But still disappointing. According the Post, Democrats are preparing to cave in to the hostage-taking on the Right, and give in on just about everything.
I guess that means that there's no point in voting for Democrats, because they seem not to have even half a spine among them. Not even when public opinion polls are solidly on their side. Not even when they decisively win elections. I guess that means elections don't have consequences, after all.
And I guess, since they're dropping all demands on the aristocracy tax, the rich today will stay rich forever. Maybe it's just me, but that seems more than a little bit unAmerican. Sad.
Showing posts with label estate tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label estate tax. Show all posts
20121231
20111227
Congressional wealth
I was very happy to see (well, hear about via NPR, then read) WaPo's discussion of the wealth of Congressmen. Well, happy to see that they're noticing the problem.
And I think, as a human interest story, it was a good one, but missed many of the important issues that bear on why so many Congressmen are so wealthy.
In particular, it completely missed on mentioning the rates that incumbents get re-elected (around 96%, last I heard), and how gerrymandering is affecting that rate.
One knock-on effect of that, is that, because Congressmen and Senators get very out-sized returns from their investments (as I mentioned previously), those who stick around for a little while quickly become very wealthy.
I was quite surprised to see that about 8% of Congressmen have little or negative net worth (home excluded); I expected no more than a dozen for the entire body. I would be willing to bet that those are pretty much all first-term'ers.
(As an aside, I found Rep Kelly's comment about the "death tax" pretty offensive. Nobody has said, or even suggested, that you shouldn't be able to pass a pretty substantial amount on to your children. The debate has been about the exact percentage, and on amounts over how many millions of dollars. Suggesting that you can't pass anything on, when the tax doesn't even kick in until your estate clears several million dollars is assinine, at best. And that's a tax that's barely over 1/3. Yes, you are being taxed twice on the money (well, most of the time; not actually all the time). One could argue about the fairness of that, but what about the fairness of codifying a (roughly) permanent aristocracy by not having a tax at all? That's the choice.
And keep in mind that $1M is already 22 times the national median income. So even if the tax were to become 100% for amounts over $1M, which nobody has suggested, you would still be able to pass on the amount an average person earns in 22 years. Calling that nothing should be damned offensive to at least half the population.)
And I think, as a human interest story, it was a good one, but missed many of the important issues that bear on why so many Congressmen are so wealthy.
In particular, it completely missed on mentioning the rates that incumbents get re-elected (around 96%, last I heard), and how gerrymandering is affecting that rate.
One knock-on effect of that, is that, because Congressmen and Senators get very out-sized returns from their investments (as I mentioned previously), those who stick around for a little while quickly become very wealthy.
I was quite surprised to see that about 8% of Congressmen have little or negative net worth (home excluded); I expected no more than a dozen for the entire body. I would be willing to bet that those are pretty much all first-term'ers.
(As an aside, I found Rep Kelly's comment about the "death tax" pretty offensive. Nobody has said, or even suggested, that you shouldn't be able to pass a pretty substantial amount on to your children. The debate has been about the exact percentage, and on amounts over how many millions of dollars. Suggesting that you can't pass anything on, when the tax doesn't even kick in until your estate clears several million dollars is assinine, at best. And that's a tax that's barely over 1/3. Yes, you are being taxed twice on the money (well, most of the time; not actually all the time). One could argue about the fairness of that, but what about the fairness of codifying a (roughly) permanent aristocracy by not having a tax at all? That's the choice.
And keep in mind that $1M is already 22 times the national median income. So even if the tax were to become 100% for amounts over $1M, which nobody has suggested, you would still be able to pass on the amount an average person earns in 22 years. Calling that nothing should be damned offensive to at least half the population.)
20110912
Just figured that out for yourself, huh?
The Washington Post opened itself up for some more mockery, today, boldly declaring (in a small headline on the front page) "Tax Policy Feeds Gap Between rich, poor".
To be honest, I really shouldn't mock. This is a very important topic, and I do hope the front page placement gets it a bit more notice than has yet been the case.
But it's really hard not to mock when it takes the paper at least eight years to notice this. I can't see any way in which this is news. Really, when the debate over continuing the Bush tax cuts was happening would have been a more appropriate time to make this case.
Still, maybe this will get some notice, particularly among the political class. And maybe, next, they[Post and politicians, both]'ll notice that the inheritance tax is even more slanted than the capital gains cuts. And even more pernicious, as it creates a permanent aristocracy that doesn't care how those tax policies hurt people less fortunate than themselves.
To be honest, I really shouldn't mock. This is a very important topic, and I do hope the front page placement gets it a bit more notice than has yet been the case.
But it's really hard not to mock when it takes the paper at least eight years to notice this. I can't see any way in which this is news. Really, when the debate over continuing the Bush tax cuts was happening would have been a more appropriate time to make this case.
Still, maybe this will get some notice, particularly among the political class. And maybe, next, they[Post and politicians, both]'ll notice that the inheritance tax is even more slanted than the capital gains cuts. And even more pernicious, as it creates a permanent aristocracy that doesn't care how those tax policies hurt people less fortunate than themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)