Tax Breaks = Oil CEOs $200 Million,+ Bush Cabinet $300 Mill.

[manic mechanic]

Whole lotta back scrathin goin on!! They may need flea collars

Tax Breaks for Oil CEOs Could Mean $200 Million
May 31, 2006 2:44 PM

Joseph Rhee Reports:

Repealing the federal estate tax could benefit the families of six top oil company executives by more than $200 million, according to a report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform.

Waxman's report estimates that the family of former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a controversial $400 million retirement package, could get a tax break worth over $160 million if the estate tax is eliminated.

Waxman says repealing the estate tax mostly benefits the wealthy and would "cost the government $1 trillion over the next ten years."

In previous reports, Waxman calculated that, when taken as a whole, the families of Bush cabinet members would benefit by more than $300 million.

Proponents of the repeal argue that the estate tax hurts family farms and small businesses because it applies to estates worth over $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples.

The House passed legislation to permanently repeal the estate tax in April 2005. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure as early as next week.

Link: Click here to read Rep. Waxman's report: "Analysis: Estimated Estate Tax Savings of Oil Company CEOs"
http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...1918-13677.pdf

Link: Click here to read Rep. Waxman's report: "Fact Sheet: Estimated Tax Savings of Bush Cabinet if the Repeal of the Estate Tax Is Made Permanent"
http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...5752-86520.pdf

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...eaks_for_.html

[Brickboy240]

Henry Waxman...who really IS Henry Waxman? Let's lok at what Henry Waxman (Democrat, CA) voted for and against as to give us a better picture of who he is and how much credibility we need to give the man...ok?

Here we go...

Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 199

Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 199

Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)

Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)

Voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)

Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)

Voted NO on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)

Ok, so this is long but its better than many here would do, by only saying Waxman is a typical leftist. Now you all know who he is and what he supports...this ought to help everyone rate this leftist bastard or some might think hes the greatest..I don't know. He's a self-loathing wealthy limousine leftist, cut form the same cloth as Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, if you ask me. Almost zero credibility as well.

Yep ol commerade Waxman detests anyone getting abreak on taxation, because in his eyes, you all are still not paying enough. Got it?

Alright you class warriors...I have a question for you. What does Lee Raymond's tax break REALLY mean to you? How does his tax bill affect your daliy life? Your future? Your job? My guess is very little or not at all (until some other class warriors brought it up...you probably knew nothing about it).

So...why fret over it? Wanna bet that Bill Gates and the CEO for Wal Mart got a bigger tax cut? Wanna bet they still payed many more times the taxes you and I did?

Don't sweat it. The wealthy are STILL paying the lions share of the income tax burden in this country - count on it. For some strange reason, that ought ot make some of you feel better...now doesn't it?

- Brickboy240

[beardman2]

"cost the government $1 trillion over the next ten years."

Costs the government? It's not their friggin money!!! This crap pisses me off so much. Ohh the big bad oil man made it big and got rich. boohooo. How about we start limiting how much people can make. I think programmers should be limited to 30K a year. That would drive software prices down and enable me to afford better/newer software. While were at it lets set price limits on everything as well. That way we are sure people can afford the things they want.

Isn't that communism!? Someone help me out here.

[VTJames]

Hmmm, I think this article by Thoman Sowell is pertinent to this discussion:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...01/199425.html

[quote]The New York Times of May 21 featured estimates of how much revenue the federal government is losing as a result of tax cuts, more than $50 billion over a five-year period. Meanwhile, a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal reported the government as receiving "a surge in unanticipated revenue coming from the rich."

There is no contradiction between these two stories. The Times reported estimates, while the Wall Street Journal reported what actually happened. Moreover, there is no real difference in outlook between the writers who wrote these two stories.

To the Wall Street Journal writer, the increased tax revenue from "the rich" was "a windfall for the U.S. Treasury."

