Are we compassionate yet?

If only spending money said anything. It doesn't.

Welfare reform (yes, put through by the Republican Congress while Clinton was president) was very compassionate and it wound up costing all of us less.

You can increase spending per pupil and still have kids that can't spell, add or write.>

At first the idea of "spending wisely" almost sounded reasonable. But it goes back to the idea that throwing money at a problem will resolve it. If that was the case one only has to look at the Great Society of LBJ and see today's problems.

From my point of view, eliminating the estate tax would be compassionate.

Compassion is, as we all know, in the eye of the beholder.>

The idea of spending wisely is contrary to 'throwing money at a problem'. The point of the wisdom is to know when, and how, and where to spend.

And, as long as there are income limits (despite the hype, most people can't name one family farmer who lost theirs due to estate taxes, and many who lost their farm due to the practices of factory farms and the government programs that support THEM), I see nothing uncompassionate about retaining the estate tax.

Now, how is it that money for poor families is 'throwing money at a problem', but corporate subsidies are not?

And what does any of this have anything to do with the fact that Bush wasn't even aware of what was being done, or being undone, or simply NOT being done, because, promise or not, compassion wasn't exactly high on his agenda?

(And before 9/11 is invoked, it was 2 years before he asked, and what was he doing about his 'compassion agenda' for the 8 months BEFORE 9/11?)>

I have seen more than one family business go out of business after the loans necessary to pay the estate tax became too much for the firm to continue. It isn't just family farms, and no, I don't know one that did. Regardless, paying taxes on what was already taxed a least once, often more, is immoral.

Every well intentioned spending plan, regardless of how it was framed at first becomes out of control spending. I would like to know one that did not become political payback to some organization at some time.

People seem to forget the Democrats being unhappy or even shocked that Bush was keeping his promises after the first election.

His tax policy was compassionate, look at the economy, the stock market, unemployment.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot that I don't like, and there is lot that the Republican congress has done that I don't like. As for before 9/11 there was the "no child left behind act", the one crafted, God knows why, with Teddy Kenedy. Wasn't that compassionate? Maybe not to the teacher unions and the school administration and political appointees.

Unless reading from a decade old Democratic Party speaking points sheet, there isn't much Corporate subsidies anymore. Yes there are some things that reduce taxes but that is far more moral than income redistribution.

I would like less government and I would like not to have to take my shoes off before boarding a plane.

I had viewed/hoped that the term "compassionate conservative" was just a motto. True conservativism is compassionate.>

Stock market means nothing to the prosperity of lower income America. Especially since the perception of profit comes due to things like cuts in employees, benefits, and outsourcing.

And everyone already knows that the unemployment rates are a false measure, since anyone who goes through their benefits without finding a job simply falls of the radar, and aren't counted among the unemployed. Neither are those who haven't managed to get their first job, and therefore have no unemployment in the first place.

Unemployment percentages only count people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits or their 2 years of social services. If they never received those, or have gone through them and still aren't employed.. they just disappear, as far as the percentages are concerned.

And as far as alot of people are concerned.>

Something close to 90 percent of the people in the US owns stocks so the stock market does affect them.

I wasn't fond of the "no child left behind act" overall but if it stopped one social promotion it was a good act.

You don't qualify for "public housing" because of your level of benefits but because of your wages.

Regarding unemployment, those same old claims have been around for a while, except of course when a Democrat is in the White House and unemployment is low. I see a lot of "help wanted" signs up in places other than "fast food". If someone wants a job, there are jobs out there and the "earned income credit" which is a form of redistribution of wealth that needs some reform - not because it is bad but because it stops people from moving from lower paying jobs to higher ones due to the way it is structured - can help them over the short term.

Outsourcing has also shown to increase jobs here in the US, but like the truth of tax cuts, the press and the Democrats have no desire to mention that.>

Oh, and if you're going to say that the new prosperity in THOSE countries means new business, well.. if GMC makes people in Mexico richer so they can afford cars, then the new cars are likely to STILL be built in Mexico. Doesn't make sense that after building a plant in Mexico, that you'd service the new markets with factories elsewhere.>

Evan,

You later blogged:

"Something close to 90 percent of the people in the US owns stocks so the stock market does affect them."

Nope.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank s Survey of Consumer Finance, about half of all American households own stock.

President Bush even repeated these figures in his Jan. 6, 2003 speech to the Economic Club of Chicago.

Fifty percent, Evan, that's 50.

Of course, if you can provide evidence that an additional 40 percent of the American public owns, either directly or indirectly, stock, I strongly encourage you to offer such evidence.

Facts, Evan. They are a killer.

Opinions, they tend to carry about as much, or as little, weight as the facts used to support them.>

Sorry about the messed up italics. "There are two lessons..." are my words, not a quote from the second website.>

I have no idea whose statistics are trustworthy in the estate tax debate, but I'm going to throw in one anecdote by way of illustrating how the estate tax can affect the non-wealthy.

A man bought a farm in the 1940s. He died in the '70s and left the farm to his three sons, one of whom farmed it. Of that generation, one son and the widow of another are all who remain living. The next generation includes seven grandchildren of the original owner. I'm one of them. I am very definitely not a rich person, being a salaried IT worker in the higher ed sector.

