Dem. Congresswoman says small family businesses obligated to pay death tax because of fairness

No, Allen West is wrong. There are no commie/socialist types is Congress. And this ‘fairness’ clip is just a figment of your imagination:

Gotta love the words Rep. Clarke (D-NY) uses in this clip. She’s suggesting that the United States ‘provides opportunity’ for people to ‘enrich themselves’ and therefore it’s only ‘fair’ for them to give back to the community and pay, of all things, the very unfair death tax.

But the United States doesn’t ‘provide’ any opportunity. As Obama said so eloquently back in 2001, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, not positive liberties. In other words the Constitution simply protects our God-given rights to enrich ourselves, our God-given right to create opportunity for ourselves. The government is supposed to simply get the heck out of our way so that we can prosper and it isn’t responsible in any way for our prospering. If anything it’s responsible for more people not prospering because of it’s heavy regulatory environment.

But our commie/socialist types in Congress can’t let a little 225 year old document of ‘negative liberties’ stand it their way of spending our country into bankruptcy. They want as much money as they can get and they will appeal to our moral sense of fairness every time to get it, even as we stand on the precipice of our economy crashing.

This is why we must defeat these people and elect more people like Allen West who understand liberty.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Karl Rogue

    good comment

  • We are gonna tax you your whole life on every dollar you earn, tax you on any interest you make from being a smart investor and then when you die we will again take our cut because we provided you the “opportunity” to do something with your life. Very telling little piece there towards the end of the clip where Rep Clarke basically says that she and the other legislators are out of touch with real business.

    • Livin_Large

      Permanent repeal of the estate tax would add almost $1.3 trillion to the deficit between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. This cost includes $1 trillion of lost revenues and $277 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt. Each year of repeal would cost slightly more, in today’s terms, than every line in the federal budget for homeland security, and considerably more than it now spends on education.

      So who pays this tax? If you and your spouse have done ZERO planning, the first $10,240,000 is exempt from tax, and kicks in on the excess estate. There’s a huge industry involved with avoiding the tax including dozens of types of gifting strategies, trusts, family corporations, and hiding money in special kinds of assets or special places. By the time you’ve exhausted all all the things you can do, that $10.2 million threshold is well north of $40 million before you run out of ways to avoid the tax.

      We’re not taking about small business people unless “small” means closely held businesses like the owners of Bechtel, Gallo, etc. where there are a “small” number of owners. In most cases, the assets in the estate have benefitted from tax subsidies while the owners where alive — and are EXEMPT FROM TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE HEIRS.

      So you decide whether the Koch brothers and the others who are pushing for repeal have YOUR interests in mind.

      • PVG

        Excuse me, but whether I have done planning or not is irrelevant! What is relevant is IT IS MY STINKING MONEY!

        • badbadlibs

          What nerve you have, PVG…wanting your own money….gads, next thing you know you’ll be wanting freedom of speech and freedom of religion…how you talk! 😉

        • mhanly

          Your money? Not while this wretch of a congresswoman, and a lot of others like her, have anything to say about it. It’s THEIR money, and don’t you forget it.

      • hbnolikeee

        When the government doesn’t take My money, it isn’t spending and this convenient perspective will stop. Not taking my money does NOT equal you are spending money. That perverse perspective will end and will do so sooner than you might think.

        Heres’ a thought. “So who pays this tax?” The answer – the government should pay with the money they have already TAKEN from us. A few less minutes on the smelt and algae in your tank and let the free economy take care of itself. A bit less government “investing” in the future. They stink as investors or haven’t you noticed?

      • So in 9 years it will add 1/5th roughly to the deficit of what Obummer has added in a little over 3 years. I invite you to watch a little piece Mr Bill Whittle did over a year ago that talked about paying for the running of our govt for only a single year without there being any deficit: And I agree with the other commenters here that whether i have done any planning or not is utterly irrelevant. And “fair share,” sorry talk to me about “fair share” when everyone roughly 100% of the population is paying taxes. Dont give me the tired leftist line of the “Evil 1%” not paying their fair share of the burden when they pay roughly 40% of the tax burden for the entire country, and the top 5% pay more than all of the bottom 95% combined.

        • B-Funk

          Blamo! And another bullcrap lib line dies before it takes flight! Way to go Samo!

      • You’re a hack. Obama is over spending us by almost 1.5 trillion EACH YEAR and yet you are worried about the death tax?

        STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY should be the slogan of every American. It’s over spending that is the problem, not revenues.

        Also, keep blaming the Koch brothers and you’ll find yourself commenting somewhere else. That kind of lib bullcrap won’t last long here.

        • Livin_Large

          To put it into perspective, $1.3 trillion could be roughly compared to the combined financial cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in fiscal years 2002-2009 ($1.47 trillion).

          • 7 years, 2 wars (whether you agree or not- they have kept US from being attacked) 1.47 trillion. vs. democratic congress and senate, with dear leader 1.3 trillion. I might not be the brightest bulb in the socket, but that math doesn’t make much sense.

            That would be like my husband spending 1000.00 on a home security system over a 7 year period, and me complaining about him spending so much that we don’t have, then me going on a shopping spree and spending 2000.00 but justifying it because I bought the stuff on sale.

