Former CEO of American Express On Raising Taxes On The Rich: 'After all, I did earn it'

Harvey Golub is a former chairman and CEO of American Express and he has a message for the MSM, Warren Buffet, Barack Obama and every liberal Democrat that wants even more of his money.



WSJ:

Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don't need all the money I've not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I'm "coddled" because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don't feel "coddled" because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.

It is about time time someone said it and thank you Mr. Golub for finally being the one to do so.



He earned his money and liberal Democrats and Barack Obama want to take more from him than they already do. He explains exactly how much they already take from him.

Now that I'm 72 years old, I can look forward to paying a significant portion of my accumulated wealth in estate taxes to the federal government and, depending on the state I live in at the time, to that state government as well. Of my current income this year, I expect to pay 80%-90% in federal income taxes, state income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state estate taxes. Isn't that enough?

"Here's my message: Before you "ask" for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money."---- Harvey Golub



Read the whole thing.



Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters likens the the spending problem the government has to a drug addiction:

Going back to the illicit drug analogy, we currently have a government hooked on spending. The Left claims the solution is to give it more money.



Isn't that like claiming you can cure a junky's problem by giving him more heroin?

Why yes it is. Also as any drug addict will do, they will go to any length. They will lie, they will cheat and they will steal to get their next fix.



.

Only A Liberal Would Claim That Letting People Keep THEIR Money Is A 'Gift'

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)

Senate Passes Bipartisan Tax Deal 81-19

The Senate just passed the tax deal negotiated by Barack Obama and Republican congressional members in an 81 to 19 vote for the measure. (Roll call will be found here in approximately an hour)

Next stop the House of Representatives where Democratic leadership has indicated they will try to change the deal but which projections predict will pass basically as is after Democrats put on a "show" to save face and to appease their far left liberal base that has been howling over the deal because of the inclusion of the estate tax deal which would set the tax at 35 percent and increase the exemption to $5 million.

House Democratic efforts to block President Obama’s tax bill have dwindled into a battle to save face as they come to the realization they will have little opportunity to rework the bipartisan compromise.

Party leaders were debating on Tuesday whether to bring up amendments to the bill for a vote even as Democrats acknowledged the overwhelming Senate support for the tax deal created an “urgency” to get legislation to the president’s desk.

The House is not expected to take the issue up until tomorrow.

More to come as reactions come out.

[Update] Now being reported by The Hill, Bloomberg, NPR, NYT.

[Update #2] Those that voted against it listed below:

NAYs ---19

Bingaman (D-NM)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Merkley (D-OR)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

.

Finally A Liberal Lists The Reason Americans Do Not Like The Estate Tax aka Death Tax

Estate Tax aka Death Tax definition from IRS.gov:

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.

Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum writes a piece titled "Tax Cut Deal Wildly Popular", where he shows the same graph I used yesterday taken from the ABC News/Washington Post poll showing support for specific components on the tax deal negotiated between Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans.

Drum then asks what is going on? He seems confused that the payroll tax cut garnered so much less support than the increased exemption on the estate tax (which is set at $5 million in the new tax deal).

He sees possible answers to his own question:

Possible answers: (a) people don't really understand that cutting payroll taxes means they'll see an immediate increase in their take home pay, (b) people associate payroll taxes so strongly with Social Security solvency that they don't want to cut them, (c) people fantastically overestimate how likely they are to have a $5 million estate when they die, (d) lots of people have a strong instinctive view that people should be able to pass on their wealth to their kids no matter how much it is, (e) people are just generally confused about all this stuff and it's hopeless to try and figure out what's really going on.

The majority of his "possible answers" seem to stem from his own inability to understand how liberals could be in the minority in their thinking and that people are too slow witted to truly understand the "progressive" thinking.

With that said, finally, a far left liberal lists the reason most Americans do not agree with the death tax and are supportive of increasing the exemption to the highest possible number if the whole tax the dead concept won't be scrapped.

Credit where it is due though, at least Drum did add the correct answer into the equation, much to the dismay and anger of other liberals.

How difficult is it to understand that people work their whole lives chasing the American dream in order to live well and be able to pass it on to their children/family?

The majority of the money millionaires or billionaires have, was either worked for and taxed already or someone in their families had worked for it and had it taxed already, so instinctively Americans wince at the thought of stealing from the dead simply because they died and had money when they did.

So, the answer is (d) lots of people have a strong instinctive view that people should be able to pass on their wealth to their kids no matter how much it is.....

Tell me how hard is it for far left liberals to understand the words "their wealth" and "their kids", words Drum used in his possible answers, are the key words and the reason the polling is showing support for the higher exemption?

Perhaps it is Drum and his far left brethren that "don't understand" and are "confused about all this stuff."

Americans aren't as gung-ho about class warfare as so-called progressives are.