But the estate tax is very important to me, because, due entirely to nearby development, including an interstate spur, ye olde familie farme is *potentially* worth a lot of money. To keep from having to sell it to pay the taxes when my father passed away five years ago, a large number of hours and estate-lawyer dollars have been expended. It will eventually have to be sold, because there are too many people involved to keep it intact. It's entirely possible that, purely because of tactics dictated by the attempt to keep the estate tax bill reasonable, I'll never see any of this money, although my children probably will.

I don't know how generalizable this sort of experience is. I would commonsensically guess that it is neither as widespread as some Republicans would have it nor as rare as some Democrats would say.>

And Evans, the one who made the claim above, admitted he had NEVER seen an instance where it had been a family farm, and did not include family farms in his assessment.

Once you don't want to farm anymore, all those 'non-cash assets' can be liquidated, and there's as much to spread around, assuming you don't deliberately use means to shelter the money, minus the estate tax, as there is for any wealthy person.

The concern was supposed to be for people losing businesses due to trying to pay off estate taxes. Not heirs who don't get as much money as they thought they would.>

I composed a reply to Kannbrown65 above, but apparently never got around to clicking 'publish,' as I don't see it here. The gist of what I wanted to say was: K65 provides an interesting glimpse into the mode of thinking that wants the tax to stay high, as he or she implies that neither I, nor my siblings and cousins, nor our children (that adds up to a couple of dozen people) really have a right to the buffer against the vagaries of fortune that the family land might one day supply to us. I, on the other hand, question the government's right to it.

But my main point is that (a) I'm not rich (b) my life is directly affected by the inheritance tax. I suspect that the dearth of farms and businesses sold to pay the tax is the result of the evasive actions of people who see that possibility coming and prepare for it.>

And the point is, those evasive actions are there, and available, for the ones it was intended for. Small business and family farm people.

Of course, the point was to KEEP the family farm a farm, or to run the business.

Inheritance was never really intended as a 'buffer'. It is a windfall. After all, you don't get it until someone dies, and I don't think emergencies are quite scheduled that way.

Again, nobody should be counting on an inheritance to make it, because what if what need to be buffered is in the life of the person who was supposed to give you that inheritance, and they use it for.. you know, themselves while they're still alive?

Nobody can count on any inheritance. Nobody knows (well, we hope not) when someone's going to die, or when the emergency that needs buffering will come.>

Sorry, kb65, but I'll have to assert my authority to determine what my point is. Perhaps I haven't made it well, as you certainly don't seem to have grasped it. Your apparent presumption that the family has no real right to the property and/or money involved makes you a really good poster child for Republicans who want to get rid of the tax altogether.>

There are, as has been pointed out, ways to preserve money AND property before death. Your own mother did so. You proved that the estate tax doesn't take away family farms.

And, again, to even qualify, you have to have at least 1.5 million dollars in assets, and that doesn't count what is given to a spouse or to charity.

If you disagree with taxes in general, because they somehow imply that a person doesn't own their own property, that is a different argument from claiming that it is somehow an excessive burden on people.

Since people shouldn't be living on a prospective inheritance, since nobody knows when it will come (we hope), it can't be burdening the heirs. It isn't causing the dismantling of family busineses or farms, you showed that yourself.

If you just don't like paying taxes, that's a whole other matter.>

You say that your family (the heirs, that is) have a right to the buffer that family land provides.

You have also stated that you still have the family land. So you still have that buffer. I fail to see how the estate tax has removed that from you. As for your 'right' to a buffer, my point is, as a practical note, no inheritance is ever any kind of 'buffer'.

A buffer is like a cushion from a blow that life might deal you. For a cushion to work, it has to be in place before the blow is given, to prevent, or at least soften it.

The point is, you have no idea when that inheritance will be yours. Given the lifespans of people, your mother may well outlive you, and it may never be available for you to use for any blows, except in the form of whatever she can give to you in person, and that has nothing to do with any 'estate'. That falls more under gift or loan.

So, land as some kind of buffer for heirs makes no sense whatsoever. An inheritance is never anything more than a windfall, since a person can NEVER, estate tax or not, count on it. Too many variables.

Will the owner (and again, the MOTHER is the owner, not you) die before you? Will she need to spend 'your inheritance' before she dies for her own needs? Will she even keep you in the will, or will it over to a home for indigent cats?

So, no. Heirs have no 'right' to ANY inheritance, because not only does the government not own a person's private property or funds, neither does a person's relatives.>

Examples of why inheritance is NOT a buffer. If you were to have an emergency now, you don't have access to that money. It can't buffer you. Even expected expenditures, like college for children, you can't count on it, because your mother could well be alive when your children go to college. Given lifespan increases, she could be alive when her GRANDCHILDREN go to college.

So how, exactly, can it be a 'buffer' if you have no idea if it'll be there when you actually need it?

Savings is a buffer. Assets you OWN currently can be buffers. Hard currency, your own real estate, etc. If you mother is in good terms, then you might be still able now to have her assets as a buffer, though that's her decision.

But you can't count a possible inheritance, when you don't know the amount, or the time it will be available not due to the big, mean government, but because of the nature of life, and the character of an inheritance.

So I fail to see what my politics or my worldview have to do with it. That would still be the case if there were no estate tax, or indeed, no taxes whatsoever.>

Oh, I do have a way for a 'buffer'. But it'd take (estate tax or not) lawyers too. Some form of trust fund, or, as the Brits used to do, have the land entailed.

Of course, if you were to do that, the only buffer would be the income the land could provide, since entailed land can't be sold.>