New York Times Editorial - What passes for good news
New York Times Editorial - What passes for good news
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: June 9, 2006
Any day in which the U.S. Congress refrains from doing something destructive is about as good as it gets in Washington lately. On Thursday, the Senate cleared that low bar when it rejected efforts to repeal the estate tax.
America is at war and the budget is so wildly out of balance that the government cannot pay its bills without borrowing money from foreign investors. The idea that this is a good moment to repeal a tax on people who inherit multimillion-dollar estates is mind-boggling. But Congress was on the brink of doing just that. America was saved from that fate when the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster by Democrats who were rightly horrified by the whole idea. The senators who deserve the most credit for saving the day, however, were George Voinovich of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Republicans who broke with their party to help block consideration of the repeal.
The majority leader, Bill Frist, on the other hand, appears convinced that the best way he can demonstrate his potential as a presidential candidate is to march the chamber through votes on all the most divisive and useless legislation moldering on the agenda - banning gay marriages, writing a prohibition of the nonexistent flag-burning problem into the Constitution, and eliminating a tax that applies only to the richest 1 percent of the population.
The estate tax certainly needs work. It currently exempts the first $4 million of a married couple's estate - or $2 million for an individual - and taxes anything beyond that at 46 percent. The exemptions go up to $3.5 million and $7 million by 2009, and the rate drops to 45 percent. Then in 2010, the tax is repealed entirely. In 2011 it reverts to 55 percent of everything over $1 million.
Congress could easily have rationalized the tax structure, while protecting small businesses and family farms. But that would have forced everyone to admit that there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay a tax when they inherit enormous fortunes. For this Senate, the bar doesn't go nearly that high.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: June 9, 2006
Any day in which the U.S. Congress refrains from doing something destructive is about as good as it gets in Washington lately. On Thursday, the Senate cleared that low bar when it rejected efforts to repeal the estate tax.
America is at war and the budget is so wildly out of balance that the government cannot pay its bills without borrowing money from foreign investors. The idea that this is a good moment to repeal a tax on people who inherit multimillion-dollar estates is mind-boggling. But Congress was on the brink of doing just that. America was saved from that fate when the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster by Democrats who were rightly horrified by the whole idea. The senators who deserve the most credit for saving the day, however, were George Voinovich of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Republicans who broke with their party to help block consideration of the repeal.
The majority leader, Bill Frist, on the other hand, appears convinced that the best way he can demonstrate his potential as a presidential candidate is to march the chamber through votes on all the most divisive and useless legislation moldering on the agenda - banning gay marriages, writing a prohibition of the nonexistent flag-burning problem into the Constitution, and eliminating a tax that applies only to the richest 1 percent of the population.
The estate tax certainly needs work. It currently exempts the first $4 million of a married couple's estate - or $2 million for an individual - and taxes anything beyond that at 46 percent. The exemptions go up to $3.5 million and $7 million by 2009, and the rate drops to 45 percent. Then in 2010, the tax is repealed entirely. In 2011 it reverts to 55 percent of everything over $1 million.
Congress could easily have rationalized the tax structure, while protecting small businesses and family farms. But that would have forced everyone to admit that there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay a tax when they inherit enormous fortunes. For this Senate, the bar doesn't go nearly that high.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 5:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home