Reading an article from The Hill I am once again struck by the twisted thinking that goes on in Liberal Democrat's minds.This is about the estate tax aka death tax where our government claims the right to take (Insert percentage)of a person's inheritance after someone dies and leaves their fortune to that person if that fortune is more than (Insert amount).
IRS's explanation:
The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.
In the tax deal that Obama negotiated with congressional Republicans, there was a deal reached tax 35 percent of any estate left to heirs that equaled more than $5 million. (The 35 percent would be taxed on anything over the $5 million)
House Democrats and the whole liberal blogosphere went nuts over that provision because they feel the government should take 45 percent for all estates worth more than $3.5 million. (The 45 percent would be taxed on anything over the $3.5 million)
There is the background and here is what I read in The Hill today:
Democratic leaders have assailed the GOP-favored estate tax provision as a needless gift to the wealthy, calling it the most egregious part of the Obama proposal. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the House Democrats’ chief negotiator on the tax deal, said Wednesday the lower estate tax rate would add $23 billion to the deficit while benefiting just 6,600 American families.
There is so much wrong with that paragraph on so many levels I almost do not know where to start.
So, I will start with the phrase "needless gift."
Only in the twisted logic of a liberal is letting people keep their own money, left to them by a family member or friend, considered a "gift."
So, if you head over to your neighbors house and steal only 35 percent of their property instead of taking 45 percent of their property you are giving them a gift by oh so generously allowing them to keep 65 percent of their own property?
WTF?
Then we move on to Van Hollen''s other statement where he claims, outright, that by not stealing another 10 percent of someones inheritance it is adding to our deficit?
No no no no... wrong.
That isn't their money to begin with, it belongs to someone else, it isn't adding to anything. It is simply not allowing Peter to steal more from Paul to pay his bills.
What the hell is wrong with these people where not stealing as much as you could steal is considered a gift and stealing less than you could steal is considered adding debt?
That is freaking twisted.
Newsflash- When you spend money, you are adding to your debt. When you borrow money, you are adding to the debt.
When you take money that doesn't belong to you to pay for those debts, you are a thief.
(Changes were made to this post)