Wow, a millionaire who actually acknowledges that her wealth was only possible because of the infrastructure built with tax money. Refreshing, to say the least.

I imagine those like Rash Limbaugh will be sputtering and bloviating for an entire segment over this.

#2, I can guarantee that idiots like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck will never say a word about this article.

•First, the estate tax is not a double tax. Have you met a multimillionaire who earned that much money pulling down a weekly paycheck? People who make enough to be affected by the estate tax -- fewer than 1% of Americans who die in any given year -- amass their fortunes by investing. Investment income is taxed differently from earned income, often not at all until it's sold.

I have seen the business environment in Liberia, for example, a country with no tax revenues. I suspect even my brilliant grandfather would not have been able to build a successful business there. I have been to places like Sudan and Congo and know what it looks like when there is no 911 to call, no schools and where governments are disinterested in working toward the collective good.

Here at home, I have watched the gap between rich and poor driven to historic highs by a tax policy that has exacerbated our deficit and eviscerated our basic capacity to provide schooling, emergency services, and clean water and air for one and all.

Amazing... someone that has been bequeathed a fortune that understands what America is all about.

The righties right here on DR won't comment on this either.

They will be along any minute with the "its my money" argument.

Interesting. How would Abby have felt if, a generation ago, the Disney empire had to be broken up to pay estate taxes?

I'll take her at her word, though, and go on assuming that if the money isn't in Walt's and Roy's capable hands, it's better off in the hands of the government. Second-generation wealthy--most anyone who inherits their wealth, instead of earning it--tends to squander it away.

That said, it's fascinating to me that the Warren Buffett's and Bill Gates' of the world like to squirrel away their fortunes in tax-exempt foundations, while criticizing a system that might allow their up-and-coming competitors to become as wealthy as they have. Why do they do this? Because--deep down--they know that Washington would waste it. And they love their money, as they should, to much to just sit by and let that happen. The Gates Foundation will have over $200 billion in it by the time he's dead. Not even rich liberals are willing to write checks that big.

Notice RisR actually doesn't comment on what she said, that her wealth would probably not exist without the infrastructure that enabled customers to go to Disneyland, etc. and that the higher taxes paid by the wealthy during the post war years didn't seem to prevent the Disneys from building their empire. I think her point could be boiled down to higher tax rates don't necessarily prevent businesses from growing though that is what the shills for the wealthy would like us all to believe.

Funny how people love this kind of crap, "look ,see i am the victim" never mind the massive amounts of money that big companies like disney pump into the system they are the evil ones draining the government. I just don't get it, i mean yes they benefit from government programs like the rest of us do, but they also pay the vast majority of taxes in this country either via business and sales taxes or income taxes payed by their top earners. And yet this is not enough for the gimme gimme crowd, i don't understand how they can justify their jealous attempts to take away from people who have more. Maybe that is just the way people are now, claim victim hood and try to have someone stronger take away from one to give to you. How can you rationalize creating a robin hood government as fair? Regardless of the issue, when jealousy controls you, you have already lost.

And yes there are plenty of times that the estate tax would have forced sale. I have personal experience, a few years ago when my grandmother died there was around 70 acres that she had. This was valued at several million but there was nowhere near enough liquidity in the family to pay even a fifth of the value in taxes. Luckily the repeal of estate tax saved this family land.

Why do they do this? Because--deep down--they know that Washington would waste it.

#7 | Posted by rightisright

Perhaps they do it because they understand that while most organizations, including private companies waste money, government must still be sustained and maintained for the benefit of society. A concept that seems to elude many of you so called conservatives; maintenance of our public social and mechanical infrastructure, which provides significant benefit to the private sector, is not free. Government will always be in the best position to attempt management such infrastructure.

I have seen the business environment in Liberia, for example, a country with no tax revenues. I suspect even my brilliant grandfather would not have been able to build a successful business there. I have been to places like Sudan and Congo and know what it looks like when there is no 911 to call, no schools and where governments are disinterested in working toward the collective good.

