"we're good at growing hogs, and we ought to be selling our hogs all across the world."

June 8, 2002 2:57 AM

"we're good at growing hogs, and we ought to be selling our hogs all across the world." Bush stumps at Pork Party about nixing the Estate Tax.
posted by crasspastor (33 comments total)

I see some potential to combine the sale of pork products all across the world with the war on terror. I just need help with the details.
posted by Dick Paris at 3:07 AM on June 8, 2002

We could threaten to drop 100 billion tons of hog bellies, fatback and pig's feet on Mecca unless they start being nice to us.
posted by groundhog at 3:38 AM on June 8, 2002

Bush is involved with pork products he is a member of the Spam Conspiracy
posted by stbalbach at 6:51 AM on June 8, 2002

The end of the estate tax is worrying, actually - it's meant to keep the country from being an aristocracy. Obviously bush would be against it (& that), but it's still upsetting to see how he frames it.
posted by mdn at 7:15 AM on June 8, 2002

I don't think there should be any cut in estate taxes or capital gains taxes without repealing or raising the celing on payroll taxes. Then the FICA and Medicaid rates on lower income workers could be reduced, providing them with some real tax relief. And the gains the top-crusters would realize would perhaps secure their agreement to such a scheme.

I guess I'd be more likely to catch a greased-up hog than see this happen, though.
posted by crunchburger at 7:38 AM on June 8, 2002

Estate tax termination doesn't seem to be one of the things the administration is really spending much time worrying about. It is, however, a topic that will be of great interest to most farmers, most of whose holdings will be subject to the tax, and whose businesses tend to operate at slim margins, making the estate tax a problem.
posted by dhartung at 9:01 AM on June 8, 2002

The end of the estate tax is worrying, actually - it's meant to keep the country from being an aristocracy.

If that's what it's meant to do it's been a huge failure as there are still plenty of multi-generational wealthy families out there. Hell, my congressman is a member of one. Furthermore, if that is what it's meant for (which I tend to doubt) then that is a further reason to repeal it. Taxation exists to fund government, not to shape society based on the ideals of the authors of the tax code.

Obviously bush would be against it (& that), but it's still upsetting to see how he frames it.

The way he frames it is to address those who are most directly affected, that is income poor but estate "rich" people like farmers who are hardest hit by this tax.
posted by ljromanoff at 9:14 AM on June 8, 2002

from Citizens for Tax Justice:

Farmers & small businesses: The family farmer is the poster child of the anti-estate-tax movement, but the truth is that less than one in 20 farmers leaves a taxable estate.
Even for the small number of farm estates that do pay any tax, the typical tax payment is only about $5,000. Only 0.5% of total estate taxes is attributable to farm assets.

Also on the site is a chart (scroll to middle) showing the percentage of the estate tax that actually came from farm assets vs. other sources, based on IRS figures from 1995.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:22 AM on June 8, 2002

The estate tax? I think we should put an end to inheritance. Why do some people deserve to be born rich? People like George W. just shouldn't happen. If a person wants to work really really hard to become rich, fine -- but why should their lazy children benefit from it?
posted by Eamon at 10:14 AM on June 8, 2002

This is great propoganda, too. Poor folks are apparently engaging the rich in "left-wing class warfare." Life is so unfair!
posted by Eamon at 10:18 AM on June 8, 2002

Eamon wrote: "... If a person wants to work really really hard to become rich, fine -- but why should their lazy children benefit from it?..."

Don't we all benefit from people who work really really hard? But what motivation would these hard working people have if they couldn't pass on the fruits of their labor to their children and grandchildren?

Capitalism produces wealth. Socialism produces poverty. This is the biggest lesson of the 20th century.

Anyway Eamon, what's it to you if their children benefit from it? Your jealousy and envy are appalling.
posted by mikegre at 10:58 AM on June 8, 2002

But what motivation would these hard working people have if they couldn't pass on the fruits of their labor to their children and grandchildren?

Having a cubic ass-load of money, right now.
posted by crunchburger at 11:15 AM on June 8, 2002

Actually, it is the inheritance of power, not money, that I object to. Unfortunately, the two cannot be separated in this society.

I didn't grow up around that many wealthy people. I guess we weren't living in the same capitalist society George Bush is. Jealousy and envy? More like disgust and disenchantment.

Like my father, I'm working very hard for my son right now... and when he's an adult, he gets to work hard for his own family. I plan on leaving leaving my children a sense of justice and compassion. It won't get them as far as money would, but it will make them better people.
posted by Eamon at 11:20 AM on June 8, 2002

Don't we all benefit from people who work really really hard? But what motivation would these hard working people have if they couldn't pass on the fruits of their labor to their children and grandchildren?

