Then you die.

And guess what? The wealth you leave behind will be taxed if your estate is worth one million dollars or greater. The Government calls it Estate Taxes the rest of us call it Death Taxes.

If you have a dark sense of humor read the following excuses the Progressive Liberals (read as; Socialists) use to justify the Death Tax;

It only effects large estates (one million dollars is not a large estate)
If we did not have the Death Tax many billions in tax revenue would be lost every year by the Federal Government (and this should bother us because?)
That it really isn’t a tax on wealth but a transfer tax (they have got to be kidding)
The Death Tax prevents the creation of a class of the idle rich (but wait, we already have a class of idle rich and it is full of liberals)
AND, my personal favorite; the tax prevents a disincentive to work for those who inherit
In other words Wealthy Socialists, and there are plenty of them in the House and Senate, don’t want YOU to become wealthy through accumulated wealth and they want to keep YOUR HEIRS working so they will be productive and help the Wealthy Socialists get wealthier and more powerful. They would like you to think these taxes effect only the very wealthy, but the “idle rich class” of liberals sheltered their fortunes long ago and the very rich have all manner of accountants and lawyers to protect them. The truth is they pay very little in taxes.

Socialist societies depend upon three classes of people: The Idle Poor Socialists, The Working Serfs and The Idle Rich Socialists. The Idle Rich Socialists make sure that the Idle Poor Socialists get hand-outs from them using YOUR MONEY, even after you die. Socialism is really nothing more than an advanced form of Feudalism, once a taxpayer understands that they know that they are just another Serf working for the Idle Rich Socialists.

And just to make sure they get their money there is also a Gift Tax and a U.S. Generational-Skipping Transfer Tax which is a tax on gifts and trust transfers to for instance, your grandchildren or an unrelated person who is more than thirty seven and a half years younger than you – this tax is imposed if the gift or estate tax is somehow avoided through the transfer process.

Plus Estate Taxes are calculated on the entire estate, not the part each individual inherits. So if the estate is worth three million dollars and six people inherit $500,000 each, guess what? You still pay the tax. If it were truly a transfer tax, and not a tax on the deceased as the liberals claim, then to my mind the part of the estate each person inherits would be addressed separately.

Oh, and let’s not forget the State Inheritance and/or Estate Taxes. Many states have this tax (Kentucky has both an inheritance and estate tax) and if you are unfortunate enough to live in a state that does, you get to pay even more in death taxes.

Let’s face it one million dollars does not qualify you as a member of the “idle rich.”One million dollars used to be a lot of money, but many people are now worth one million dollars or more on paper. (The one million dollar threshold has never been adjusted for inflation.)

For instance, most businesses in the United States are small businesses and many are worth well over one million dollars. But if you leave that business to your heirs chances are they will have to pay taxes on it and they may have to sell the business in order to do so because there may not be enough cash on hand to cover the taxes which are a whopping 55%.

And apparently the I.R.S. thinks Estate Taxes are profitable for the government. According to Wikipedia;

“Estate tax lawyers are the most productive tax law enforcement personnel at the I.R.S., according to Brown. For each hour they work, they find an average of $2,200 of taxes that people owe the government.” (Quote source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States)

Now here is the kicker and no one is talking about it because, let’s face it, we have been a bit pre-occupied with TARP, healthcare, Cap & Trade, and a whole host of other Socialist agenda items lately;

“Congress has passed tax laws that have made numerous, temporary changes to both the estate tax rate and the exemption amount. Since 2002, the top rate has decreased incrementally from 50%, and the exemption amount has increased incrementally from $1 million. In 2009 the rate is 45% and the exemption amount is $3.5 million. On January 1, 2010 a “one year repeal” of the tax is scheduled to be effectuated by a temporary, one-year-only rate of 0%, but on January 1, 2011 the estate tax is scheduled to return at a top rate of 55% and the exemption amount is scheduled to drop back down to $1.0 million.” (Source; Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States )

So folks there was this small window of opportunity and it ends in 2010 (HISTORICAL REMINDER; This Estate Tax window of opportunity as well as the income tax cuts that also will be ending was provided to us by the Republicans in Congress before they lost the majority) But let’s face it, we aren’t all going to die in 2010 so this one year exemption doesn’t do us much good.