            • Nukeman60

              …but justifying it because I bought the stuff on sale.‘ – ABiC

              You don’t happen to know my ex-wife, do you? 🙂

              • If your ex loves to shop, we would NOT get a long. I loathe shopping. 😉

                • Nukeman60

                  Oh, yeah. She did love to shop, but she did seek out the discounts – lots and lots and lots of discounts. Bless her heart. 🙂

                • Bless her heart lol! I lived in Texas before Florida, and I happen to know when you hear someone say, “bless their heart” that person can not stand the one they’re blessing 😉 Well Nukefriend, I hope you’ve saved some money since becoming ex.

                • Nukeman60

                  Heh, busted. 🙂

                  Saved money since? I was able to retire 4 years later. Must have saved something. lol

                • LOL! You’re crackin’ me up Nukefriend. I may not be a perfect wife, but that’s one complaint I’ll never get, shopping too much! 😀

                • Nukeman60

                  I say ‘Bless her heart’, but I admit that any divorce is a two-way street. It’s always the fault of both parties in some fashion or other. So, I’ll give her some slack and do what I’ve tried to do ever since then – try to better myself. 🙂

                • I’d say you’ve done purty durned good Nukefriend. But yeah, we all could use a little looking at the planks in our own eyes every now and then. I know sometimes mine get to where I can’t blink they’re so danged big. 😉

                • Nukeman60

                  You’re modest, that’s for sure. But I’d have to echo K-Bob on this one – Mr. ABiC is one lucky drake.

                • Aw! Sweet! 😀 Yeah, we refer to ourselves as “Lucky WE.” We’re both blessed!

          • That doesn’t put anything in perspective. Again, you’re a hack.

            Bush’s average budget deficit would fall somewhere less than a third of Obama’s 1.3+ trillion dollar budget deficits every year. In other words, Obama’s spending makes Bush’s spending look like pennies.

            That’s perspective.

          • Don’t bring war into equation. Let me ask you how is War Funded?

      • CalCoolidge

        Who the heck are the Koch brothers?

        • badbadlibs

          They are men who invested their own capital, made a boat load of money and support conservative causes. In other words, they are the devil and his brother to the leftist like living_large, <———-who is doing so on OUR dime, no doubt.

        • Livin_Large

          For brief background about the Koch brothers, see this article from

          • CalCoolidge

            I still don’t get why they matter? The tax is bad idea regardless of the Kock Brothers, the Pepsi Brothers or the Blues Brothers.

      • badbadlibs

        The Koch brother’s obligation is to their ownselves, their own interest and their own’s…get this, you leftist….it’s THEIR MONEY, THEY EARNED IT…NOT YOU and NOT THE GOVERNMENT!
        What country are you from?

      • Nukeman60

        Permanent repeal of the estate tax would add almost $1.3 trillion to the deficit between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. This cost includes $1 trillion of lost revenues and $277 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt‘ – ll

        Tell me what happens if, horrors upon horrors, nobody dies in 2013. Who ‘pays’ for that? The government’s problem here is that they are spending money they don’t have and when that money doesn’t come in, they are deeper in debt. It’s not the fault of the people who didn’t die. It’s the fault of the people who overspent.

        My budget is based on what I actually make, not on an open ended credit card. I don’t look at my credit card limit and say, ‘Okay, that’s the number I’m going to budget for this year. I hope I find some income to match it’.

        I don’t budget as if I ‘might’ get some more money halfway through the year. That would be insane. Let me say it again. That would be insane.

      • kas_wolf

        Then, maybe the government should stop spending so much money on useless programs. It’s not my family’s place to have to pay for the governments poor planning. If I earn it; it’s mine to do with as I please – and I prefer to give to my family over big government.

      • AimToMisbehave

        It’s funny that you print the Bloomberg piece, yet ignore the lengthy and detailed response to that article from the Kochs.

      • Excuse me, how is Not Taking Someone’s Else’s Money Increasing Anthers Deficit? Please explain your Logic in lay-mans terms!

  • I can’t add anything more, you said it all Scoop. How people who clearly have NO concept of the American Constitution can be and keep getting elected is beyond me. What this maroon says is what I hate about politicians who think that the citizens are to serve the gubmint. Pathetic.

  • toongoon

    She comes from an entrepreneurial family herself.

    Illegal drug sales?

  • toongoon

    Excellent answer to a question that should never have been asked.

  • m0r0

    I am ashamed she represents my state. Revolting.

    • WordsFailMe

      These are the people who live beside us, their childrten go to school with ours. We shop the same stores, go to the same movies and trust each other to be decent citizens

      And they are seething with hatred, avarice and spite.

    • PVG

      I feel your pain…….I live in CA.

      • Conservative_Hippie

        Not all of CA is bad, but the conservative oasises(oasi?) are fighting an uphill battle.

  • Joe

    THIS says it all

    from 1966 >>>

    The TAXMAN (listen carefully – Obama baby in background shaking a rattle)

  • Fault in her position is that only ~50% people actually pay for government, so they owe nothing to the people that leech from government— if anything, the leeches owe them for paying for the roads/bridges/infrastructure.

    • destroyer_of_moonbats

      bingo! nose! NOSE! NOSE!

