"Consider, in particular, the position that Mr. Kyl has taken on a proposed bill that would extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless for the rest of the year. Republicans will block that bill, said Mr. Kyl, unless they get a “path forward fairly soon” on the estate tax.
Now, the House has already passed a bill that, by exempting the assets of couples up to $7 million, would leave 99.75 percent of estates tax-free. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for Mr. Kyl; he’s willing to hold up desperately needed aid to the unemployed on behalf of the remaining 0.25 percent. That’s a very clear statement of priorities."
As Republicans move farther to the Right, the use of bipartisanship is wishful thinking. No one lives in their Universe anymore. Amid these hard times, Democrats care for the unemployed, while the Republicans weep over affluent victims of the “death tax”.
The Republicans look at the poor and unemployed and say "You get too much". Then look at their rich and wealthy constituents and say, "You don't get enough".
1 comment:
Your "Dems good, Repubs bad" analysis is flawed because it incorrectly focuses on the purported intent to help the poor and unemployed instead of actual results.
Regarding the estate tax, the real question is whether a tax that exempts 99.75% of all estates, as the Democrats propose, is better than one that just abolishes the tax altogether. The estate tax operates as the third tax on the accumulation of wealth--after progressive taxes on earnings and savings. This drives many people to take grotesque steps to minimize their estate tax liabilities, which in part explains why only 0.25% of the people pay it. By forcing these dumb maneuvers, the tax distorts the accumulation and transfer of capital in ways that ends up reducing the production of wealth that could be subject to an income tax. In other words, people change their behavior based on the tax structure and the net result is less, not more, net taxes collected (which could go to help the poor and unemployed). The Krugman approach you espouse appears based primarily on envy and resentment (affluent = bad people), and will not end up helping the poor and unemployed. But again, it appears you are more interested in being judged on intentions and not actual results.
Post a Comment