What can we do?

Well, we could ask a conservative GOP House member to introduce an elimination of the tax altogether, but chances of it passing in the Pelosi House of Progressives is probably nil.

We could include the elimination of the Death Tax as an issue item that we seek a position statement on from our elected representatives during the 2010 elections. Then if we get a like-minded majority in the House, we could help draft legislation for its elimination.

If that’s not possible, we could seek a much higher tax threshold on the tax, let’s say $20 million and exempt all inherited small businesses, no matter their value from the tax.

If you have any suggestions on this issue, please share your thoughts with us. We might just be able to come up with a workable answer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Naomi G. Goldberg: ‘Save for Retirement Week’ Rings Hollow for Gay and Lesbian Couples (huffingtonpost.com)
• Limited Tax Reform for Economic Stimulus (themoderatevoice.com)
• Wealth Transfer Via Bank of Mom & Dad (online.wsj.com)
• An easier estate tax and extenders (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Don Boyd, “A Performance Calendar (for El Djerrida)” (netnewmusic.net)
• Death and Taxes 2010 (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Business, Estate & Tax Planning Presentation (slideshare.net)
• Tax Day Looms for Americans With Offshore Bank Accounts (nytimes.com)
• Rich Americans Scrambling Over Tax Dodge Crackdown (huffingtonpost.com)
• Business groups support estate taxes (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)

A book review By D.

As a fan of the “Little House” books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, Laura is someone I always admired. Some really terrible things happened to Laura over the course of her young life, yet she persevered and “poor but happy” seemed to be her mantra in life. No matter how bad things were Laura didn’t seem to let it get her down.

Reading Sarah Palin’s book “Going Rogue, An American Life” reminded me of Laura Ingalls. I think Sarah Palin is as close to a modern day Laura Ingalls as you can get. And I believe that is why she in part, like Laura, is so admired. While Palin denies in her book that her life is like “Little House on the Tundra” that’s the way it came across to me.

The book did not strike me as all that political in nature. Although I think there was definitely an undercurrent need to explain to her readers her side of the story as far as the criticism she has received from the liberals. But why bother? Supporters will continue to support, no matter what, and detractors will continue to detract, no matter what.

One thing I believe I gained from this book is a firmer grasp of her personal seemingly unapologetic conservative philosophy. But the most important part of the book for me is on page 46 in the second paragraph. Palin is explaining what she admired about Ronald Reagan. Palin’s description of his appeal to her actually succeeded in explaining her own appeal to Conservatives;

“I appreciated Reagan’s passion and conviction, and the way he so plainly articulated his love for our country. Like millions of others, I related to him personally-he was one of us. I liked him, and I liked the fact that he was never afraid to call it as he saw it.”

When I read it, I smiled because if we took the name “Reagan” and the word “he” out of the paragraph and substituted name “Palin” and the word “she” it seems to me we could perfectly define her appeal to the millions.

While it is not the type of book I would normally read, I’m glad I read this one because of page 46 – I realize that Americans need to believe in their leaders and in order to do so they need to identify with them, apparently Palin, like Reagan, realizes that too.

Palin proves to me that Americans still love pioneers like Laura Ingalls, most of them love solid folks who share their beliefs, speak plain and have the courage of their convictions. Understanding Palin’s continued success, despite their best efforts to bring her down, will continue to elude the liberals because she seems to understand what they do not; the way most Americans think.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin’s Magical Mystery Book Tour: Birth or Death of a Serious Presidential Candidacy? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Sarah Palin biography blitz hits talk shows (ctv.ca)
• Has the base found it’s champion? (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)
• Matthew Continetti: Can Sarah Palin Make a Comeback? (online.wsj.com)
• Matt Osborne: Palin-Bachmann Syndrome™ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Palin kicks off book tour with Oprah slot (guardian.co.uk)

Every Democrat’s political bag of tricks contains an idiot card that reads: “The mean-spirited Republicans are out to cut your Social Security.” Idiots have been getting elected for years using that fear-mongering card. Ahh, there is nothing like the politics of fear. The real mean-spiritedness is in scaring old people for votes.