  • The United States does provide opportunities. The government typically protects people from theft (though some would argue the government itself does commit theft, but some level of taxes is necessary to provide for protecting people from theft by funding police departments and protecting people’s other rights), has lower taxes and a less intrusive government than a vast majority of the world’s countries, protects people from eminent danger of foreign military intrusion, and protects our basic rights, and without our rights protected, we would have less opportunity. All of these functions of course require money and in fact make it a moral imperative that people give back to the government through taxes. The question is how much, and what is the fairest way to do so. The Democrats’ proposals–for the most part–are less fair than the Republicans’ proposals.

    • I thought police were state and local, so state and local taxes are to be expected, along with fire depts. But the thing is, if the government would stick to Constitutional things such as defense they wouldn’t need nearly the taxes they rake in from the public and they’d still have plenty to use for border issues as well. Government has no control, they’re like shop aholics on a grand scale. If anyone in the general public acted the way they do, they’d be in prison for grand larceny.

      • Federal taxes are to be expected as well, because the military, Homeland Security, FBI and CIA are national, as well as interstate highway programs and wasteful entitlement spending (the later being unnecessary and undesirable, but the others being good and necessary).

        I agree that the government is spending too much money, but even if the government were spending 50% less, they’d still need SOME level of taxation to fund it.

        • I agree, and I’m not against paying taxes for things that are Constitutional. It’s all the rest of the crap they spend on, which has NO place in government, and that is where the trillions are used. Everything from government in education, so called scientific studies grants, national endowment for the arts, public broadcasting, student loan programs, subsidies for planned parenthood, bail outs etc. etc. etc.
          My point is, get this crap out of the government, along with 3/4 of the federal “employees” and union perks, and people would not have to give half their hard earned money to taxes and government would still be ahead.

    • warpmine

      “The United States does provide opportunities. The government typically protects people from theft (though some would argue the government itself does commit theft, but some level of taxes is necessary to provide for protecting people from theft by funding police departments and protecting people’s other rights), has lower taxes and a less intrusive government than a vast majority of the world’s countries, protects people from eminent danger of foreign military intrusion, and protects our basic rights, and without our rights protected, we would have less opportunity.”

      Problem is government hasn’t done any of this since WWII. N Koreans never invaded the US, the NVA never invaded in technical terms but the government has allowed the invasion from illegal aliens from the south and virtually every other nation on this planet without my consent. In fact they deemed it necessary to allow people that potentially could seize my property through a Jizza tax because it’s part of their religion, Islam. Their way of life is every bit alien to our system as is their religion.
      All this to be fair. Sure.

      Then there;s the other bit of government protections against theft. Tell that to Corzine’s MF Global victims that are $2 billion in the hole thanks to this so called protection laws. The CRA laws that forced banks to loan to unqualified borrowers that have now reneged on their promise to pay back their lowns after signing the documents promising to do so.

      No, the government has perpetuated the theft not protected against it and they certainly don’t need yet another excuse to steal my hard earned money when my time on this planet comes to an end.

      • If you think that Muslims somehow taking your property though non-existent laws, most of which would be unconstitutional due to the liberals’ support of Separation of Church and State, you should move to Iran or Egypt and see how it is. Then you will see what its truly like in a country that doesn’t protect people’s rights and doesn’t separate church from state.

        • warpmine

          I’m sorry, did you miss the discussion of sharia law vs the constitution. You do know that most of these Muslims desire it here in their new country in fact they want it wherever they seem to be invited. Thanks but no thanks and as for your separation of church and state and liberals well they seem very much to bury their heads in their butts to the dangers of the alien culture poses.

  • My response:

    “Well, Representative Clarke, let me remove this illusion you’re apparently laboring under. The nation gave me nothing. I have a business of my own, because I built it. Not the country, I built it.

    You seem to be under the illusion that what I have is a direct result of government; specifically the federal government that you’re actually representing. No, that is not true. Opportunity came into existence once the Constitution was ratified. People from that point, forward, did things like start businesses, such as becoming smiths, gunsmiths, proprietors, etc., and did so through their own skill; not through the largess of the government. When people began traveling West, as Lieutenant Colonel West pointed out, they didn’t go to the government for largess, and petition them for wagons. Nor did the federal government raise some sort of ‘federal national expansion tax’. They didn’t tax the population, so that the settlers could have those wagons and provisions, much less taxpayer funded retirement.

    You try bringing my employees into this, as though there is something that I “owe” them, that they’re not getting. Where appropriate, they are receiving health insurance that I am contributing to, as their employer, I offer 401k, and, of course, they’re not working for free: they’re all receiving a market rate wage or salary. Should I die, I am under no obligation to pay them anything further, than what they’re already getting, and so I am certainly not going to allow you, Miz Representative of the Federal Government, to steal from my children, in order to pay theirs some phantom debt that the entitlement, welfare state has manufactured.