The cornerstone

Here at home, I have watched the gap between rich and poor driven to historic highs by a tax policy that has exacerbated our deficit and eviscerated our basic capacity to provide schooling, emergency services, and clean water and air for one and all. The estate tax is the cornerstone of a progressive system that leaves wealthy heirs with ample funds while providing the government with the resources it needs to build an environment for the common good. By preserving it, we not only restore billions in revenue to the national treasury -- we also restore our most cherished collective ideals as a nation.

"Tax me" may be the least popular sentence in America, but it's what I am asking, and I hope that our leaders are listening

This lady gets it.

a few years ago when my grandmother died there was around 70 acres that she had. This was valued at several million but there was nowhere near enough liquidity in the family to pay even a fifth of the value in taxes. Luckily the repeal of estate tax saved this family land.

The estate tax has only been repealed for this year so you are either mistaken or a liar.

You are right it was not because it was repealed it was because she died in 2009 and the lower limit increased to 3.5 million. I was misinformed but i did remember that the laws changing allowed the family to retain the property without subdividing and selling part of it.

Taxman maybe you can answer this for me though, if the estate is worth more the the exclusion you are taxed on the amount it exceeds the exclusion but what if it were willed to a trust, do the same tax laws exist or are they different?

"How would Abby have felt if, a generation ago, the Disney empire had to be broken up to pay estate taxes?"

Gee, but it didn't...not even when Walt died...a generation ago.

You can plan so that the value of the trust is not included in your will - you pay gift taxes when transferred to the trust. Generally, assets which are bequeathed pass through the estate and are dispensed of in accordance to a will, those assets will be subject to the estate tax.

I think the $3.5 million exclusion is going to be made permanent and it will be pegged to inflation so Congress won't have to worry about messing with it later.

You can plan so that the value of the trust is not included in your will

Sorry should read You can plan so that the value of the trust is not included in your estate

Thanks taxman.

And don't forget you can have a Trust which includes a pour-over will.

The University of Virginia's widely monitored Crystal Ball will on Wednesday forecast sweeping setbacks on Capitol Hill and the loss of a clutch of state governorships on November 2.

Prfessor Larry Sabato, who runs Crystal Ball. "The Republican base is at least 50 degrees further to the right than they where when Newt Gingrich took control of the House in 1994.

He says 50 degrees futher to the right of Newt back in 1994, wow.

So what is the solution that the Democrats propose? Bringing back another tax, lets move to the left brilliant.

THE RULE OF HOLES: If you find your self in a hole stop digging.
If you can't follow that rule try not to shovel the mud on to your head.

Thank God the Democrats don't know about the rule of holes.

I think bringing this tax back helps Republicans. Go Democrats!

I think bringing this tax back helps Republicans.

Republicans are the ones asking for it to come back at the 2009 rates; otherwise the exclusion is $1 mil and taxed at a higher rate.

"I think bringing this tax back helps Republicans. Go Democrats!"

Doing anything to help fix the mess created by Republicans unfortunately will help the Republicans because we have so many uninformed voters. We have voters screaming about taxes when taxes are the lowest in 50 years. Meanwhile the interest needs to be paid and it ads to the deficit which ads to the debt and our kids will not think of us fondly.

In other words "they have more money then me and dammit somebody better take it from them so i can have what they do."

... unfortunately will help the Republicans because we have so many uninformed voters.

So they are "uninformed" when the republicans are at an advantage, but "brilliant" when they give the democrats the advantage or win, huh? My far left uncle says the same thing. Funny how the brain of the human mysteriously goes from smart to uninformed in multiples of two years and always around November.

How do you explain this, danni?

We have voters screaming about taxes when taxes are the lowest in 50 years.

Our effective rates for individuals and corporations run about the middle of the pack among industrialized nations.

#21 | Posted by danni

We have voters screaming about taxes when taxes are the lowest in 50 years. Meanwhile the interest needs to be paid and it ads to the deficit which ads to the debt and our kids will not think of us fondly.
-----------
There is more to the cost of living than just taxes. Some studies have the cost of regulation on the private sector over 1 trillion, and after all that we still have one of the worst recessions in history.

