on thier "earning money is bad, taking other people's money is good" lies and whining like stuck wild pigs already.
The rest of us have to resist our first impulse to stick a bottle in their mouths and shut them up.
Obama made it very clear, in his typically tryannical fashion, that he absolutely will not renew Bush Tax Cuts if he didn't get what he wanted in looming budgets. Not renewing the Bush Tax Cuts, which expire January 2013 and have been in place for ten years, will raise everyone's taxes. Not the rich's taxes - everyone's. Yours too.
Simply renewing the Bush Tax Cuts will hold Estate Taxes at the 35% they are now. When Obama refuses to renew Bush Tax Cuts, Estate Taxes will skyrocket to a whopping 55%, some of the highest world-wide. So when you die, Middle & Lower Classes included, be sure to take it with you or the government takes more than half of your life's work, courtesy of Obama. Screw your children, courtesy of Obama too, and that's no big surprise anymore.
The last two times Obama held our people hostage for tax dollar ransom - and that is exactly what this is - he'd threatened to hold the incomes of our troops, our elderly and our disabled. This isn't to say Obama won't stoop to that low again, he's always surprising us with new lows. If you don't see an evil dictatorship playing out in this man's behaviors, you are definitely wearing denial blinders. What of these behaviors do not reak of the evil dictators we'd only heard about until Obama?
This time Obama is trying to get a jump start on the budget pot. He's not just threatening vulnerable adults like he did the last two times - he's threatening American families and children of American families. He's not just threatening families and children, he's threatening bereaved families and children who will have just suffered one of life's saddest tregedies, the death of loved ones.
Obama reminds me of that 60's Limbo song, "How Looow Can You Go?" He being a Left Radical from the 60s, I guess that's the only sense to be made of this. God knows, we look hard to find any reasoning in whatever this guy does.
Americans want lawmakers to repeal the Death Tax (Estate Tax), but reports are that Congress is leaning to simply renewing Bush Tax Cuts and leaving it at that. It's time we fixed this looney law all together. It's time we put a stop to Obama Terrorism in holding our People hostage for more money. I have a news flash for Left Progressives: Rich people are not the only people to die, though I've no doubt Obama and more than a few Democrats might suffer from illusions of omnipotence.
It's also time we did something real about staying our Debt Ceiling and cutting spending and operating off of budgets. For example, how about we have a budget, Harry Reid Senate Democrat, who's obligated for that but who hasn't fulfilled the duties of his job in four damned years?
Contact your Congressmen and tell them you want them to stand firm in the face of Bush Tax Cuts and Demcorat terrorism; in repealing the 'Death Tax' all together; and being steadfast against the holding the American People hostage by Democrat nutcases. Remind them the rule of terrorism is not to negotiate. Stop it and stop it now.
If Obama pulls this Terrorize Americans Whah~Whah Where's More Money For Me bull crap one more time I will make my death arrangements. I'll plan to hide my 2013 dying body in Obama's Hawaiian car trunk where it isn't found for months. My children will slip in under the cover of darkness and fill bottle upon bottle with that fine aroma, label them "ObamAlah eh dun Screwdmeh' and sell them to Left Loones that'll come swarming for $50 an ounce charged to their entitlement cards (Obama's tax money stash) and I get the last laugh. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Bush Tax Cuts are NOT just for the rich. Obama has committed to using them to increase taxes on each and every one of us, poor and middle class alike. Welcome to being the next Team Obama hostage.
Â
Read about the Death Tax here:
Lawmakers, activists ratchet up pressure on GOP leaders for full ‘death tax’ repeal.
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
Somehow I don't think the rich need your protection. Something tells me that they control government including Congress and the Administration. Something tells me they are exploiting your and taking your money against your will.
I think your idea of rich and Obama's definition of rich are two very different things. Countless middle class and in particular small business owners are far from rich but they are caught in Obama's definition net. Families with both parents working, living in expensive city areas are caught in Obama's net. This time last year Obama was yelling from his ivory tower that he would renew them becase not doing so in a bad economy only hurts the economy. Which time was he lying?
IMO those controlling Congress are the large banks and to smaller extent, large corporations. But even our large corporations are taking jobs overseas because of high taxes here, Immelt/GE coming to mind. He keeps his money in foreign companies so he doesn't have to pay any U.S. income tax - our own "Jobs Czar," it makes no sense other than the sheer corruption of government that enables it.
When it comes to the fair share argument, the 1% already pay 39% of all taxes and 50% of our People pay $-0-. Many of the 50% receive much more than their "fair share" in earned income credit "refunds" of other people's money. To demand more from those who're already meeting that 39% burden or from the "middle class" who struggles to meet the rest doesn't pass the fair share test.
But the bottom line to this article is, in threatening Bush Tax Cuts Obama is trying to hold hostages to go against the will of the people. And he's selling that as only hurting the rich when it is hurting all Americans. There is nothing that is right or admirable about this. Nothing. For more reasons than can be counted. That is the behavior of a narcissistic dictator, not a president and certainly not an American one.
Why do I think you are defending the rich? Because you are defending them from having a higher tax.
Obama says that for incomes over $250,000 per year we should raise taxes. None of the many small business owners I know make anywhere near that much. Estate taxes are only for estates who's values are in the millions. An increase in the income tax rate for incomes over $250,000 uses that higher rate to tax only the part of the income over $250,000.