I guess the ideal would be that the inheritance of everyone would be combined, and every american would receive their share at say, 25. So then everyone would have an equal chance to put that money to good use, & people would be motivated to work hard for everyone, not just those most genetically similar, etc... But you're right, it wouldn't work. Still, limiting inheritance is important; I think the estate tax should be more severe and grants for young people starting with nothing should be more available.
posted by mdn at 11:38 AM on June 8, 2002

I guess the ideal would be that the inheritance of everyone would be combined, and every american would receive their share at say, 25. -mdn

Why on earth would that be ideal? How could that possibly be fair to distribute others' earned wealth to those who did nothing to deserve it but become 25?

Unfortunately, the two cannot be separated in this society. -Eamon

Or any other society on earth. Where are you from?

Capitalism produces wealth. Socialism produces poverty. This is the biggest lesson of the 20th century. -mikegre

Incorrect. Facism masked as a socialist state produces poverty. Socialism is an ideal. It cannot exist, therefore, it has not failed.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:51 AM on June 8, 2002

The estate tax? I think we should put an end to inheritance. Why do some people deserve to be born rich? People like George W. just shouldn't happen. If a person wants to work really really hard to become rich, fine -- but why should their lazy children benefit from it?

It's not fair that some people are born smarter than others, too. I mean, why should lazy children benefit from their parents genes, which they merely inherited! We should kill all the smart people, or arrest them, or beat them over their heads with sticks, to level the playing field. Lets tie weights to the ankles of athletes, so they can't have an unfair natural advantage over others, it will be a true meritocracy. I can't wait.

Maybe its just me, but you sound jealous of those who have more than you.

I don't think there should be any cut in estate taxes or capital gains taxes without repealing or raising the celing on payroll taxes.

Why not repeal them both? Oh, don't payroll taxes pay for social security (help me out here, I'm not sure)? We surely can't get rid of social security.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:21 PM on June 8, 2002

BlueTrain - s/this society/society/

Insomnyuk -- I think giving money to nitwits like George W. Bush is making this country a lot more mediocre than it would be otherwise. Smart people might inherit their abilities from their parents, but they still spend years proving themselves before they can reap the benefits of their gifts. Aristocrats needn't prove themselves to anyone -- they'll still be filthy rich no matter what anyone else thinks.

I wish this thread didn't descend to personal attacks. Just because I don't think the heirs to America's fortunes deserve what they get doesn't mean I want it myself. I simply think that everybody should get the same opportunity to succeed no matter who their parents are.
posted by Eamon at 1:07 PM on June 8, 2002

"Having a cubic ass-load of money, right now."

crunchburger, I'm not quite up on the "New Math". Is a cubic ass-load three times as much as a regular ass-load, or an ass-load to the third power?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:35 PM on June 8, 2002

Eamon: you keep bringing up George W., but it seems that he's a rather poor example of someone that's benefitted from estate taxes. After all, his father is still alive. Furthermore, even if he inherits his family's wealth, he's definitely benefitted much more from the connections and doors opened by his family than anything else, something that the estate tax does nothing about.
posted by gyc at 2:12 PM on June 8, 2002

I think giving money to nitwits like George W. Bush is making this country a lot more mediocre than it would be otherwise.

The public has given Bush nothing. The Bush family has earned (let's not dwell on semantics here; their money came through legal means is the assumption) money, and Bush will eventually inherit the family fortune, along with Jeb and whomever else. Why do you care what others do with their earned money?

Aristocrats needn't prove themselves to anyone -- they'll still be filthy rich no matter what anyone else thinks.

So? Your entire argument seems to be based upon your own ghosts. They're rich, I'm not, and it's unfair. Well shit, I went to my sister's high school graduation the other week and some kid got a shiny new Corvette. Is that unfair? Hell no. I'm just jealous because my parents couldn't afford to get me one. Whether the kid deserves it or not is irrelevant because it's not YOUR decision, it's theirs.

I wish this thread didn't descend to personal attacks.

Well good God man, if you'd stop calling Bush a nitwit and lazy, maybe I wouldn't feel that you were a huge hypocrite.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:21 PM on June 8, 2002

If a person wants to work really really hard to become rich, fine -- but why should their lazy children benefit from it?

Because the person who worked hard has the right to do with his possessions whatever he wishes.