    Let me be clear: I owe them nothing, because I pay them for their work, and they receive the benefits they’ve agreed to. I owe you nothing. You, the federal government, have soaked and robbed my business, and others like my own, of countless dollars, every week, to feed and clothe other people that I still owe no debt. You tax me to feather others’ nests in un-Constitutional, government Ponzi schemes (i.e.: Social Security), and yet, for all the money that is taken from me, against my will, when I reach retirement age, I will not be allowed to enjoy any of those benefits, as that is the penalty for ‘making too much money’. I get to pay for others’ and their kids, and my kids get to pay for their get. You tax and tax and tax, and yet its never enough, and now, you’re hauled me before Congress, as though I’m supposed to be intimidated, and try shaming me into saying: ‘yes, ma’am, I think I do owe society a large debt’. If you want people that owe a debt to society, look in the local prisons. I pay my ‘fair share’, and others’ ‘fair share’, too. Maybe if you actually read the Constitution, instead of pretending you’re so well versed in it, you would come to realize that you have done nothing, to which I should be indebted; you’ve been nothing but a burden on my business, and have hung an even larger millstone around my neck, my businesses’ neck, and the necks of other contributors to society, by making it our responsibility to pay for those that do not contribute.”

    • toongoon

      Hear, hear!

    • PVG


    • Marky_D

      Well said!

  • If this “elected official” can’t ask the question herself w/o a speech writer writing it for her I would refuse to answer! If she’s too dumb to remember the question then she is too dumb to understand or remember the answer! Want to see her face as the answer is given! Prob crossed eyes and steam coming out of ears!

  • poljunkie

    You know what Miss Prissy Pants? My dad worked hard his entire life. He started by selling newspapers off the back of streetcars when he was 6 or7 years old. He worked every day of his life- starting at that age. Never finished high school. He pulled himself up by what might have been shoe strings but he didnt always have them so he used string.

    Proposed to my mom, with 37.15 in the bank and he thought that was a lot!!!…. ….and got kicked out by her father. Her dad said come back when you have saved 5000.00. That was in 1939. He saved and saved. Finally had the money. Joined the Army and loved it. The food/uniforms were actually an upgrade to what he had be accustomed to during his youth.
    They were married for 68 years until he passed away a year ago this weekend.
    My dad worked every day of his life. 12, 15, 18 hour days. Well, into his 70’s and later. Saving every penny. He played by the rules- paid every cent in taxes that he was supposed.
    He despised the idea of the death tax. AND I do too. I will pay my taxes, my sales tax, my property tax, my FICA, but really do you have to tax my estate too?

    Let the 49% who dont pay anything start paying taxes…something…anything…then we can discuss death tax. We’ve worked hard for everything we have saved, why shouldnt our son inherit it?

    • PVG

      My father had a similar story, he’s been gone for almost 9 years. I still miss him. I am sorry for your loss.

      • poljunkie

        Thats PVG

        I am sorry for the passing of your dad as well. It stinks doesnt it?
        Even though he was 92, none of us were ready for him to leave us.
        Thank you for the kind words.

        • I’m sorry for both of your losses. 🙁 I still have my dad, but he’s in Canada. I miss him, but at least I get to phone, e mail and skype. ((((()))))s

          • poljunkie

            You’re due a visit, young lady.

            I love the cowboy hat.

          • PVG

            Father’s Day is a comin’ ABC!

          • Marky_D

            Reading this, I just had to reply – my dads still with us thankfully, but don’t get me on the troubles I’m having getting him on skype! He’s just bought himself a new laptop (against my advice, I knew he would struggle and suggested an iPad) and after I loaded everything on and talked him through the basics I thought we would stay in touch via Skype.

            After a week of him never showing as online I rang him (the old fashioned way) and asked him why he’s never online. His reply:

            “I don’t know the things playing up – all my calls are still coming through on my telephone – I’ve tried leaving the laptop off in case that is interfering with my Skype but no luck. Like now – would you believe that you have come through on my telephone?”

            Like you, my dads in another country – but then our countries are much smaller on this side of the pond 🙂

            • LOL- I know what you mean. My folks still have dial up, so the only time I can see him on skype is when they’re at my sister’s place. It’s hard missing your folks, no matter how many miles are between you. Have a Blessed day Marky_D 🙂

            • poljunkie

              My mom does the same. She asks me over and over to check her email from my house. she thinks I can magically make it appear on her screen.

              I cant imagine talking her thru the skype directions, Marky.

    • Pol, you blessed me with that. Thank you. My dad has worked hard all his life too, worked for the same company all his life, worked sweeping the floor when he was 17 and retired as the company VP. Government didn’t make that happen- hard work did. I love our dads.

      • poljunkie

        Wow thats awesome AB’s.
        Good on him!!! I love to hear stories like that.

      • poljunkie

        Wow thats awesome AB’s.
        Good on him!!! I love to hear stories like that.

  • RPercifield


    The problem is that it isn’t your money, it is the person or persons that own the business
    . Let’s look at a family farm. It isn’t 80 acres of bucolic farm land like my grandfather had. To make money today it can be more than 10 times that, to get the economy of scale. When you include implements that cost upward of $250K to $500k that $10mil is easy to reach. So your answer is to decimate the family farm to satisfy your need for money?

    $10 mil is not the Koch Brother change. A small private Ambulance service I knew in Kansas was shut down and everyone laid off because of the death tax. Boy that sure did help the community. The replacement service cost more, provided less coverage, and paid less in wages, refusing to hire any of the old employees.