Other than getting screwed what are we getting for our tax dollars.

Some voters are just fed up!

Let's not forget there are state and local taxes and regulations.

All which drives up everyone's cost of living.

"Our effective rates for individuals and corporations run about the middle of the pack among industrialized nations."

We are well above the average as far as corporate taxes go.

Our stated tax rates are higher than average, but as Tax said, "Our effective rates for individuals and corporations run about the middle of the pack among industrialized nations."

After lawyers, loopholes, and lobbyists, our corps pay about the average as an effective rate.

Sal, look up the difference between effective and marginal rates. Your sites deal with marginal rates.

Republicans are the ones asking for it to come back at the 2009 rates; otherwise the exclusion is $1 mil and taxed at a higher rate.

I'm not an anti-estate tax person but a $1 million exclusion (along with a higher rate) is going to hurt a lot of people that I don't think the estate tax was meant to affect.

"Our effective rates for individuals and corporations run about the middle of the pack among industrialized nations."

exactly. which means that raising the marginal rates won't necessarily mean a meaningful increase in the effective rate....and thus, revenue.

one would have to turn a few pages in the tax code to see what other changes have been made.

Sal,

I know it's from media matters but this is still a good explanation of marginal v. effective, and it shows the US is on the low end for corporate effective rates:

I'm not an anti-estate tax person but a $1 million exclusion (along with a higher rate) is going to hurt a lot of people that I don't think the estate tax was meant to affect.

Exactly, which is why Republicans have gone from the stance of abolishing the estate tax to settling for a $3.5 million exclusion.

. which means that raising the marginal rates won't necessarily mean a meaningful increase in the effective rate

No but increasing rates and scaling back on subsidies/deductions/credits will lead to an increase in effective rates.

Agreed Tax.

"After lawyers, loopholes, and lobbyists, our corps pay about the average as an effective rate."

This is true although you also have to consider the taxes they pay to the other nations as well when the shelter elsewhere. All of the number i found are based off corporate income and while i am nowhere near an expert i would think that to get a real number you would have to include all of the other taxes that are applicable fuel, freight, social security and various others. Either way the rate is high driving business out of country. There are a lot of tax scholars who believe that reducing the rate(reasonably) has little or no negative effect on the effective rate.

"I know it's from media matters but this is still a good explanation of marginal v. effective, and it shows the US is on the low end for corporate effective rates:"

I understand the difference, i admit i did not read "effective" in your post originally but i do think there are a lot of other factors as well. I find it kind of funny how hard it is to find some sore of total taxation rate on corporations. I would think that that information would go quite far to further one side or the other depending on what it actually said.

"How would Abby have felt if, a generation ago, the Disney empire had to be broken up to pay estate taxes?"

Gee, but it didn't...not even when Walt died...a generation ago.

#14 | Posted by Danforth

* * * * *

" the rate is high driving business out of country."

Nonsense. The minimum wage is driving business out of the country. If fact, pretty much anything over 50 cents an hour, plus shipping and tariffs, is driving business out of the country.

"As generous as she pretends Walt and Roy were--and they were--not even they were stupid enough to pay the government any taxes when they died."

Hey, I know...let's tax 'em while they're alive.

Glad you're on board!

I have a better idea: estate tax at over $3.5 million. Charitable trusts are disallowed, and all proceeds are forfeit to the government. At death, everything gets liquidated and distributed to heirs up to $3.5 mn, the rest goes to Washington. No more marital transfers or sheltering--that all goes bye-bye too.

That way, the disasters of the Kennedy and Rockefeller families can be stopped at one generation. And the Bushes, for balance.

I think that the estate tax should be eliminated and inheritance should be taxed as income to the heirs, as it is.

What will we do without all the trust-fund babies spending daddy's money on luxury goods?

I think that the estate tax should be eliminated and inheritance should be taxed as income to the heirs, as it is.

