[IMC-Boston-Editorial] Column from United for a Fair Economy on the federal budget and the upcoming estate tax repeal vote

[Sofia JarrinT]

here you go:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/boston-editorial/2006-April/0406-5l.html


--- Betsy Leondar-Wright
<bleondar-wright at faireconomy.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> Would you be interested in running this column by
> Mike Lapham?
> Please let me know.
> Regards, 
> Betsy Leondar-Wright
> 
> 
> A trillion good reasons to keep the estate tax
> By Mike Lapham
> 
> My grandparents and great-grandparents paid the
> estate tax when they passed
> along the family business. Some decade soon, my own
> parents will.
> 
> With hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of
> dollars to gain, I should
> be cheering for the proposal coming before the
> Senate in May to do away with
> the estate tax, which applies only to multimillion
> dollar inheritances.
> 
> Instead, I¹m organizing wealthy members of
> Responsible Wealth to oppose
> repeal of the estate tax. As multi-millionaires, we
> have benefited
> handsomely from all that our country provides:
> public education, roads,
> clean water, legal protection, research funding and
> public safety, just for
> starters.
> 
> One Responsible Wealth member, Martin Rothenberg,
> grew up using the public
> library, went to school on the GI Bill, received a
> government fellowship,
> and built a $30 million software company using
> publicly-funded research and
> publicly-educated employees. ³I hope the taxes on my
> estate will help fund
> the kind of programs that benefited me and others
> from humble backgrounds,²
> he says.
> 
> Given the choice to be taxed or not, we all tend to
> choose not. That¹s just
> human nature. But we have to look at the wider
> implications of what we ask
> our elected officials to do for us.
> 
> In 2001, when Congress voted to phase out and repeal
> the estate tax, the
> federal treasury was expecting a $5 trillion
> surplus. Times have changed,
> however. Now there¹s over $8 trillion in federal
> debt.
> 
> There are a trillion good reasons to retain the
> estate tax in the years to
> come. Permanently abolishing the estate tax would
> cost almost $1 trillion in
> the first ten years.
> 
> I believe our country has higher priorities for $1
> trillion than giving
> families like mine a huge tax break.
> 
> Besides our existing $8 trillion debt, consider some
> of the additional
> expenditures coming down the pike.
> 
> The Iraq War will continue to be costly in both
> human lives and money. Nobel
> Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his
> coauthor Linda Bilmes
> estimate a total budgetary cost of between $750
> billion and $1.27 trillion.
> 
> In late 2003, Congress passed an expansion of the
> Medicare prescription drug
> benefit. The Center for Medicare and Medical
> Services projects a ten-year
> cost of $797 billion.
> 
> Congressional leaders have pledged to abolish the
> Alternative Minimum Tax
> (AMT) for individuals, especially as an estimated 30
> million taxpayers will
> pay the AMT by 2010. Eliminating the AMT will reduce
> federal revenues by
> $611 to $790 billion over ten years.
> 
> The Republican leadership in Congress would like to
> extend the tax cuts they
> passed in 2001 and 2003.  The cost of this extension
> would be $1 trillion in
> lost revenue over ten years.
> 
> Estate tax repeal, combined with these other
> expenditures, would balloon our
> national debt in the coming decade. With lighter and
> lighter taxation of
> wealthy asset-owners like my family each year, more
> tax dollars would come
> out of the pockets of working Americans. In this
> context, considering estate
> tax repeal is fiscally and morally irresponsible.
> 
> A new poll shows that most Americans agree. Voters
> chose keeping the estate
> tax as one of the two best ways to reduce the budget
> deficit. Almost
> three-quarters support reforming the tax or leaving
> it intact rather than
> repealing it.
> 
> In a society where the economic rules are strongly
> tilted in favor of the
> haves at the expense of the have-nots, where tax
> laws give generous
> loopholes to the wealthiest among us, the occasion
> of passing on wealth to
> the next generation is an appropriate time to tax
> our accumulated fortunes.
> Most of the appreciated value of these assets has
> never been taxed.
> 
> The choice is whether to remove a tax on estates of
> more than $3.5 million,
> affecting only the 6,000 wealthiest individuals who
> die each year.
> Responsible Wealth members believe that a fair tax
> system, fiscal
> responsibility, and priorities like healthcare and
> education are better
> choices than lining the pockets of our progeny.
> 
> I could be sitting back hoping my parents¹ estate
> won¹t be subject to the
> estate tax. Instead, I¹m hoping the majority of U.S.
> Senators understand
> what many of them don¹t: that we in the richest one
> percent can and should
> pay this very fair tax, as an appropriate way for us
> to give back and create
> opportunities for others.
> 
> Mike Lapham (mlapham at responsiblewealth.org) is
> Director of the Responsible
> Wealth project of United for a Fair Economy.
> 
> 706 words
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Betsy Leondar-Wright
> Communications Director, United for a Fair Economy
> (617) 423-2148 x113
> 29 Winter Street
> Boston, MA 02108
> http://www.FairEconomy.Org
> 
> 
> United for a Fair Economy is an independent national
> organization
> that raises awareness of the damaging consequences
> of concentrated
> wealth and power.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston-editorial mailing list
> Boston-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-editorial
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com