There has long been a difference in outlook between the reporters who write up the news for the Wall Street Journal and those who write the same newspaper's editorial page. If the reporter thinks that the increased revenue to the Treasury was "unanticipated," that suggests that she has not been reading the editorial pages of her own newspaper.


For years -- indeed, decades -- the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has repeatedly been arguing that cutting tax rates increases tax revenues. Nor did this idea originate with them. There is a whole school of economists who have been saying the same thing even longer.

There is nothing "unanticipated" about the increased revenue. It was unanticipated by the Congressional Budget Office's estimates but that is why the CBO has come under fire from economists. But apparently none of this has yet registered on the Wall Street Journal's front page reporter.

More than 40 years ago, President John F. Kennedy got Congress to cut tax rates, with the idea that this would provide incentives to change economic behavior in a way that would increase economic growth and individual incomes, and therefore lead to even more tax revenue coming into the Treasury than had been the case under the higher tax rates. That is exactly what happened.

Years later, Ronald Reagan made the same argument and his "tax cuts for the rich" produced the same result. Tax receipts during every year of the 1980s were higher than they had ever been in any year before. Moreover, taxes paid specifically by "the rich" were higher than before, because their incomes rose so much as the economy boomed that they paid more total taxes despite the reduced tax rate.

How surprised should we be that exactly the same thing has happened after tax cuts under the Bush administration? Apparently very surprised if we were front-page reporters for the Wall Street Journal.

Given the steeply "progressive" tax rates, most of the taxes paid are paid by people in income brackets that liberals choose to call "the rich," though that label would probably come as some surprise to many people in those brackets. Therefore any serious reductions in tax rates will necessarily directly affect them most.

The point, however, is not simply to move money around but to change behavior in a way that will result in more economic activity. Tax cuts have a long track record of doing that, resulting in rising national incomes and rising employment.

But there is no way that some people are ever going to admit that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are tax cuts for the economy. As far as they are concerned, this is all just an excuse to "give" something to the rich, in hopes that it will "trickle down" to the lower income brackets.

A year ago this column defied anyone to quote any economist -- in government, academia, or anywhere else outside an insane asylum -- who had ever argued in favor of a "trickle down theory."

Many people quoted David Stockman as saying that others had made that argument. But David Stockman was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim. What is crucial is that not one of those who made the claim could provide a single quote from anybody who had advocated a "trickle-down theory."

The "trickle down theory" has been a stock phrase on the left for decades and yet not one of those who denounce it can find anybody who advocated it. The tenacity with which they cling to these catchwords shows how desperately they need them, if only to safeguard their vision of the world and of themselves.


Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.

[quote]

[mgeoffriau]

Excellent. Thomas Sowell does a great job nailing this issue.

[NewXD40fun]

I think Mr. manic mechanic is a die-hard labor union man so the article he posted is typical labor union populist demagoguery. Labor union propaganda is mostly based on Marxist ideals of 'social justice' or, in other words, the Robin-Hood syndrome of taking from the rich and giving to the AFL-CIO..

I'll never understand the Left's hatred for rich people, don't they realize that if you allow the government confiscation of earned income from the rich because they are rich will only lead to taking earned income from the not-so-rich, and that will lead to taking earned income form the not-so-not-so-rich, and that will......

Class envy and class warfare is morally wrong.




tom

[bd1]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Class envy and class warfare is morally wrong.

tom

You forgot to add:

War is peace
Ignorance is strength
Freedom is slavery.

(The fear in your eyes is obvious.)


bd

[Brickboy240]

You left out the imcome tax...thats morally wrong as well.

Walter Williams wrote a brilliant piece years ago about the immorality of taxation (quoting a black man? not a racist thing to do eh?) he was dead on and made some great points.

The above piece by Dr. Sowell was brilliant, but all that falls on deaf ears most of the time.

Deosn't really matter, the rich are still paying more than you do in income taxes, soall you class warriors should feel all warm and fuzzy and sleep well, knowing this. Its amazing what keeps you people going.

- Brickboy240