That would be an administrative nightmare, but I think it is fair.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2010-09-01 10:57 AM

WHAT???????????????

Danni and corky Loooove to slam those earning more then 250,000 thousand. The left will tell you increasing their taxes will only affect 3% of the businesses.

CAN'T THEY LIE????????????

The 3% figure, which is computed from IRS data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income. So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business. The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.

Doing anything to help fix the mess created by Republicans unfortunately will help the Republicans because we have so many uninformed voters.

With such respect for the American voters its odd to me that the Democrats are at risk of losing the congress after only 4 years.

I guess they're too stupid to know that they're stupid if they don't vote Democrat.

"Danni and corky Loooove to slam those earning more then 250,000 thousand. The left will tell you increasing their taxes will only affect 3% of the businesses."

"fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007."

So DAVETHEWAVE, what is the percentage above $250,000??? Why do you post the $200,000 figure???

I have no problem with an estate tax on large estates. It would get rid of a lot of future lefties who would have to work for a living and would change their outlook on a lot of things instead of feeling guilty about their wealth and taxing the heck our of the rest of those not born with a silver spoon in their mouths. There should be an exemption up to a certain amount as there is today.

NEWS ALERT: My inside government source has revealed to me that the Obummer will make a major healthcare speech the end of September.

They will be along any minute with the "its my money" argument.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2010-09-01 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

726 stakes out the argument that all wealth belongs to the state.

Since we all work for the state, 726 says, you should be grateful that they let you keep anything you earn.

Please sir, I'd like some more gruel.

Okay, so this millionaire doesn't mind the death tax... are there millionaires who do? Do their opinions tie/beat her opinion?

Just curious.

I have no problem with the death tax, at a certain level. Right now dem's are allowing the law to revert to 1 million dollars. that's outrageously low. Somewhere between 3-10 million is a starting point for Congress to consider.....

"How would Abby have felt if, a generation ago, the Disney empire had to be broken up to pay estate taxes?"

How would Abby have felt if pigeons decended on her and plucked her eyes out is about as relevant a question.

726 stakes out the argument that all wealth belongs to the state.

And here comes along Vern putting words incorrectly into my posts.

A little early to be hitting the Barton's isn't it?

That would be an administrative nightmare, but I think it is fair.

It could be done by reporting on a k-1 the entire amount of the bequest as income.

My Dad was an airline pilot at Delta. His retirement is completely gone because Leo Mullen and the other execs took it when they tore the company apart. While he was working for Delta, over 40% of our family income went to taxes. It was hard work... between Delta and his military reserve job, Dad was gone 25 days plus a month. Still, my Dad saved and saved, plus the house he bought in 1970 appreciated, so his estate is affected by the death tax. So, yeah, he's technically a millionaire now, because HE SAVED HIS MONEY!!! Still, after he passes away, with the death tax they'll take 50% of what he has left. How is that fair? I just don't understand how it's right to take half of what he and my Mom saved. They already paid a lot of taxes on this money. Aren't we just punishing people for succeeding at this point?

I guess me and my husband should stop saving as well. Because I'll be damned if I'm giving half of what we make in our VERY demanding jobs to the government after we die.

Rant over.

726 stakes out the argument that all wealth belongs to the state.

And here comes along Vern putting words incorrectly into my posts.

A little early to be hitting the Barton's isn't it?

#56 | Posted by 726 at 2010-09-03 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

I clearly hit the BULLSEYE.

Please note that 726 has no retort. Only a desperate, screeching and personal attack.

Which can only mean that I am correct.

726 believes that all your hard work, all your toil, all your inspiration .... belongs to the state. You may create:

-- cheap, green energy.

-- cure cancer with aspirin.

-- complete nutrition from water

All of that and it does not belong to you. It belongs to the state, and 726 will dole out what you need.