    I grow tired of the socialists/communists arguments when policies provides their needs for more money. However, like George Lucas and Michael Moore, when it is their money on the line they go to Singapore (ILM), and pay less than union scale (Michael Moore) to keep their pockets lined.

    This is not the government’s money, and a permanent ban would not cost the government anything, just like not allowing me to steal from you costs me anything.

    • Well said!

    • Livin_Large

      Keep in mind that, for the farm implements and ambulance equipment, the business probably wrote off the entire cost as a tax deduction under the depreciation rules. The taxpayers already gave them money to finance the business, and if the equipment is sold, it recaptures a portion of the deduction. But if someone passes, the tax basis of the business is the value on the date of death and the tax benefits are never repaid.

      Same thing with real estate. You could buy a $1 million commercial building, write-off its operating expense, take an annual tax deduction until the “net” depreciated costs was zero. Then, you die and the fair market value is $10 million. It’s all tax free to the heirs. If you sold it while you were alive, there would be capital gains tax on $10 million, but zero tax if you die.

      Family farmland has special provisions. On top of the personal exclusion, there is currently up to an additional $1 million exclusion for ownership interest in a qualified family farm. The value excludes any debt. I think with some planning, we can manage the transfer of the farm you reference.

      I’m not going to argue with people who just think it’s unconstitutional to tax estates, because that’s settled law.

      I’d just like to know if you all willing to have your social security tax increased by a percentage point or two, so folks like the Koch brothers can buy another 300 foot yacht.

      • MaxineCA

        First, I doubt many of us here are tax attorneys nor do we have $10 million dollar estates. We would all love a simple tax code, period, which would include 100% of the people that live here pay at least some taxes and not double tax our children upon our deaths.

        As a side note, I doubt Koch Bros. need Soc. Sec. to buy a yacht. Hopefully the billionaires who have paid into Soc Sec all these years would volunteer to pass on it. But Soc Sec certainly needs to be fixed.

        • Livin_Large

          I agree! I’d love a simple tax code — provided it doesn’t widen the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else. A consumption or flat tax won;ld have to have a lot of details to avoid screwing people who actually spend their salaries on daily bread.

          I also agree that people shouldn’t be taxed twice. The problem is that when you scratch the surface and get down to particulars, many people who are able to pay — and should pay because they used taxpayer subsidies to build immense wealth — are not paying at all.

          • badbadlibs

            What part of, “IT’s NOT YOUR MONEY, NOR BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT”, do you not understand? That’s the place to start, then let’s move on to the United States of America’s constituion…not some made up version….

          • Nukeman60

            …provided it doesn’t widen the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else…‘ – ll

            Where do you draw the line on who is allowed to keep what is rightfully theirs? I take it you are all for giving money to someone who makes $3,000 less than you, or $50 less than you?

            Is it just someone who makes more than you that has to ‘give more’? That borders on jealosy and envy, two traits that don’t serve you very well.

            • “That borders on jealosy and envy..” Well said Nukefriend, and it doesn’t mention coveting in the Constitution.

              • Nukeman60

                Ahhh, but it does in the Bible. 🙂

                • Why YES it does! I wonder why? Maybe because all the rest of the 9 Commandments are broken because of a form of covetedness. 😉

            • its ALWAYS about jealousy and envy.
              I am POOR. I am disabled vet who then got spine injury at work. I survive on VA check (pays mortgage on my trailer) and on worker comp check.
              I refuse stamps right now.
              my wife often works 2 jobs.
              we survive.
              some of my friends always talk about the rich getting richer. I tell them going on % they are the rich compared to me, and then tell them to send me money.
              they never do.
              its all about envy.

              when my parents pass and we have to deal with the house and land I may have to file bankruptcy.
              nice huh?

              I could just start sucking up resources from taxpayers and be a lot better off. am resisting as long as possible.
              because I am ASHAMED to have to ask for help.
              shame….something this country needs a lot more of.

              • Nukeman60

                There is no shame to ask for help. The shame is when people demand it. My prayers are with you, dmacleo, and I feel that better times will come your way. Why do I think that? Because you are not of the entitlement class. You work hard for everything you have, no matter how little it may seem, and you will survive because of it. Be proud of your beliefs and faith. It will hold you in good stead. And don’t be ashamed to ask for temporary help. That is what the help was meant to accomplish, not meant to be permanent.

                When it comes to wealth, we can’t take it with us. But there are far more valuable things in life that we can take with us. Hold tight to those.

                • thank you.
                  we will survive, we realize life isn’t meant to be easy and on the backs of others.

      • RPercifield

        Boy it would be nice if you understood where the value business is. When the owner dies no matter the depreciation, that piece of implement, building, land, or vehicle still has value that must be included in the estate. The amortization of property is a method for applying the cost of the equipment as a business expense. You do not buy a $250K tractor and apply the entire cost of acquiring it in that same year.However, it still has value and many times a loan applied. At the end of the amortization period, it still is taxed by the state for personal property taxes. However, it can no longer be used as a business expense against taxable earnings. If what you say was true, then every business would be worthless, and un-taxable and we know that is not the case.