.

Tax Deal: Senate Cloture Vote Passes Test: Update- Up to 70 (Now 80) Votes For Cloture and Voting Still Open

The final voted that the Senate used as a test to see how much support or lack thereof they would have to pass the tax deal negotiated between Repulicans and Obama ended with 83-15, two not voting.

[Update] Final vote 83-15, two not voting, roll call found here.




Dems that vote nay:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)



Republicans that voted nay:
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Sessions (R-AL)

Independent, who usually caucuses with Dems, that voted nay:
Sanders (I-VT)


[Updates on top for this post] MSNBC reports after my original post was in the works that the preliminary numbers are now 80-10 in favor of cloture for the tax deal negotiated between Obama and Republicans. More than enough needed to overcome a filibuster (which is 60 votes) when the actual bill comes up for a vote.

(Note- The numbers above are being changed as they are updated, keep refreshing for an accurate preliminary count and the official count will be listed at the top when it is published)

The vote is still open for a little less than an hour more. So these are just preliminary numbers.

This will be updated again with the final vote tally and when the U.S. Senate roll call lists are published I will provide a link.

Original post below.

It was predicted earlier that the Senate would hold their first procedural vote for cloture, to proceed with the Tax deal Barack obama and Republicans negotiated and that they did have the votes, in what was the first test vote in the senate, to pass the measure.

LA Times reports that the vote "began at 3 p.m., and the vote was to remain open until 6 p.m. to give senators time to make it back to Washington due to inclement weather. As of 4:20 p.m., C-SPAN reported, the vote was 64-8 in favor of the legislation."

The final numbers are not in yet, but the preliminary reports indicate the Senate does have the votes it would need (60) to overcome any filibuster attempt.

Related news today shows that the tax deal also enjoys complete bipartisan support from American voters by an easy majority in two separately reported polls, one from Pew Research and one from ABC News/Washington Post, more here on those.

The House of Representatives, still controlled by Democrats until January, has threatened to derail the tax deal Obama and Republicans negotiated and the Senate is expected to pass, but even House Democratic lawmakers opposed to portions of the deal have indicated they see the deal passing the House despite very loud objections from the progressive liberal blogosphere.

House aides said Democrats' strategy in that chamber would be affected by the margin of the Senate vote.

"If you have 70 people in a bipartisan vote, I don't see a situation where we really play that game of chicken and change [the bill],'' said a senior aide to a House Democrat supporting the legislation.

The deal negotiated by the White House and Republican lawmakers would extend for two years the income-tax cuts signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The agreement would also give most workers a one-year reduction in Social Security payroll taxes and enact a slew of targeted breaks for businesses and individuals.

Under the deal, the estate tax, which has been eliminated for 2010, would be reinstated next year at a top rate of 35% and applied to estates above $5 million. Without action, the rate is scheduled to spring to 55% next year and apply to estates above $1 million.

Many House Democrats argue the deal is too generous to inheritances. Some are arguing to amend the bill to include a top rate of 45%, applied to estates of $3.5 million or more. Another possibility under discussion is introducing and passing a separate bill on the 45% estate tax, then taking up the Senate measure, with its 35% rate, according to a House aide. That could give unhappy Democrats a chance to register their disapproval, without blocking action.

The House will make a big "show" of it all, but when all is said and done, Obama, The Senate nor Republicans need the House Democrats to pass this before the end of the year because according to WSJ, Obama can delay the implementation of higher taxes until Republicans pass the deal in January if Democrats do not do it.

.....the White House could block an immediate increase in withholding levels, pending passage of a tax bill by a new Congress next year.....

Democrats can put on whatever show they want, but this either passes as one of their last acts in control or it will pass in January when Republicans take control. All this theater is nothing more than that.



Today's related posts:

Tax Deal: Two Separate Polls Show Liberals Fighting Against Majority of Americans, Even Their Own Party

Tax Deal: Predicted To Pass In The Senate

.

Tax Deal Predicted To Pass In The Senate

[Update]- Senate test vote has more than enough votes for cloture- Post here, constantly updated until final vote count is in.

Today the Senate is expected to hold their first procedural vote for cloture, to proceed with the Tax deal Barack obama and Republicans negotiated and according to Senate aides if the motion receives 65 to 70 members' support it will affect how the House of Representatives (still controlled by Pelosi until January) handles the passage in that chamber.

Three Senate aides said the tax package appeared likely to attract at least 65 to 70 supporters Monday in a procedural vote in the Senate to test whether there is support to block a potential filibuster. Sixty votes are needed for the bill to cross that hurdle. A vote on final passage is expected a day or two later.

House aides said Democrats' strategy in that chamber would be affected by the margin of the Senate vote.

"If you have 70 people in a bipartisan vote, I don't see a situation where we really play that game of chicken and change [the bill],'' said a senior aide to a House Democrat supporting the legislation.