"You cured cancer? Well, you get an extra half bowl of gruel. Don't tell the boss, but I will give you THREE crackers. Just for today."

no retort. Only a desperate, screeching and personal attack.
#59 | Posted by vernon | Flag: Judges Award 9.8, 9.7, 9.9, and 10.0 on Supremely, Hilariously Ironic Scale

For 2011 Obama's proposing is $3.5 million exemption level per person and a top rate of 45% on taxable estates. That's much more generous than current law, which calls for a $1 million exemption level and a 55% top rate starting in 2011.

That $1 million exemption and 55%? That was brought to you by the GOP. They passed the law (reconciliation) in 2001 and even with both Houses and the Presidency, they did nothing to make it permanent.

To be clear that means that if Obama gets his way you'll pay no estate tax at all on anything up to $3.5 million. Since you're "technically" a millionaire, that should leave you in fine standing.

"I have no problem with the death tax, at a certain level. Right now dem's are allowing the law to revert to 1 million dollars. that's outrageously low. Somewhere between 3-10 million is a starting point for Congress to consider....."

Don't blame "the Dems" for this one. This could have been fixed a while ago if the Repubs hadn't been fillibustering and refusing any compromise other than a full repeal. The president has long been proposing a $3.5 million exemption, indexed to the CPI with a portable applicable exclusion so there would be no need to set up credit shelter trusts for the first death and a 45% top rate.

I guess Yav beat me to the punch...

"They passed the law (reconciliation) in 2001 and even with both Houses and the Presidency, they did nothing to make it permanent."

The whole sunsetting of tax rates is the Republican's fault. They pushed for the reductions in income and estate tax rates at the beginning of Bush's term but had to write them with a sunset at the end of 2010 in order to minimize the projected deficit that would result. These were passed at a time when the budget was in surplus....and then, of course, we had a couple of unfunded wars and a financial meltdown...

Nice way to re write FACTS yav. it was 8 million, before YOUR PARTY decided to let that revert. Obama has been all over the place with his goal. When he campaigned he started saying 1 million...and went all the way up to 8 million. After all he changes everything he promised, multiple times, often in the same sentence!

And if you knew anything about estate taxes, you'd know that a couple can get 2 exemptions, if done properly creating two estates....exempting 6 million total.

I agree 3 million is a good number to start talking about/around.

No dc it was done as a compromise inorder to get the necessary votes for passage. NOW it needs to be compromised on again....

But since when do the dems want compromise????

Here's YOUR leaders views on that!!!!!

"But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

"After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No! You can't drive. We don't want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out."

I think the $3.5 million exclusion is going to be made permanent and it will be pegged to inflation so Congress won't have to worry about messing with it later.

#15 | POSTED BY TAXMAN AT 2010-09-01 03:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Let's hope so. $3.5 is a reasonable amount. Having no tax at all is pretty moronic from a policy standpoint (shiftless kids and concentration of wealth and all). But, $1Million is too low of an amount, IMO. In many cases, one insurance policy gets you there.

"And as an inheritor I am here to tell you, the estate tax is not as much of a bogeyman as you've been led to believe."

Abigail is correct. With proper estate planning and utilizing the financial tools available......it can be averted or completely

sorry..

it can be averted or minimized.

"it can be averted or minimized"

Exactly. With appropriate planning, permitted valuation techniques and leveraging gifts with insurance products, the estate tax is about the only tax one can end up paying for pennies on the dollar.

"But since when do the dems want compromise????

Here's YOUR leaders views on that!!!!!

"But I don't want the folks that created the mess -- I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.

"After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want to keys back. No! You can't drive. We don't want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.""

--------------

That's not the president's view on "compromise"...it's about the sheer idiocy of putting the Republicans back in charge of anything. And he's 100% right, in my view.

When they offer actual ideas in the legislative process, they will be listened to. They haven't been, they've been doing nothing but obstructing and lying to rabble rouse. They don't want success in solving problems...they want power, pure and simple. Everything else is secondary.