        Let’s see how much money the average business gets from the Government. If you are Solyndra, $500 Million. As a major contributor to Obummer, you get cash out the you know what. However, if you are a small business, the SBA will not even consider you unless you are within their target market, and or have connections. The only people getting loans from the government are students, friends of Obummer, and big corporations. Not small businesses and farmers.

        The government didn’t give the deceased ambulance operator money to start or maintain his business. It would not give the children who took over an SBA loan to cover the taxes. Thus the government did not help, and caused 24 people to loose their jobs. I hope you got a lot of value from that confiscation of private property.

        You must be arguing with yourself since at no time did I mention the Constitutionality of abusing dead people’s families. As for constitutionality, it was once constitutional to have segregation in schools, and slavery. Someday that may change.

        The government has no right to other peoples wealth that has already been taxed. $1 mil exemption is of little comfort to a large family farm operation, and is virtually useless.

        Your point on Social Security in moot for it was to be supported by the monies brought in by the payroll tax, not the general fund. The unfunded liabilities are so large that it will not be there for me when I retire, for my children and grandchildren will not pay for it. You could confiscate every dollar they earn, every piece of land, every business, and every good and service and not pay that liability. The only real solution is to get government off of the back of the private sector and enhance wealth growth. Reduce the liabilities by having multiple private options, reduction in benefits, and stop adding people to the Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security. We as a country have a limited amount of time to escape the fate of Europe. It can be done, but it will be painful, and having the most efficient method of destroying personal wealth, the government, in control of wealth creation will only doom us to more Solyndras, and depression.

    • Nukeman60

      …just like not allowing me to steal from you costs me anything.‘ – rp

      Well said. The government believes all assets belong to them. They just let us keep some of it. If they had their way, they would take it all and dole it back as needed. They keep looking for more ways to do just that.

      Death tax is actually a double tax, since those assets have already been taxed once. People that don’t want to argue about the unconstitutionality of estate taxes because it’s ‘settled law’ don’t realize it can be ‘unsettled’ at any time.

  • hudstim

    Whenever I see one of these CBCers speak, I keep waiting for them to ask if Guam is going to tip over.

  • MaxineCA

    I have never understood the “death tax”. If someone has worked hard their whole life and has already paid taxes on their income, what gives the govt. the right to tax the estate? And they talk about fairness???? They tax us to death our entire lives, and then when we die, they tax it again. Only a moron could think that is logical or FAIR.

  • MaxineCA

    I have never understood the “death tax”. If someone has worked hard their whole life and has already paid taxes on their income, what gives the govt. the right to tax the estate? And they talk about fairness???? They tax us to death our entire lives, and then when we die, they tax it again. Only a moron could think that is logical or FAIR.

  • hudstim

    There are family-owned businesses right now that are facing liquidation due to the death tax. Some of these businesses have been championing liberal causes for decades.

    It is interesting to see the family leaders come to terms with how their lefty support has come home to roost, and the devastation it will bring down on their families, employees and community.

  • HarrietHT2

    What’s unfair is that we have to be assaulted by the verbal garbage coming out of the mouths of commie congresspeople.

    Why does she not just come out with guns ablazing and demand we fork over every last cent we make? She would if she could. And so would all the bizarro voters who elected her to office.

    • MaxineCA

      Well anyone with any thought process doesn’t need a decoder ring to interpret their language. I say let them keep flapping their big mouths. Everything has a new meaning now.

      Fairness = We’re going to take more of your money and redistribute as we wish.
      Investment = Payback for back room deals, contributors & buy votes
      Civil Right = Social engineering, we want it, so therefore it’s a “right”.
      Military strategy = Whatever the UN says is OK

      Remember when Maxine Waters let it slip that they wanted to Socialize the oil industry during a congressional hearing? Yeah, I say…. they should keep talking and maybe a few more Americans will wake up. Unfortunately, 50% will need a decoder ring.

  • librtifirst

    “one of the greatest” just about says it all. Globalist scum.

  • welltempered2

    What Clarke is really saying is: “everything belongs to government, and it is only by it’s kindness do we have anything.”

  • 12grace

    It’s time for the greedy gov’t and the UN global thugs to take their dirty hands off of our money and property. Now that would be fair.

  • kclightguy

    I don’t recall any “fairness” reference in OUR Constitution? Why do libs/progressives have such difficulty with the words mine and yours? Most people sorted that situation out by the end of kindergarten.

    • badbadlibs

      They have no problem with the word, “mine”…it’s the word “yours” that stumps them.

  • lilium479

    Fairness = Stealing Giving back = In my(her) pocket

  • The dangerous idea that we all have “obligations” to our fellow citizens is what really gets me mad. Free people are not “obliged” to do a damn thing to help another person if they do not wish. Everyone here has had the same opportunity to succeed, but that doesn’t mean everyone has the same ability. So what? Not my problem if you have trouble getting up early or working longer hours than a more successful person. If you have poor impulse control because you are lazy and/or selfish, I’m supposed to subsidize your life because I can practice self-restraint and spend less than I earn? I don’t think so, being free means you are free to fail as well.

    Anything else becomes “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” and we all know how that ends up. We are nearly halfway there now.

  • WestGAFlash

    I heard Dennis Miller on O’Reilly one night. He said “he doesn’t mind helping the helpless, but he objects to helping the clueless.” Me too. Especially at the end of a Gub’mint gun barrel.

