Pomeroy Death Tax Bill, Opposed By 85% Of North Dakotans, Passes The House

Proof • December 4, 2009

It was a narrow victory with 26 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with a united Republican caucus against the bill, but it was a victory none-the-less.
And it had Pomeroy’s name on it.
So what has Pomeroy sponsoring bills 85% of his constituents oppose on the eve of what is looking to be a tough election year for him? Maybe he’s feeling confident in light of the fact that, to date, Republicans here at home have done nothing to hold Pomeroy accountable for his transgressions.
He voted for a very unpopular health care bill after holding no face-to-face town halls here in North Dakota about the issue. He’s backing a nice, fat bailout for union pension plans despite North Dakota being an anti-union “right to work” state. And now he’s voted for an estate tax heavily opposed by the agriculture industry which employs so many of his constituents.
And he gets away with it because Pomeroy’s opposition at this point, even as vulnerable as he may be in next year’s election, is essentially a vacuum.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array sayanything-203

I don’t favor any capital gains tax at all.

First of all, it is not indexed for inflation. And obviously, if you’re going to have the tax at all, it should be. Second, it is probably the single most destructive tax we have, with the “death tax” a close second. Both taxes provide stark disincentives to capital formation, economic growth, and employment. Disincentive we can ill afford.
sayanything-3960

You will find very little enthusiasm for the McCain/Graham/Specter/Snowe flavor of Republicanism here.

But you love the mavricky Palin. Or is the term now Roguey?

I am not in love with the estate tax. I would rather that there be NO EXEMPTION and it be handled as a capital gain tax. Nobody gets a step up in basis and the tax takes effect when the item is sold. This would take care of the problem of family farms being lost.

However, most of you didn’t even understand what I just wrote so I don’t take your opinion seriously anyways.
sayanything-3960

Maybe he is a Maverick. I thought you guys liked Mavericky behaviour.
sayanything-203

I have a problem with this for two reasons. One, the heir gets a windfall they don’t deserve and Two in gives an incentive for people to never sell their property while they are alive, which is bad for the economy.

Lioncourt,

Okay… let’s try this one.

Suggesting that an heir is getting “a windfall which they don’t deserve” is inserting your own, admittedly liberal moral judgment into a subject, taxation, in which such judgments don’t belong. Who’s to say which heirs “deserve” what? You? The federal government?

And why do you say they don’t “deserve” the inheritance, anyway? Because the heir didn’t actually earn it? You’ve suggested that an heir should be taxed only on the actual (indexed) gain. Then are you saying that the beneficiary deserves the “windfall” at its original value, but not the (indexed) gain? That makes even less sense. Please explain exactly what portion of the “windfall” the beneficiary deserves, and why, and what part is undeserved.

As for incentives, let me point you to the Bush tax rate cuts in 2003, specifically the cap gains and dividend income rate cuts. The effect of reducing the rate of taxation on both was to create incentives in the market, generating both more capital gains and more dividends. Fact is, the additional capital gains and dividends fostered by the tax rate cuts generated enough extra tax revenue to more than pay for the cuts… the same as happened when capital gais tax rates were cut during the Clinton administration. And as for dividends, all sorts of companies began paying out dividends to their stockholders, the most prominent of which was probably Microsoft, a company which nobody thought would ever pay a dividend.

Reducing tax rates, or eliminating a tax altogether doesn’t encourage less of the activity as you’ve suggested , but more. Reduced taxes on cap gains, dividends, and estates or small businesses will only encourage more economic activity in those areas, not less, a fact which was also proven with both the Bush and Clinton tax rate cuts.
sayanything-9974

how many times must the government tax our money. The tax tax everything and then they tax you when you are dead. Iwonder how long before some neo-com just says hell with the death tax – we will just confiscate all property upon death. I bet the Kennedy family has loopholes to protect themselves from losing Teddy’s wealth. The Government needs to stick with tasks mandated under the constitution and stay out of EVERYTHING else.
brain trust

Don’t forget that he voted for Pelosi’s stimulus package that was shredded in the Senate because of it’s extreme cost. He is nothing but a yes man for Pelosi. He has to go.
http://fu.com/ robert108

“Why should money earned through investment be worth more than money earned through labor?”

