GOP Senator Implies Those Who Aren’t Millionaires Waste Money On ‘Booze, Women’

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grassley-estate-taxes-booze-women_us_5a247d89e4b03c44072e5a04

That’s why the richest deserve a break on estate taxes, says Chuck Grassley.

By Mary Papenfuss

X

In an astonishing defense of dropping “death taxes” for individual estates worth more than $5.5 million, GOP Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley implied that people not currently affected by that tax are “spending every darn penny ... on booze or women.”“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing — as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies,” Grassley told the Des Moines Register in an interview published Saturday. Grassley, who serves on the Finance Committee, made the remark when asked about the Senate tax reform measure which would double the exemption for estates to $11 million for an individual and $22 million for a couple. Heirs would inherit the estates tax-free.Grassley’s comment triggered a wave of criticism on social media. Many complained that the working class is, in fact, spending “every darn penny” on raising their kids, caring for elderly parents, health care and putting food on the table. One Twitter user complained that the GOP was turning America into a version of “The Hunger Games.”

[Dashinka 25,999]

Isn't the Estate Tax a classic example of double taxation?

[bcking 3,157]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't the Estate Tax a classic example of double taxation?

Yep, and I don't really see a problem with that.

 

My father's estate (in today's numbers, though he is perfectly healthy) would have qualified for an estate tax in the old system. I would have entirely approved of it. Now with the new system my sisters and I won't have to pay it (unless his estate substantially grows in the next 2 decades or so).

 

So we will definitely benefit, but I still disagree with setting the bar so high. We need ways to generate revenue, and taking it from the wealthy makes far more sense to me than trying to squeeze out pennies from the poor.

 

I also won't try to lie and pretend this tax bill will hurt me and my family, something our dear President is incredibly dishonest about.

[Dashinka 25,999]

32 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yep, and I don't really see a problem with that.

 

My father's estate (in today's numbers, though he is perfectly healthy) would have qualified for an estate tax in the old system. I would have entirely approved of it. Now with the new system my sisters and I won't have to pay it (unless his estate substantially grows in the next 2 decades or so).

 

So we will definitely benefit, but I still disagree with setting the bar so high. We need ways to generate revenue, and taking it from the wealthy makes far more sense to me than trying to squeeze out pennies from the poor.

 

I also won't try to lie and pretend this tax bill will hurt me and my family, something our dear President is incredibly dishonest about.

The federal government needs a way to control spending and live within a budget instead of figuring out ways to confiscate peoples money in the guise of providing services. 

 

I am totally against taxing the same dollar multiple times just because it changes hands, and I have no skin in that game.  When my parents died, there was almost nothing to divide between me and my seven bothers and sisters, but the small estate still had to go through probate even though my father (who died a year after my mom) tried to strategize it, with the help of an attorney, to avoid it, but I guess the lawyers and probate court want a piece of every estate no matter the size.  I am not completely certain if the bill will benefit me significantly, but I will wait to see what comes out of conference.

[bcking 3,157]

48 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The federal government needs a way to control spending and live within a budget instead of figuring out ways to confiscate peoples money in the guise of providing services. 

 

I am totally against taxing the same dollar multiple times just because it changes hands, and I have no skin in that game.  When my parents died, there was almost nothing to divide between me and my seven bothers and sisters, but the small estate still had to go through probate even though my father (who died a year after my mom) tried to strategize it, with the help of an attorney, to avoid it, but I guess the lawyers and probate court want a piece of every estate no matter the size.  I am not completely certain if the bill will benefit me significantly, but I will wait to see what comes out of conference.

I agree spending needs to be managed more intelligently, and there needs to be a real budget. We can want those things, and still think that the source of finances is still better off coming from the rich than from the poor.

 

That being said, the government will ultimately need money. How much? I have no idea, but it needs money. I would still gladly pull from "richer" people proportionately more than poor to help pay those bills. I have no problem with that, and I do have skin in that game. My family isn't living pay check to pay check, we never have and we never will. I would gladly have more money taken if it means those who don't make enough to put food on the table don't have to pay taxes. 

 

Now I don't go as far as some of the mega wealthy people who are planning to give away their fortune when they die (Buffett etc...). I fully intend to leave whatever estate I have to my children, divided equally. However, I have no problem with the government taking a share.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Another step closer to neofeudalism

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

He forgot Lottery tickets

[Ban Hammer 14,360]

if this were true,  there would be quite a few non drinking gay millionaires.