    The death tax is obscene any way you hold it up to the light, and it has nothing to do with opportunity in the marketplace. And this prissy little dimwit has a battalion of CPA’s figuring out how to prevent her from paying it.

  • Susitna

    The problem we have now in the Country is that communists like Mrs. Clarke are trying to destroy the American Capitalism and to switch to a system of dependance and slavery that is governed by an Elite. The new Elite of American Communists will then stop talking about the famous “fair share” and just take it all and regulate everything.
    Mrs. Clarke has been brainwashed and is parroting standard communist propaganda while trying to look very intellectual. But her visual range is so limited, that she doesn’t even noticed that what she is talking about is the economic situation of Russia and China. So if she cannot provide any solutions to her own Country, she should shut down the mic and go home………

  • Kordane

    The “responsibility to give back to the community” line is an insidious piece of irrationality that comes straight from the morality of collectivist-altruism.

    Businesses have no moral obligation to sacrifice themselves for anyone. There can be no moral obligation to pursue the destruction of the self. Only evil moralities preach the virtue of the destruction of the self, and that is precisely the kind of morality that is being preached by this woman when she harps on about how businesses have a responsibility to give back to the community.

    Think about it: “give back”? Give back what? This is a claim which implies that businesses have taken more than they deserve, or that they have stolen something from others – The truth is that businesses have done neither. Businesses create wealth, which means that they create value where there was previously no value.

    I would love to school this woman on individual rights, on individualism and on ethics. Bloody marxist commie that she is.

    • kong1967

      She has it backwards. Businesses don’t take anything from communites, they contribute to them. Communities owe everything they have to businesses. All the taxes they collect, the households they support, the food on everyone’s tables, etc. Remove the businesses and let’s see how far the community gets without them. Maybe a few days.

    • NYGino

      Might as well talk to the wall.

  • kong1967

    The death tax shouldn’t even exist. I’m so sick of these communist bastards I could puke.

  • The “death tax” does not represent voluntary giving, but legalized plunder. True charity cannot come as a result of force.

  • tinker_thinker

    At this point it would be only fair for them to get out of office. West was so right!

  • Since when did business become “fair?” If GM is having a bad month, does Ford give some of its profits to GM just to be “fair?” After all, both companies employ Americans and those employees also pay taxes, too. So, under this lady’s definition, nobody should be making too much money because that just wouldn’t be “fair.” And we do give back A LOT to the government to pay for the common good. It’s called TAXES and we all pay way too much of them (for the Feds, the State, and local communities), not to mention what we give to charities as well. I don’t know how much more “fair” we can be, unless this lady simply wants a socialist state where everything is public property and there are no profits. These Democrats need to decide what country they want to live in, the United States or Cuba.

    • Nukeman60

      Since when did business become “fair?” If GM is having a bad month, does Ford give some of its profits to GM just to be “fair?” – libertyship

      That is exactly what Obama wants. You just made every lib drool at the thought.

      Come to think of it, Ford did not take the bailout while GM did. So, technically, Ford did give some of it’s profits to GM.

  • notebene

    The death tax is the perfect example of double taxation without representation. The assets that one leaves behind after he/she dies has already been taxed! It is taxed when the individual earns it or purchases it! Those who inherit these estates should not be taxed on it! It’s another way for the government to “spread the wealth”. Liberals don’t believe in earning their way in life…it’s all about them sitting on their butts and having others give them what they feel they are entitled to! Life isn’t fair, and where you get in it is completely up to the individual! Why should someone who was wise, diligent, and saved to provide for his/her family, have their assets plundered by the government? Yet another golden example of how the liberals want to behave irresponsibly and have everyone else foot the bill. In their twisted logic that is “fair”.

  • doowleb

    “Keep in mind that, for the farm implements and ambulance equipment, the business probably wrote off the entire cost as a tax deduction under the depreciation rules. The taxpayers already gave them money to finance the business”

    When you sell bread for 1.00 the government taxes the amount the baker makes over his costs for labour, flour, ovens etc. Your comment above shows the mentality that the government actually owns everything and anything not taken in taxes is what you are allowed. There’s another name for that, it’s called communism.

    • nyctreeman

      I love how libtard Socialists consider a tax break or incentive as a gift, as if the money belonged to the government all along. What utter bullshite.

      Same mentality that says you must be compelled to pay for government healthcare, and since the government is “providing” it to you, they can now tell you what life style you may or may not take part in, because if you don’t eat and live healthy, you’re costing the government more money.

      • Conservative Gay Guy

        It’s amazing. Can you imagine someone walking into your house and saying give me 50% of your physical possessions, “cuz it’s fair”? Why is money earned seen as something that isn’t rightfully owned?

  • NYGino

    Fairness is the Orwellian root word for Communism. Where is it written that we deserve fairness? Part of the concept of success is the overcoming of the inherent inefficiencies we all have, especially when we compare ourselves with others.

    The end result of opportunity plus hard work and the continual striving towards a worthy goal is what these ‘fairness seekers’ are looking for but they are not willing to pay the price. They want others to give it to them.

  • Sober_Thinking

    I can’t listen to her ignorance.