The very fact that you ask this question disqualifies you for serious economic discussion, LC. Labor earnings are created by investment. Without the investment in capital equipment, labor is worth much less than it is when capital is applied to it. Compare how much value is produced by one person making shoes by hand, with simple tools, to how much value is produced by that same person running a big, expensive shoe manufacturing machine. Investment income is the result of producing economic growth, and is far more valuable than simply punching a timeclock.

Without investment, all labor is subsistence only.
sayanything-203

When you inherit property for tax purposes you take it at its current value, not at the value that it was purchased at. So all capital gains are lost at the death of the benefactor.

Lioncourt,

First of all, the difference between the current value of the asset and its value at the time of purchase is certainly a gain. But it is an unrealized gain. My estate is worth no more or less on the day after I die than it was on the day of my death. I don’t agree that such an unrealized gain should be taxed. If the estate is sold before being distributed, however, then that would be a different situation since the gains would be realized at the time of the sale.

Second, let me suggest that the very same argument you’ve used in favor of taxing unrealized capital gain, is the one many of us would use in reverse in arguing for indexing of all capital gains. After all, the measure you would use to quantify the gains, the US dollar, will, in most cases, have diminished itself in value.

Let’s say I own an asset, a valuable piece of fine art. It was worth $25,000 back when I acquired it. Now, 20 years later, it is valued at $75,000. Clearly, the capital gain on which I would be taxed is $50,000. But if inflation has averaged 2.5% over that same 20 year period, and the dollar is worth less than one third of what it was when I bought the piece, then it may have appreciated in nominal terms, but in real terms, terms of actual purchasing power, the piece hasn’t appreciated at all and the gain you would tax me on is illusory, a phantom on a ledger sheet.

And that’s why cap gains should be indexed.
http://www.facebook.com/rick.jensen1 facebook-1440776965

It appears to me he doesn’t care or even give the resemblance of respecting the wishes of the majority of North Dakotans. Time to say bye bye Earl!
sayanything-3960

I am actually against it also. It should be counted as income.

Why should money earned through investment be worth more than money earned through labor?
sayanything-106

We need to have a list of all the blunders that Earl has committed lately and use them against him when he runs for his next term.
sayanything-203

But you love the mavricky Palin.

I hadn’t hear the term applied to Ms. Palin before. Is that your own invention?
sayanything-3960

I could live with that… with the indexing provision, of course.

I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about the indexing, but I imagine it is fair.

My problem with people who say they want to get rid of the estate tax is that they never understand how inheritance works. When you inherit property for tax purposes you take it at its current value, not at the value that it was purchased at. So all capital gains are lost at the death of the benefactor. I have a problem with this for two reasons. One, the heir gets a windfall they don’t deserve and Two in gives an incentive for people to never sell their property while they are alive, which is bad for the economy.

In the past it may have been difficult to take into account the “tax basis” of when things were bought many years ago. But today, in my opinion there should be no change in the tax basis of property upon inheritance and it should be treated either as income or capital gains taxes.
Lioncourt

I have no problem with indexing the capital gain. We should only be taxing the actual income.
http://fu.com/ robert108

Sarah is not a “maverick”, LC. She is a true American conservative.
jimmypop

huh? hes going 100% with his party on these. just like a good little puppy.

and as we all know, nobody in the gop in ND can take him out. why should he care?
sayanything-203

I could live with that… with the indexing provision, of course.

If I bought stick in a “little fruit company” years ago that is now worth a gazillion dollars because of all the I-phones and I-pods it’s selling, i should only pay taxes on that stock when I actually sell it… not on an so-called “imputed” gains along the way.
sayanything-203

Its those of you on the Left who are so approving of “mavericks.” At least when they cross the aisle from the Right to the Left, that is. Go back and do some research, counselor. You will find very little enthusiasm for the McCain/Graham/Specter/Snowe flavor of Republicanism here.
sayanything-6955

The vacuum is shrinking, albeit slowly, it is shrinking. The votes he has made this year alone should be enough to derail him.
sayanything-101

Little Lord Pomeroid loves death taxes since he has been living off of them most of his life and hopes to always live off of them until he dies.
All of his family is on the public payroll, so he doesn’t worry about what will happen to them when he dies.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Pomeroy Death Tax Bill, Opposed By 85% Of North Dakotans, Passes The House

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments