Bush's Heir Cut

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Bush's Heir Cut

Post by Dardedar »

Image


BUSH'S HEIR CUT: AWARDS TAX BREAK TO SON OF AN ASTOR
by Greg Palast
For The Guardian
Monday, July 31, 2006

East Hampton, New York -- Anthony Marshall, the tabloids tell us, wouldn't buy his elderly mother her prescribed medicine, locked her poodles in the pantry and refused to buy her hair dye or her favorite make-up. His mom is Brooke Astor, the ultra-rich socialite, now frail, helpless and dependent on her son.

While others merely gossiped about this tragedy of dogs and cosmetics, George Bush acted. In a deft maneuver at the end of last week, Bush rammed through Congress a massive reduction in the inheritance tax. As a result of the tax change engineered by the White House, Marshall stands to save $9 million on the $45 million he expects to inherit from his mom.

George W. Bush could feel Anthony's pain. It's not easy being a child of incredibly wealthy parents. Indeed, as the President noted, "death taxes" are supremely unfair to those who've earned these millions. As Mr. Bush often mentions, he himself worked long hours his whole life to be born into a rich family.

Our President recently told the Detroit Economic Club that, in an era of government belt tightening, “Spending discipline requires difficult choices.” But this choice was easy as pie: the President chose to use our tax dollars to reduce the burden on the most deserving. And who could be more deserving than Barbara's kids? The President himself, who stands to inherit well over $76 million from his parents, will save at least $12.7 million. Talk about family values!

This year, the President's budget eliminated the $255 paid to widows of social security recipients. But who needs a measly $255 when you're going to save millions on the estate you inherit?

Here's how much your family will save, if your family is the Astors. Under current law, Anthony would have to pay the government 46% of his profits from his mother's death, after the first tax-free $2 million. Now, Anthony will get the first five million tax-free and the tax rate on the rest is cut in half.

Altogether, this reduction in inheritance taxes will cost, oh, a quarter trillion dollars over the next decade -- $267 billion, to be exact. To pay for it, besides eliminating the $255 widow benefit, the President's "difficult choices" included taking $12 million from the federal traumatic brain injury assistance program and $119 million from housing for the disabled.

But cripples looking for a government hand-out should stop thinking selfishly. They should have more sympathy for the Menendez brothers, whose parents were worth $14 million. The tax laws in 1989 reduced the net sum each of the two boys stood to inherit to just $2 million each, giving the young men no choice but to kill their parents for the additional insurance money.

Apparently, one of the single largest beneficiaries of the change will be Robert Durst. And now that he's out of jail (he dis-membered his 71-year-old neighbor), the heir to the Durst real estate billions can look forward to a bonus of, I'd estimate, at least a quarter billion bucks from the US taxpayers. (With the extra Treasury treasure, Durst can look for his wife who is, uh, missing.)

The President could have used the quarter trillion to buy every displaced family from New Orleans a one million dollar home. But, he reasoned, their kids would just end up paying estate taxes on it when their parents kicked the bucket.

Several newspapers deplored the way Anthony treated the elderly Mrs. Astor. But, let me note, it was the Tax-and-Spend policies of Big Government that forced him to dilute his mom's medicine. Let's face it: until our President's bold action to repeal death taxes, Mrs. Astor, hanging in there at 104 years of age, simply had no incentive to die.

The National Association of Manufacturers, the key lobby for the end of estate taxes, wrote every Congressman, "Why on earth should good, honest, hard-working people" -- like Durst, Marshall and the Menendez kids -- have to pay taxes while other Americans just slack it?

Until the Republicons took action this week, Americans have simply had no reason, said our president, to "accumulate wealth." I know that in my own dad's case, rather than become a multi-millionaire, he chose to work 65 hours a week in a furniture store, with no pension, just so my sister and I would never have to fear estate taxes.

Congress' vote last week would eliminate only 74% of the taxes on America's wealthiest. Our President is not satisfied. Mr. Bush will not rest in peace until we emulate one of the only nations on the planet without any death taxes, Saudi Arabia. There, our president could point to the example of the billionaire bin Laden family, whose scion, Osama, unburdened by estate taxes, has donated his entire inheritance to "faith-based initiatives."
***

This came in an email. Here is the fellow's website.

http://www.gregpalast.com/
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Tweedledee - tax and spend.
Tweedledum - borrow and spend.

The baby needn't worry; hyperinflation and/or default will wipe out all debt incurred by US rulers. The US probably will be only a bad memory, like the USSR, by the time he grows up.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

And under Hogeye's desired destruction, what's left of the US will be in as bad a shape as is what's left of the USSR. Economic collapse is only fun if watched or read about from some safe, economically strong (or at least perceived to be strong) location - by someone who has a total disregard for the suffering of ordinary people.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Barbara wrote:... what's left of the US will be in as bad a shape as is what's left of the USSR.
This is a strange comment, since some of the former Soviet States are doing much better than they were under Soviet rule. The Baltic States, Lituania, Latvia, Estonia, are clearly better off. Others, like Armenia, Ukraine, and Moldavia seem somewhat better off. The only former territories not doing very well are some of the Central Asian States, though whether people are worse off than under the USSR is questionable.

Barbara, are you claiming that most people in former Soviet territories are worse off than they were under the USSR? If so, do you have any proof of this, or is this just a kneejerk authoritarian thing?

I would say the opposite: that most people are better off, and that even those who aren't have a better prognosis than they had under Soviet rule.
Barbara wrote:Economic collapse is only fun if watched or read about from some safe, economically strong location.
Like Northwest Arkansas or Costa Rica? I do not deny that there will be a rough transition period, but most people will be better off afterward, and the transition will be relatively easy compared to e.g. the USSR devolution (due to a culture that already has private property, pluralism, a vast number of voluntary organizations, and a relatively libertarian heritage.)
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Post by Doug »

Hogeye wrote:This is a strange comment, since some of the former Soviet States are doing much better than they were under Soviet rule. The Baltic States, Lituania, Latvia, Estonia, are clearly better off. Others, like Armenia, Ukraine, and Moldavia seem somewhat better off. The only former territories not doing very well are some of the Central Asian States, though whether people are worse off than under the USSR is questionable.
DOUG
I just heard on the news yesterday that 80% of people in Russia report that they have had to pay bribes in order to acquire basic products and services.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Russia, being the former USSR capital, is one that is worse off since it can no longer exploit the other now-independent countries. Similarly, I predict the Washington DC area will be worse off when the US devolves. Reduction of plunder is bad for looters and those closest to them.

Not that I take "corruption" necessarily to be a bad thing. When it allows people to 'buy out' of unjust laws, it can be a good thing. E.g. Cannabis is still technically illegal in Costa Rica, but you can buy your way out of a bust for $10, and even get your shit back!
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Post Reply