The Republicans may do well in this election, they might not. A lot of people are sick of them, as is evidenced by their loss of the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections. If you have evidence of any compromise or idea that they'd offered in the current congress, please let us know. Their position on the estate tax was "nothing but a repeal" (which would lead to an ugly capital gains system as we have for deaths in 2010). Now they are agreeing with the 2009 limits idea...it's about time.

Exactly. With appropriate planning, permitted valuation techniques and leveraging gifts with insurance products, the estate tax is about the only tax one can end up paying for pennies on the dollar.

#70 | POSTED BY DCINMA AT 2010-09-03 11:41 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Ya, true. But usually that planning means giving up control of assets, and wiggling around quite a bit (fractionalizing interests, irrevocable trusts, gifting) that takes time and energy. People on the real high end will do it, but the drop to $1Mil. is gonna put a lot more fish in the net - everyday folks. Folks with modest retirement, accounts, homes that are paid for, and insurance policies. The $1Mil should be changed, as it's going to hit people that shouldn't really be hit.

The $1 million is almost certain to be changed, as the administration has been proposing for some time now.

#21 Danni> Meanwhile the interest needs to be paid and it ads to the deficit which ads to the debt and our kids will not think of us fondly.

I'm just glad you mentioned how much all the irresponsible federal spending is cause for most/all of the horrific national debt. Yes it will take a long time to dig out of it, thanks for politicians and presidents of BOTH parties who spent like drunken sailors on shore leave!*

Oh, wait, you failed to mention the SPENDING side of the problem, eh?

*Disclaimer: sincere apologies to all current and former U.S. Navy sailors who ever had shore leave and were inebriated at the time.

Abigail E. Disney is the Founder and the President of the Daphne Foundation, a progressive, social change foundation that makes grants to grassroots, community-based organizations working with low-income communities in New York City. Since 1991, the Daphne Foundation has made millions of dollars in grants in areas ranging from women's rights to AIDS advocacy, children's health, labor conditions, religion, and environmentalism.

Abigail received her Bachelors degree from Yale University, her Masters degree from Stanford University, and her Doctorate from Columbia University.

Another overeducated silver-spooned liberal. Good thing grandpa worked his a$$ off so she could attend those higher education institutions with tuitions higher than the average us family income.

Typical liberal whore - condemning the system which allows her to live in the manner she chooses.

The jealousy of the DR left never ceases to amaze me. Why the hell do you care what someone else makes? Fairness? If you are not rich in the US it is because YOU don't want to be. YOU chose another priority. Kids, not attending college, choosing to be a ditch digger so you could toke up and not take a druge test. Whatever. If you are not rich, it is not YOUR priority. So get off the backs of those who work damn hard because it is. Fucking whiners you all are. Pathetic, considering libruls are the "educated" ones.

The $1 million is almost certain to be changed, as the administration has been proposing for some time now.

#73 | POSTED BY DCINMA AT 2010-09-03 12:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

When? The legislative session is almost done. Everyone said they'd be certain to change having no tax at all in 2010 - Guess What? There is no tax if you die in 2010. Time to shit of get off the pot. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems just say - fuck you repubs, this is YOUR legislation, YOU live with it. Problem is, it'll hurt everyday folks.

"Typical liberal whore - condemning the system which allows her to live in the manner she chooses."

Hmmm...it doesn't sound to me like she's condemning anything, rather that she's supporting the system in which the wealth was created.

Hmmm...it doesn't sound to me like she's condemning anything, rather that she's supporting the system in which the wealth was created.

#77 | Posted by DCinMA at 2010-09-03 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

".... that every generation is a fresh start; and that we choose to build a society in which wealth and opportunity do not accrue to people simply for being born wealthy...."

Hmmm...it sounds like she's condoning meritocracy and not aristocracy. What part of her "fortune" was made by her own hands and not passed down to her?

Like I said, no sweat off her back to take this point of view - she did not earn her fortune with her own sweat equity - she won the family lottery. I don't fault her for that, but I do fault her for biting the hand that fed her.

