PDA

View Full Version : Factcheck besmirches Ron Paul re: Estate Tax




Thrashertm
01-02-2011, 11:34 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/let-the-distortions-begin/

More Estate Tax Malarkey

Rep. Ron Paul repeated some distortions about the estate tax when the Texas congressman issued a statement Dec. 17 in support of Obama’s tax cut deal.

Paul, Dec. 17: This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a 55% tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax bill.

We’ve debunked arguments of this sort before. It is simply not true that the burden of the estate tax falls primarily on small and family-owned businesses, and it’s only partially true that it amounts to double taxation.

In a 2006 report, the Tax Policy Center (a project of the centrist Brookings Institution and the liberal Urban Institute) said small farms and businesses – those valued at $5 million or less – “account for only 1 percent of total estate tax liability.”

Tax Policy Center, October 2006: Much of the debate about the estate tax centers on its impact on farms and small businesses. Roughly 350 taxable estates-or 2.8 percent of all taxable estates-will be primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2006. Just over 200 will be small farms or businesses (valued at $5 million or less); these small enterprises will account for only 1 percent of total estate tax liability.

More recently, the TPC issued new figures showing much the same thing.

Had the estate tax been allowed to return at the levels that prevailed in 2009, family farms and businesses were projected to account for only 520 of the estates taxed in 2011, or less than 8 percent of the total. Under the Obama/GOP compromise that Paul supported, that number would be cut to 440 estates, of which 290 are worth more than $20 million each.

As for the "double taxation" argument, we have said before that "it’s true that some portion of a taxable estate might be made up of cash that was taxed before, when it was earned as income." But any "stocks, bonds, real estate or other holdings" accumulated and unsold by that business would not have been taxed. In a Dec. 16 opinion piece in the New York Times, Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said the estate tax is designed to impose a tax on income "that has escaped tax over a wealthy person’s lifetime."

Williams, Dec. 16: Investors pay no tax on capital gains until they sell their appreciated assets. For example, the owner of a small businesses or a long-held stock portfolio never pays tax on their growing value unless he sells these assets. Those substantial unrealized gains are taxed only through the estate levy. Get rid of the estate tax and people will find even more ways to avoid income taxes.

Brooklyn Red Leg
01-03-2011, 12:36 AM
It is simply not true that the burden of the estate tax falls primarily on small and family-owned businesses

Weaselly fucks, that's not what he said. Christ, what kind of strawman bullshit is this? Perhaps a slew of emails is in order to correct them of their apparent 'oversight'?

Brooklyn Red Leg
01-03-2011, 12:53 AM
Well, I fired off an email. Think it was snarky enough?


I would like to call your attention to this sentence in the piece entitled More Estate Tax Malarkey

"It is simply not true that the burden of the estate tax falls primarily on small and family-owned businesses"

At no point in Dr. Paul's speech did he state that the Estate Tax falls primarily upon small and family-owned businesses. This is called a Strawman and is a Logical Fallacy. If your writers are unfamiliar with this type of fallacy, might I suggest they use this resource:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy

The entirety of Dr. Paul's speech can be accessed here: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1809:statement-on-tax-compromise-legislation&catid=16:speeches

Yours Truly,

David Farris

Libertatis Æquilibritas

low preference guy
01-03-2011, 03:21 AM
^ awesome
+rep

specialkornflake
01-03-2011, 07:11 AM
Good morning,
Upon reading your article http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/let-the-distortions-begin/
I noticed that you claim Ron Paul stated "that the burden of the estate tax falls primarily on small and family-owned businesses". In fact he said "The estate tax especially harms small and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax bill." As I'm sure you can see, there is no implication on Ron Paul's part as to the percent of small and family-owned business estate tax victims, only saying that when it does happen to a business of this type the affect is "especially harmful".

Thanks very much for your attention, I hate to see a distortion in an article about distortions.

specsaregood
01-03-2011, 07:29 AM
emailed, that was fun.

Thrashertm
01-03-2011, 07:45 AM
Who did you email?

specsaregood
01-03-2011, 07:52 AM
Who did you email?
http://www.factcheck.org/about/contact-us/

Editor@FactCheck.org

Thrashertm
01-03-2011, 08:12 AM
Factcheck needs to issue a correction and apology for accusing Ron Paul of being dishonest, and lumping him in with the likes of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on your recent article "Let the Distortions Begin" http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/let-the-distortions-begin/

Fact check claims that Ron Paul is asserting that the burden of the estate tax falls primarily on small and family-owned businesses, based on this quote:

"This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a 55% tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax bill."