    Only a Democrat can say, “Please Sir, may I have more?” Idiots. Fire them all.

  • brendawatkins

    In this fairness debate they never talk about the other side of the issue, only the side where the rich isn’t paying their fair share. Why should the motivated hard working among us have to pay for the unmotivated lazies among us? This fairness debate will create MORE lazies, and less motivated because there’s no reason to be motivated when it’s more of a punishment to be so. Motivation is punished, and laziness is rewarded.

  • nyctreeman

    So a man starts a small store and busts his ass over several years to make it go, paying the already outrageous taxes as it goes along, and then he dies, and his heirs must fork over 50% of the value to the Socialist thugs in the government?

    And if they can’t afford to pay, they’re forced to sell the business in order to satisfy the government demands…sounds like a Socialist thugocracy to me.

    I’ve noticed this relatively new meme coming from these Socialist thugs, “The community enabled you to succeed, therefore you owe the community”.

    From each according to his ability to each according to their need?

  • Conservative_Hippie

    The thing that worries me the most is the Supreme Court getting a majority of “progressive” Dem justices. Obama has already got two with Kagan and Sotomayor. We NEED a conservative in the White House next year, because Ginsburg won’t make it another 4 years and Breyer and Kennedy are not far behind. I just hope Romney has the guts to stand up to the Democrats and nominate good conservative justice(s)!

    • I don’t know C_brother. I wish I could trust him to do the right thing, but in looking at his past in Mass. he appointed more leftist judges than conservatives.

  • FutureOnePercent

    What she has implied, and she might not even understand it herself, is in essence she wants to tax opportunity.

    You’ve been given a chance, and now we want to tax that chance.

    It’s as if she thinks that hard work and sacrifice have nothing to do with it?

    If that were the case, everyone born here would die a millionaire, because we all have opportunity?

    Opportunity is only what you make of it.

  • Amy

    They are like parasites – they will suck the life out of you and then eat off you once your dead…

  • J

    the purpose of a tax is to raise money for government— not to be fair… That principle is what demoRATS forget to understand

  • otaybanky

    Why wasn’t there the scream for “wealth redistribution” during the economic boom of the 90’s?

    • Escapee1

      Otay, simple answer to that…The DEMO-c-RATS will NEVER whine or cry out for “wealth redistribution” anytime they control the purse strings of Congress….Nor will they say that Capitalism is “badddd” as long as the coffers for their “gimme programs” stay untouched and overflowing…They are ALWAYS for “equality and fairness” until it comes to EVERYONE being on an “equal and fair” playing field and when it comes to CREATING and KEEPING wealth and EVERYONE sharing the tax burden…Then suddenly it’s a problem with “them folks” (i.e. THE WEALTH CREATORS) having too much money…They’re HYPOCRITES!

  • O_Rock

    This whole bit about taxing those who have to give to those who don’t is not an idea that
    comes from America and the Founding Fathers never intended it to happen. We need to stop all this nonsense and realize what is going on here. We are being bled dry by our government and the rest of the World. If we don’t change our direction now, the America of our parents will be a dream lost, and our children will be slaves to the nations of the world who despise our existence. Liberals believe it will be some kind of Utopia with not one shred of evidence or any facts to back up their ideology, which has failed everywhere it has been tried.

  • Who’s on first

    Liberals are Americas cancer. Eating us alive, and expecting us to keep paying until d e ath does part of us from our money, and they want it even then.

  • mike morrison

    Fair: you give me what I think you’re keeping from me out of greed.

    “I, too, come from an entrepreneurial family”?????????????????????????????????

    Of what? Panhandlers? I’d love to see her charitable giving the last 8 years.

  • WordsFailMe


  • Woeful ignorance on full display by this Congress woman! FAIR, whats FAIR? How about a tax code one page long, cronyism ended, a Federal Government operating within the Constitution and a Congress that does not spend us into National bankruptcy? No THAT would be some fairness for a change.

  • ColoradoTim

    I take exception to the phrase “sweat equity builds and accumulates wealth over time.” By itself, sweat equity does NOT build wealth. The hardest working people in the country are often poor.

    What creates wealth is taking a risk. It is offering a product where no one else has done so before, or providing a service that no one has done before. There are no markets for those types of things, and you take a big risk to step out and do those things. Eight out of ten businesses go bankrupt before they reach their 10th birthday. One takes a huge risk to start a business.

    With risk, there must be a reward. Take away the reward, and no one in their right mind would take the risk. Then it is just hard labor, and who wants to do that?

    The democrats want to strip off the reward by forcing people to pay higher taxes. Nothing could kill a business faster. Atlas shrugged.

  • marketcomp

    Ms. Clark is a hypocrit with her circuclar logic. If she comes from an entreprenurial family how does she not understand the relationship between labor or the employee and those who start businesses. I mean what is she really trying to say here. She understands but thinks entreprenuers should pay more? I suspect that she really does understand the driving force behind the economy but will never admit that because of her commitment to a hardline philosophy of wealth redistribution.

  • “Under standing and relating to what we can do as legislators…” i.e.: What the Hell we Can Do To Screw You The Entrepreneur Out of Your Hard Worked For Money for Our Benefit!

  • This is Liberalism in it’s Finer Moments!