On topic, the death tax is income redistribution. I don't care what the DANNIs of the world think they are "owed". You work, you get paid. You get paid what the market values your work. The smarter you work, the more you get paid. The harder you work, the more you get paid.

The lazy will never become rich of their own accord. Nor should they. Nor should they benefit from the effort of others when they are not inhibited by anything other than lack of desire or effort to improve themselves. I am not talking about the medically unable and unfortunate in this country.

Even with a 95% tax, dear Abigail is filthy rich anyway - it's all gravy to her. And with the liquid assets of the Disney estate, there is no danger to the underlying business. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many instances. And while the tax rates for the rich were much higher back in Disney's heyday, they actually paid taxes at a lower rate than today. The reason was: EVIL EVIL EVIL loopholes. The tax code was designed to provide generous loopholes when capital was used in a manner conducive to economic growth. There were some crooked ways to exploit some of them (e.g. asset depreciation and phantom losses), but that was the game with the IRS that's still played today - the cheaters were eventually caught and paid up.

But the important thing is that people were motivated to spend their capital, not save it. They were motivated to start businesses and expand them. If they did, they paid LESS tax. Not like today where accumulation of capital is excessively taxed. Do your homework.

The Poor Little Rich Girl is just another clueless liberal, probably guilty about the money she did nothing to deserve. But that hardly makes her any sort of authority on taxation and business.

On topic, the death tax is income redistribution.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why is that?

Do you think a society is healthier and more apt to be stable with a burgeoning middle class or with a few mega rich individuals and the rest being essentially serfs?

The history of mankind has been a history of a few ruthless individuals hoarding all the wealth while the rest suffered and starved.

The biggest inroads Humanity has made towards becoming an actual civilization have been the steps we have taken to ensure a more fair and even distribution of wealth within society.

Spud notices that a lot of rtards instinctively argue for more wealth inequality and against more fair, just and equitable wealth redistribution.

Why do they continually argue against their own best self interests?

Spud thinks it is largely the fault of many years of RW propaganda on the issue over the years.

Either that or they are just intensely stupid and have absolutely no grasp of the history of this planet.

Possibly both.

#80 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-09-03 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Spud, this lady is a case in point. Income not earned is usually unappreciated. It took no effort to achieve therefore little value is placed upon it. Look at how many lottery winners go broke. Look at the numbers of poor in the US since the great society or the great social programs of the 60's.

You twist history to say that the biggest inroads we made as a society were to ensure a more fair and equal distribution of wealth. "Distribution" is not the correct word. Fair and equal pay for work provided is a more realistic reason for this, not distribution.

Look at inner city poverty. How much money has been thrown that way and it is not decreasing?

No, income distribution is equivalent to trickle up poverty (m. savage).

But that hardly makes her any sort of authority on taxation and business.

#79 | Posted by Dinsey at 2010-09-03 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Irony

If it's not "my money", then whose is it? Feel free to do whatever you want with your money, but don't try and tell me that I should give up mine because you think it's the right thing to do.

If it's not "my money", then whose is it?

Obama's. Fool

Funny, it wasn't "Bush's. Fool" when he was tanking the economy and refusing to pay for anything. You went out of your way not to criticize that.

Worth a re post ..

How would Abby have felt if, a generation ago, the Disney empire had to be broken up to pay estate taxes?"

Gee, but it didn't...not even when Walt died...a generation ago.

#14 | Posted by Danforth

* * * * *

I know. Because 100% of Walt Disney's estate got paid into two tax-exempt trusts. Not one dime of taxes. Ever.
tafkac.org

Abby Disney enjoys, today, what many uber rich liberals do: the accolades of libbies who say she "gets it", without ever having to cut a check. Ever. Live rich, pretend to be a liberal for the people, and keep the tax-exempt legacy going another generation. As generous as she pretends Walt and Roy were--and they were--not even they were stupid enough to pay the government any taxes when they died.

Kennedy, Rockefeller, Heinz-Kerry, Gates, Buffett--someday you libtards will realize you're being played for fools. Grow a brain, eh?