However, your statement is false - Ron Paul never says what you claim. What he is saying is that the estate tax is especially harmful to small businesses compared to billionaires. This is because small businesses may need to sold or even shut down in order to pay the taxes. Billionaires can just pay the taxes and be on their merry way.

Then, Factcheck goes on to claim that the estate tax isn't double taxation, and that " any "stocks, bonds, real estate or other holdings" accumulated and unsold by that business would not have been taxed." You're missing the point. Investments in these asset classes are made from savings, which were already taxed as they were accumulated. Furthermore, companies are paying corporate taxes on their income, so to the extent that stock and bonds appreciate in value, they are doing so while the companies are paying taxes.

I'm not fan of the Republicans, and Factcheck has every right to continue its crusade against them, but you're making a mistake by targeting Ron Paul.

specialkornflake
01-22-2011, 10:40 AM
Factcheck Response: http://factcheck.org/2011/01/factcheck-mailbag-week-of-dec-28-jan-3/

Golding
01-22-2011, 10:53 AM
ROTFL, that response is so pathetic. They essentially say they quoted Ron Paul word for word, ignoring that the point of contention is their inaccurate assessment of the quote.

They decided that the readers don't understand the English language well enough to discern reality from a FactCheck-manufactured "distortion" requiring correction. How can anyone take this site seriously when they can't acknowledge their own errors?

erowe1
01-22-2011, 11:03 AM
Their point about double taxation is also fallacious, since the capital gains taxes that they say these dead people avoided paying are themselves already a double taxation, since the principle of the investment was what was left over after income taxes were subtracted from the money that was earned in order to buy them.

Fox McCloud
01-22-2011, 12:35 PM
Wow, my respect for factcheck just dropped a bit...not because "oh my goodness, they're attacking Ron Paul", but they really seem to be grasping at straws here--the response really epitomizes that--where they essentially lie about what the Congressman said.

TCE
01-22-2011, 02:49 PM
They're distorting to prevent themselves from looking like morons, but to the seasoned observer, it's backtracking. What Ron said was it falls "especially" on small farmers and business men. To anyone, this means it hits them hard, it doesn't mean the Federal government takes the biggest cut from them, which they are implying. Ron never said the estate tax "primarily" targets small businesses. It's an annoyance, but still.

specsaregood
01-22-2011, 02:52 PM
If you needed proof that factcheck is a biased partisan hack of a site......this is it.

specialkornflake
01-23-2011, 02:39 PM
I think I'll go ahead and bump this once since we have a response in my post above.

Thrashertm
01-23-2011, 03:12 PM
Factcheck Response: http://factcheck.org/2011/01/factcheck-mailbag-week-of-dec-28-jan-3/

You notice how of all the complaints Factcheck chose to respond to, they picked the one that was wrong. Ron Paul did say that the estate tax is "especially harmful" to small businesses, but obviously that could be interpreted in multiple ways, and Factcheck chose to interpret in a way that makes Ron Paul out to be a liar. They should give Ron Paul the same benefit of the doubt they are so eager to extend to Obama.

axiomata
01-23-2011, 03:16 PM
I wonder if they'd call critics of the flat tax liars if they claim the tax was especially harmful for the poor.

Thrashertm
01-23-2011, 03:17 PM
I wonder if they'd call critics of the flat tax liars if they claim the tax was especially harmful for the poor.

Good point.

HOLLYWOOD
01-23-2011, 03:43 PM
All this crap is to shape ignorant Americans. Latch onto the first easy excuse to discredit someone without validity.

Time to open a Mirror Site parody of the FactCheck.Org called: FictionCheck.Org

Even where sometime might be incriminating to a liberal/democrat/progressive... factcheck will attempt to marginalize it or deflect something like a statement being "paraphasing" etc.

buck000
05-22-2011, 06:38 PM
They're back, repeating some of the same 'checking'...: http://factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-paul/

Thrashertm
05-22-2011, 07:06 PM
They're back, repeating some of the same 'checking'...: http://factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-paul/

I saw that. The smearings "will continue until morale improves".