Here’s another one of my favorite political utterances: “We definitely need to reform Social Security.”

How many times have we heard that one?

The liberal politicians can’t…or I should say won’t…directly address the issue, so the only solution they could come up with is death panels that cut your health care. Remember, the faster you die, the less Social Security you collect. Why do you think the death panels are so important to the Democrats, who promised to remove the panels, only to put them right back into the health care legislation again? It is the only way for them to cut your Social Security without actually saying why they are doing it.

Very few people seem to have noticed this very important point that is left out of the current health care legislation debate by the liberals and mainstream media for obvious political reasons. If a Social Security recipient’s lifespan is cut by 10 years, not only will the government be saving money on your healthcare, but they will have also saved paying out a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Social Security. Excuse the pun, but by denying us healthcare and deciding when we die, they kill two birds with one stone and they tell us it is in our best interest. I propose we stop them from gambling on us dying and start approaching the situation from the viewpoint of the living.

While the Democrats have come up with a unique approach – Kill off old people by denying them health care and giving them death panels, I think we conservatives can do better than “murder by neglect,” don’t you?

O.K. let’s propose a solution. Let’s reform it…and I don’t mean bandages. I mean major surgery.

Just think, if we address the issue and devise a real solution, we might be able to die from natural causes.

But, before we propose a solution, let’s briefly take a look at Social Security;

It was started in 1935 by FDR as part of his New Deal. The constitutionality of it was challenged, but the proponents of Social Security got around it because the funds were paid as general taxes, not “earmarked.”

And speaking of constitutionality, the Supreme Court also ruled in 1960 that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.” To my mind that means it is just a tax, not an entitlement program for which there is NO promise of future payment. In other words, we are FORCED to pay into Social Security, but the government doesn’t have to pay you Social Security in return. People should really think hard on that one. Social Security IS NOT an entitlement program.

According to Wikipedia(all quotes referenced from link listed above), the first recipient of Social Security did very well, as do all who are in at the beginning of a ponzi scheme:

“The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.”

Since then, Social Security has been paying out more and more:

“In 1940, benefits paid totaled $35 million. These rose to $961 million in 1950, $11.2 billion in 1960, $31.9 billion in 1970, $120.5 billion in 1980, and $247.8 billion in 1990 (all figures in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation). In 2004, $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries. In 2009, nearly 51 million Americans will receive $650 billion in Social Security benefits.”

They also lied about how much in taxes you would have to pay. According to a 1936 pamphlet on the Social Security website, the federal government promised the following maximum level of taxation for Social Security:

“… beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.” However, by the year 2008, the tax rate was 6.2% each for the employer and employee, and the maximum income level that was subject to the tax was $102,000, raising the bar to $6,324 maximum contribution by both employee and employer (total $12,468.)”

Yep…and if you are self-employed, you pay both portions of the Social Security tax – that would be the whole $12,468.

Of course Social Security also covers dependent children and pays out a very small death benefit. The death benefit should disappear completely and covering dependent children should be dealt with as a separate matter.

Now the Baby Boomers are retiring and, ironically, those Boomers, the ones who have paid the most into the Social Security and Medicare System, are about to be treated to the liberals’ ultimate cost-saving solution: death panels. Remember, the Supreme Court has ruled we are not entitled to these so-called “entitlement programs.”

So, the question is: What can we do about the largest portion of Social Security, the retirement benefit? We have some excellent ideas. Join us as we work together to propose REAL solutions for REAL Change at The BiG BridGe .