• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Republican Jeff Sessions is looking for a rich corpse from NOLA

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case
Federal troops aren't the only ones looking for bodies on the Gulf Coast. On Sept. 9, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions called his old law professor Harold Apolinsky, co-author of Sessions' legislation repealing the federal estate tax, which was encountering sudden resistance on the Hill. Sessions had an idea to revitalize their cause, which he left on Apolinsky's voice mail: "[Arizona Sen.] Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with."
How ghoulish is this going to get?
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Didn't all the "rich" people survive?:rolleyes:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case

How ghoulish is this going to get?
Isn't this exactly what the leglislation is geared for. A business owner who perhaps perished in the storm and now his estate will be taxed at 60% leaving his family with less than they otherwise would have recieved perhaps having to sell what assets are left. Why shouldn't it be pointed out?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,341
Reaction score
13,575
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
Isn't this exactly what the leglislation is geared for. A business owner who perhaps perished in the storm and now his estate will be taxed at 60% leaving his family with less than they otherwise would have recieved perhaps having to sell what assets are left. Why shouldn't it be pointed out?
The estate tax only affects the most rich of the rich. If a small business owner's business is subject to the tax in the event he should die, then he should fire his accountant. I remember a couple of years ago a group in favor of getting rid of the estate tax was challenged to find one example of a small business or family farm that actually was subject to the tax. They could not find a single one. Basically it should really be called the Paris Hilton tax. However, if you do not think its fair, fine. All you have to do is figure out a way to make up the difference in revenue. Maybe we should shift the tax burden to single mothers instead.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
The estate tax only affects the most rich of the rich.
No it effects those who would inherit, not the person who dies, and many of those are not rich at all.

If a small business owner's business is subject to the tax in the event he should die, then he should fire his accountant.
So you support using tax loopholes to just avoid it and if someone doesn't then they are just plain stupid. Do you realize who stupid that comment sounds. Let's have a law but everyone should just spend alot of money paying accountants to avoid it. Are you an accountant or something?

I remember a couple of years ago...............
Your anecdotal rememberences have no bearing. Getting back to the subject Sessions is doing exactly what he should be doing, looking to see if in fact people are effect by the tax.

Maybe we should shift the tax burden to single mothers instead.
I'm sorry I don't follow, why does one lead to the other. And did you thank Bush and the republicans for lifting poor single mothers off the tax rolls completely?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,341
Reaction score
13,575
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
No it effects those who would inherit, not the person who dies, and many of those are not rich at all.



So you support using tax loopholes to just avoid it and if someone doesn't then they are just plain stupid. Do you realize who stupid that comment sounds. Let's have a law but everyone should just spend alot of money paying accountants to avoid it. Are you an accountant or something?



Your anecdotal rememberences have no bearing. Getting back to the subject Sessions is doing exactly what he should be doing, looking to see if in fact people are effect by the tax.



I'm sorry I don't follow, why does one lead to the other. And did you thank Bush and the republicans for lifting poor single mothers off the tax rolls completely?
The law is structured as such that small business owners and family farms are not subject to the tax. Thats why I say that if they are paying it, they need to get another accountant. The Republicans sell the tax as something that affects farmers, it doesnt, the tax primarily affects only the wealthest of estates. If you want to get rid of it, then fine. All you have to do is find another tax to make up the difference or offset a ton of spending. You cant just get rid of taxes because you dont like them though, you have to make up the difference somewhere. Either the Hiltons pay it, or working people pay it. Thats not class warfare either, its just reality. If you flatten the tax structure, at somepoint, you got to shift a huge burden on to the middle class. The money has to be made up at some point from some where.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
The law is structured as such that small business owners and family farms are not subject to the tax.
Sorry but that blanket statement is false.

Thats why I say that if they are paying it, they need to get another accountant.
Like I said you support a law that you have to pay an account to set up your personal affairs, in a manner which you may not want to, to avoid the tax. Are you an accountant?

The Republicans sell the tax as something that affects farmers, it doesnt, the tax primarily affects only the wealthest of estates.
It certainly can and if you want to try to justify taxing people you don't like because they have a lot of money have at it.

If you want to get rid of it, then fine. All you have to do is find another tax to make up the difference or offset a ton of spending.
How about we all make up the difference rather than punish those we are envious of?

You cant just get rid of taxes because you dont like them though,
Then should we reinstitute the taxes that were cut on the lower income groups? I didn't like them.
Either the Hiltons pay it, or working people pay it.
IOW either you have to pay it or someone else has to pay it and you opt for the someone else.

Thats not class warfare either, its just reality.
:rofl it's absolutely class warfare and THAT is the reality.

If you flatten the tax structure, at somepoint, you got to shift a huge burden on to the middle class.
This is about "flattening the tax structure" that is a different subject this about whether a tax on estates is moral and whether we should use the tax laws to satisfy our envy.

The money has to be made up at some point from some where.
Vote for people who pledge to cut spending for one.
 
Top Bottom