#38 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-09-01 06:31 PM

#86 . . . ouch!

next thing ya be telling me that my squiggly $4 light bulbs are for naught??

That's not the president's view on "compromise"...it's about the sheer idiocy of putting the Republicans back in charge of anything. And he's 100% right, in my view.

#71 | Posted by DCinMA

That's a very poor explanation. SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF THE WAY He said it he meant it. Plain and simple the guys a fuckin walking hypocrasy. HIS IS A FAILED PRESIDENCY.

If HRC was running against him now, she'd blow him away by double digits....

That's not the president's view on "compromise"...it's about the sheer idiocy of putting the Republicans back in charge of anything. And he's 100% right, in my view.
#71 | Posted by DCinMA

That's a very poor explanation. SHUT UP AND GET OUT OF THE WAY He said it he meant it. Plain and simple the guys a fuckin walking hypocrasy. HIS IS A FAILED PRESIDENCY.
If HRC was running against him now, she'd blow him away by double digits....
#88 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2010-09-04 09:47 AM

As per the plan.. such as waiting until election week to upturn DOMA and DADT.

Pretty funny when trust babies like Abigail volunteer all of us for more taxes.

"Limousine Liberal" anyone?

And how about the ole Gov spendng side of this equation? Does anyone really think there is enough money in the world to satiate the US Government as it is currently run?

Reduce the size of this wasteful monstrosity.

November is coming. Vote for smaller Government.

Pretty funny when trust babies like Abigail volunteer all of us for more taxes.
"Limousine Liberal" anyone?
And how about the ole Gov spendng side of this equation? Does anyone really think there is enough money in the world to satiate the US Government as it is currently run?
Reduce the size of this wasteful monstrosity.
November is coming. Vote for smaller Government.
#90 | Posted by Lon_Seong at 2010-09-04 09:05 PM

Midgets? (No offense to your parents.)

Let me see... This is not a double tax, but the earnings (that are subject to income tax) that are saved and passed on heirs (that are subject to the Death Tax) are not doubled taxed?

Maybe if Miss Disney did not have $500 million that she never lifted a finger to deserve, had to work to pay for her Yale BA, Stanford MA and Columbia PhD, and was a Philanthropist with money that she actually had to earn, THEN she would have some credibility.

She is just another "Limousine Liberal" preaching to the Great Unwashed Society who she believes does not have her Ivy League intellect. Perhaps she should let those who actually earn money and save to build estates to pass on, be the ones who decide. But she has the right to be a hypocrite! Isn't America the Greatest Country on Earth!

"but the earnings (that are subject to income tax) that are saved and passed on heirs (that are subject to the Death Tax) are not doubled taxed?"

In the vast, vast majority of the cases, no. And capital gains which would be taxed by the person had he cashed them out are tax-free to the recipient, who inherits them on a stepped-up basis.

"Maybe if Miss Disney did not have $500 million that she never lifted a finger to deserve, had to work to pay for her Yale BA, Stanford MA and Columbia PhD, and was a Philanthropist with money that she actually had to earn, THEN she would have some credibility."

If that's the case, why don't we tax investment income at least as much as we tax sweat-of-the-brow labor?

"Maybe if Miss Disney did not have $500 million that she never lifted a finger to deserve, had to work to pay for her Yale BA, Stanford MA and Columbia PhD, and was a Philanthropist with money that she actually had to earn, THEN she would have some credibility."

If that's the case, why don't we tax investment income at least as much as we tax sweat-of-the-brow labor?

#93 | Posted by Danforth

"because in addition to generating revenue, taxes are used to encourage/discourage behavior "

50 years ago, taxing folks who opened dividend envelopes for a living less than sweat-of-the-brow labor was considered an abomination and unemployment wasn't taxed. Today, the top rate for dividends and long-term capital gains is less than half of the top rate for wage income and unemployment. What changed?

"taxes are used to encourage/discourage behavior . . ."

So become an investor, but don't go on unemployment???

That sounds suspiciously like Let them eat cake.