-----------
U.S. taxes on business are some of the lowest in the industrialized world from what I have read. If you are a small island nation and want to attract business you can have a very low tax and serve as a "tax haven" for those rich corporations.
The top one percent are paying far less than their fair share of taxes at the federal level. You do not believe that is the case. I would like to point out to you that the top one percent makes substantial campaign contributions, hires the lobbyists, contributes to PACs, has access to tax lawyers and accountants and tax havens, receives "perks" from corporations, has tax free investments, and pays only 15% tax on capital gains. Given that information if they are paying their fair share of taxes they are dumb as a post.
----------------
Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire might pay off some of that national debt. Doing nothing (allowing the cuts to expire) is not "threatening" unless you have a strange definition of that term.
I doubt the government can hurt the rich. The rich are too powerful to be hurt by government. Taxing the rich is not hurting America, it's helping America. Ask a quorum of your local economist what happens to an economy in which the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority.
I agree that the taxes in the U.S. are not at all fair. I see large corporations paying no federal tax at all despite billions in profits. Also I was a small business owner for several years. Small businesses don't have political clout. Big businesses do have political clout.
The big money interests run our government and because of that don't pay their fair share of the taxes. You explain to me how it is that the people with the wealth and power don't use that power to pay less than their fair share of taxes and I will consider believing someone's assertion that they pay more than they should. Until then I'll continue to believe that people do what they can go get more money.
How pompously wrong of you to even propose you know "why" other people do anything, Larry. You're worng in this case, too. But there's no sense having that dicussion with someone who isn't capable of seeing beyond the end of their own nose of opinion. No insult intended, those are just the facts.
U.S. taxes on business are some of the lowest in the industrialized world from what I have read.
Then you need to read beyond the propaganda. That simply is not true.
Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire might pay off some of that national debt.
There are countless things that would pay off some of that national debt. Not Executive Ordering $12.6-Trillion NEW spending in Welfare at a time like this would be a very good beginning. I can thinks of countless better ways, as can a good majority of other Americans.
(allowing the cuts to expire) is not "threatening"
It is if it's posed as a threat - and it was.
I doubt the government can hurt the rich.
None of this is about "the rich." Of course you'd have to read the article and earlier comments that have said the same to get that. It appears you have a one track mind, upon which all reasonable discussion is lost. Again no insult intended, that's just the way it is.
Thank you for your excellent comment, John S.
With regards your 6:50 comment in which you wrote:
"How pompously wrong of you to even propose you know "why" other people do anything, Larry."
I said nothing at all about WHY you defended the rich. I merely pointed out that you did do so. I really have no interest in your motives, only in your words, your ideas.
Also, I was responding to your question so if you didn't want my answer you should not have asked.
---------------
$12.6 trillion in new welfare is not true unless you include welfare to the rich. That would also be over many years, not just next year. It appears that number was just plucked out of thin air since it is roughly the GDP for a year for our economy. In other words, it doesn't pass the reasonableness test.
-------------
Allowing cuts to expire was not presented as a threat. That's your imagination. Predicting dawn is not a threat to sunburn you.
----------------
If it isn't about the rich, why do you talk about estate taxes? Those are paid only by the rich.
I said nothing at all about WHY you defended the rich. I merely pointed out that you did do so.
The question of yours I addressed was "why do I think" blah blah? There ya go. You did. And you still didn't answer my original question. You work to come across as if word twisting adds to some mystique to you. It doesn't.
$12.6 trillion in new welfare is not true unless you include welfare to the rich.
Ooops, my mistake, it's $12.7 Trillion. I'd ask you what you mean by "welfare to the rich," but I'm not in the mood for more undefined riddles.
Allowing cuts to expire was not presented as a threat. Predicting dawn is not a threat to sunburn you.
No offense, but that was just stupid. Saying, "If you don't do what I want you to do, then I'm going to do [whatever]," is a threat. That is what Obama did. It was a threat. Not arguing that anymore.
To compare a natural fixed event that never changes, like dawn happening every day, with an event that changes at whim of a man's decisions, is so ludicrous I am beginning to question your sanity. That is the worst analogy I've ever seen. It is so far from being an analogy it doesn't qualify as one.
If it isn't about the rich, why do you talk about estate taxes?
Ah-Ha! There is hope. Finally, an intelligent question. IF you read the article and IF you put what it did discuss in context of the article, that should be painfully clear.
Tax reform is needed to eliminate unfair tax loopholes, incentives need to added to encourage American job growth. Maybe the Clinton year rates are too high, but the current rates for those making over $250,00 are too low. Something needs to change or America will wind up like Greece.
The point about letting Bush Cuts expire is, they've been in effect for 10-years and they do hit all Americans. Even NPR says existing rates are now the norm. So it a tremendous tax hike to allow them to expire and they do effect all Americans across the board, not just the rich as Obama sells it.
I also disagree with you about effectiveness of the Trickle Down Theory. In recent years that's attributed to Reagan, who'd inherited a much worse economy than Obama:Apologies for the length of this.
Reagan's economic handling of our country, as well as his pride in America initiatives, were the best of any president after him and exceeded all I knew before. It then circles back to the above... .
In addition to stopping your propensity for offensive ethnic slurs, Larlham, stop calling me a liar.