The estate tax and the wealthiest 1%

Amy Sullivan at Washington Monthly complains that House Republicans voted to permanently repeal the estate tax.

Amy Sullivan is right to complain. While I think there’s a legitimate argument that the top rate of 47% is too high, lowering the rate to nothing is a giveaway to the richest Americans, those who least need a tax break.

It’s these types of laws being promoted by Republicans that has helped convince me that Republicans no longer care about regular Americans; they now exist to serve the wealthiest 1%.

Comments

[Christy Feil]

I like the look of your new blog.

Anyways, I dissagree about the estate tax on moral grounds. I don't think the repeal really has much of a chance of actually going through though.

It actually affects about 2% of the population, anyone with over 1.5M in assets. A lot of those people aren't living extravagant lifestyles, own a house a couple cars and a retirement fund and you're there, not to mention the small businesses and family farms it destroys. A lot of the people dying now affected by estate tax had their income taxed at a 70% rate when they were making it, and now the govt wants to take one more cut away from their children. sick.

[Half Sigma]

The programmers at SixApart.com thank you for the kind comments about the look of my new blog.

$1.5 million in assets is rich! The average working American can only fantasize about ever having 1.5M in assets. So if people have to pay some tax after they die on assets exceeding 1.5M, their heirs will still be plenty rich.

[Anthony Ribadeneira]

You know what? I used to consider myself a Republican, as a blanket statement. Much the same way someone might call themselves Catholic or from Connecticut, but not anymore. You see, what I have come to realize, is that this country needs a third party. Not for the VARIOUS reasons that many political science scholars have explained. But for one very obvious reason, there is no party for the Middle Class. And by middle class, I do not mean the guy that is working at the plant making $12/hr with 3 kids and paying $1100 rent, because in all honesty, that poor bastard should be considered poor and helped as such (welfare moms are a whole other story, perhaps for another post). I mean the teachers, firemen, IT guys that are making just enough to survive, however would be in much better shape both financially and by extension socially, if they simply had better representation in DC as well as the local planning board.
What is more then obvious is that the true national Republican platform stands for nothing more then the top tier of Americans. These are the people that are defined as such in my book, by those who accumulate capital in order to create more capital - pure and simple. God bless them, but they have plenty of that to ensure comensurate representation. The other party, namely the Democrats, honestly, stand for little more then ensuring government hand-outs, by and large, to those who should be able to look out for themselves, while taxing those that can't defend their meager assets as well as those who can, from these taxes (namely middle class as opposed to the wealthier). It is no surprise then that the disparity between the "rich" and "poor" is growing in this country! Why should'nt it? With one party ensuring that the rich get richer, and the other party fighting for the poor to be comfortable in the poverty, the middle class - the backbone of any healthy society, falls through the cracks of college tuition, ever increasing property taxes and the cost of daily life. A Third party, one I might call the Medsocrats, might do well if creating a platform that truly fought for the middle class and started its fight from the grass roots level (i.e. local governing boards).

PS Any large movement needs a spark, something to draw attention and legitimize change. Could an upcoming housing bubble be it? With market extension larger then at any other time in American History, I should think so...

- Anthony R. (22, Stamford, CT)