For those unaware of what the estate tax aka death tax is:

The estate tax in the United States is a tax imposed on the transfer of the "taxable estate" of a deceased person, whether such property is transferred via a will, according to the state laws of intestacy or otherwise made as an incident of the death of the owner, such as a transfer of property from an intestate estate or trust, or the payment of certain life insurance benefits or financial account sums to beneficiaries.

Of course, House Democrats will have some sort of dog and pony show before hand, some political theater to "register their disapproval" with the estate tax aka death tax provisions that are in the Senate deal.

Under the deal, the estate tax, which has been eliminated for 2010, would be reinstated next year at a top rate of 35% and applied to estates above $5 million. Without action, the rate is scheduled to spring to 55% next year and apply to estates above $1 million.

Many House Democrats argue the deal is too generous to inheritances. Some are arguing to amend the bill to include a top rate of 45%, applied to estates of $3.5 million or more. Another possibility under discussion is introducing and passing a separate bill on the 45% estate tax, then taking up the Senate measure, with its 35% rate, according to a House aide. That could give unhappy Democrats a chance to register their disapproval, without blocking action.

The bottom line here is that House Democrats are in the lame duck session and Pelosi and company cannot afford to have one of their last acts of "control" be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for everyone to which every American would then see a tax rise by the end of the year.

The Wall Street Journal also provides another detail of why, despite the planned political theater, House Democrats truly are irrelevant to this deal:

It wasn't clear how far House Democrats would push such a fight. If a bill isn't passed by the end of the year, tax rates are scheduled to go up, although the White House could block an immediate increase in withholding levels, pending passage of a tax bill by a new Congress next year.

Next year being when Republicans control the House of Representatives.

So, after the Senate passes the tax deal and the House Democrats put on their little show, in the end the deal is predicted to pass whether it is by the end of the year as one of the last acts the Democratically controlled House passes or whether it is one of the first acts of a Republican controlled House in January.

The most interesting thing here is with the announcement that Obama and Republicans had negotiated a tax deal, Obama potentially could have elevated his standing among Independents and Moderates across America, but far left liberal progressives took a whole week and publicly had what amounts to a hissy fit, turning the potential win into a protracted class warfare fight turning the whole deal against Obama.

Then to top it off, in trying to soothe or win over the far left liberals, Obama put the final nail in the coffin and spectacularly blew it.

[Update] New related post "Tax Deal: Two Separate Polls Show Liberals Fighting Against Majority of Americans, Even Their Own Party."

.

Extending Bush Tax Cuts And Keeping Estate Taxes From Increasing Most Important To Americans

Gallup:

[Of these, taxes appear to be Americans' highest priority. That could be in part because tax rates would change significantly for 2011 if Congress does not act by the end of this year. The income tax cuts that were a centerpiece of the Bush economic plan are set to expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts to extend them. Most in Congress seem to support at least a temporary extension, though there is disagreement as to whether any extension should apply to upper-income Americans, in addition to middle-income Americans.

Also, Congress suspended the estate tax for this year, but it is scheduled to go back into effect in 2011 at a higher rate than previously was the case, unless Congress votes otherwise.]

Keeping estate taxes aka death taxes from increasing significantly topped the list with 56 percent of Americans saying that is very important, 26 percent saying it is somewhat important to deal with during the lame duck session of Congress, and 50 percent saying that extending Bush tax cuts in some form is very important with 31 percent saying it was somewhat important, came in second.

All other questions came in below 50 percent in the "very important" category with unemployment benefits at 48 percent, somewhat important 28 percent, START treaty at 40 percent,very important,33 percent saying somewhat important, DADT repeal at 32 percent,very important, 24 percent somewhat and DREAM Act at 31 percent, very important and 29 percent somewhat.

The breakdown along political lines is interesting with Republicans and Independents on opposite ends of the spectrum than Democrats.

(Click to enlarge)

Republicans' and Democrats' priorities differ most on extending the income tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits. In general, independents' priorities mirror those for all Americans.

Americans know what they want to see accomplished during the lame duck session of Congress (after midterms and before the newly elected Representatives and Senators are seated), now let's see if the still Democratically controlled Congress bothers to listen to the will of American voters or if they continue to push their own agenda until the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives and newly appointed Senators take their positions in the Senate, in January.

Midterm voters gave the GOP 62 net seats in the House of Representatives (and still counting as races are called), six additional seats in the Senate leaving it controlled by Democrats with far less of a majority, and hundreds of state legislative seats.

[Update] Change that to 63 House seats for the GOP since today incumbent Democrats Dan Maffei conceded in New York's 25th Congressional District race, making Republican Ann Marie Buerkle the first woman to represent that district.

(Corrections have been made to this post)

.