That is, of course, until you are annointed General Secretary Lord Eamon the First, and make all of our decisions for us.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:31 PM on June 8, 2002

Because the person who worked hard has the right to do with his possessions whatever he wishes.

After they die? Funny how that works.

Alight, this has become much more of a flamewar than I intended. You're all nazis.
posted by Eamon at 3:26 PM on June 8, 2002

And before you call that an intentional invocation of Godwin's law, all I have to say is "what is Godwin's law?"
posted by Eamon at 3:30 PM on June 8, 2002

If i'm a Nazi, then you're Mao Tse Tung.
posted by insomnyuk at 4:37 PM on June 8, 2002

This game of messing with your countrymen would be a lot more fun if it played like volleyball. You can steal or otherwise violate my rights, and they it would be my turn to screw you over. Seriously, whatever gene or defect that causes people to think they are proper in messing with other people's affairs should be weeded out of the species.

I don't seem to have anything to say about hogs other than I would be happy if they were not raised in such a way as to create mountains of pig waste and gore.
posted by thirteen at 4:41 PM on June 8, 2002

After they die? Funny how that works.

I'm no lawyer, but it's my understanding that most people are alive when they write their wills.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:51 PM on June 8, 2002

cubic centimeter = 1 cm * 1 cm * 1cm

cubic assload = 1 al * 1 al * 1 al
posted by crunchburger at 6:11 PM on June 8, 2002

Gawd almighty, he used that jackass trifecta line for laughs again.
posted by nikzhowz at 7:50 PM on June 8, 2002

How could that possibly be fair to distribute others' earned wealth to those who did nothing to deserve it but become 25?

uh - that's what inheritance is... people die, and so they can't use the money any longer. so it has to go somewhere. Most commonly they give it to their kids. But of course their kids haven't done anything to deserve it except be born; all this scenario would do is give each generation a level playing field. Anyway I already agreed that it would never work.
posted by mdn at 9:04 PM on June 8, 2002

I still don't see how this would keep our country from becoming an aristocracy, mdn. All taxes have loopholes, and the super rich can get around them anyway, the death tax is one people take special care to avoid (as well they should). Warren Buffet, and George Soros, and other mealy mouthed billionaires say 'oh no, we should keep the estate tax, it's good for the country', when in reality those bastards don't have to worry for a second about the estate tax, they have their wills carefully planned to avoid it. Even if they could not avoid it, their heirs would still be rolling in money. The person that gets screwed over is the middle class heir who inherits a piece of property which has been in the family for years (this is not your simple farming example). Lets say the property was worth $1 million. The highest level of the estate tax is 60%. So, after they inherit the land, they now owe the glorious federal government $600,000. Sure, if they can sell the land for $1 million, they'll get $400,000 when its all said and done. But what the family really wanted was not money, but the land which had belonged to them for decades. Many families are forced to sell their inherited assets just to cover the tax. This isn't just the family farm, but the family business, or the family home, that takes a hit.

But of course their kids haven't done anything to deserve it except be born; all this scenario would do is give each generation a level playing field.

I don't care if you think it would never work, the very idea itself is repulsive. Who are you to say their children do not deserve their money? Who are you to say what is done with it? Since when did any of you have the moral authority to tell a parent how much of his lifesavings he can pass on to his or her children? Who deserves it more than whoever the owner says should have it? You? The government? If so, why? I have yet to see one good reason, except for a few ridiculous assumptions that anyone who inherits anything is undeserving, and some mind numbingly stupid generalizations about 'deserving', and 'level playing fields.' This attempt at justifying theft is preposterous, pathetic, and infuriating.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:07 PM on June 8, 2002

Let's say a kid inherits enough money so that she never has to work. It's assumed here that the kid becomes a lazy, unproductive, good-for-nothing. I imagine that would be true in some cases, but would it not also be true in some cases that she would want to do something productive with her life? Isn't that really a more likely scenario? Not having to work to solely earn money would give this kid the option of becoming an artist, a health worker, a diplomat, a pastor, an educator, etc.
posted by mikegre at 6:15 AM on June 9, 2002

It's not a "pork party," it's a pork producer exposition. It is for people who distribute pork, not necessarily celebrating the fact that we have pork. Producers from around the world come to Des Moines to see new technology, equipment and also offers seminars.
posted by Kevin Sanders at 10:27 AM on June 9, 2002

Producers from around the world come to Des Moines to see new technology, equipment and also offers seminars.

Sounds like a party to me! Woo hoo!
posted by ljromanoff at 2:03 PM on June 9, 2002