What Republican Iowa Senator Grassley Really Thinks . . .
of His Constituents.
Iowa Republican Senator Grassley came out publically stating he wants to eliminate the estate tax to help Iowan farmers stay on their family farms. In rebuttal, the Des Moines Register had this to say:
Of the numbers of Iowans paying the estate tax, they can be quantified in the dozens each year. Out of the 1.45 million Iowans filing federal tax returns, the numbers of Iowans over the last five years paying estate taxes numbers from 32 in 2012 to 61 in 2015 according to IRS data. Further-more, the vast majority of those probably were not farmers or small business owners.
Despite evidence to the contrary, Finance Committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley still insisted the estate tax is potentially a ruinous burden on Iowa farmers and small business owners.
Earlier this year either in a blatant misleading statement or in total ignorance, Grassley said;
“The federal estate tax may force family members to liquidate to pay the death tax. It is harder than ever for families to pass down the family-run farm or business from one generation to the next. The death tax creates financial hardship for family businesses to survive and thrive.”
Today, the estate tax is a 40 percent tax on wealth assessed when a person die. It is applied on assets > $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. The House and Senate proposal doubles those exemptions to $11 million and $22 million. The House version abolishes the tax completely in 2024.
Iowan Republican U.S. Reps. Steve King and David Young joined the chorus with King insisting the estate tax;
“often falls hardest on family-owned farms and small businesses.”
and Young called the repeal being a massive giveaway:
“a ‘myth,’ that the repeal of the estate tax would be a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans.
The estate tax (sometimes called the death tax) negatively impacts farms and businesses all over the 3rd District. … Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation.”
.
No shame amongst politicians who are either ignorant on the topic, outright lying, or believe the populace is so unknowledgeable of the facts, they can say anything and be believed.
Kristine Tidgren, assistant director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, told the Register;
“I have not come across any examples of an Iowa family that had to sell the farm to pay the estate tax,” adding, “I don’t think the current estate tax system threatens family farmers.
IRS data from 2016 confirmed the 682 tax filers in the entire country who owed estate taxes owned farm assets and represented ~ 13 percent of the 5,219 estate tax returns in which taxes were owed.
Even that numeric likely overstates the number of primarily farm operations subject to the tax. A 2015 Congressional Research Service report projects that 65 farm estates annually across the U.S. face an estate tax liability. Less than a quarter of these, the report finds, lack sufficient funds to pay their tax bills.
There is no fool like an old fool and Senator Grassley who has served 7 terms in the Senate confirmed it by getting indignant when challenged on his beliefs.
“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 could not have stated it any better what he thinks of his constituents. His work, argument, and effort is not to eliminate the estate tax to benefit working constituents; but, it is an effort to protect and separate the ownership class from the rabble, his constituents. His comments prompted a pointed response from Pat Rynard of the Iowa Starting Line:
It is difficult to think of a more condescending, elitist worldview – that if you are not ultra-wealthy, it is clearly because you are wasting all your money on alcohol, frivolous fun, and prostitutes (I assume that’s what he meant when he said women). Certainly, it could not be because people are struggling to find decent-paying jobs, are burdened with debt from the college education needed to attain better jobs, or are paying outrageous sums for health insurance and medical bills. Nope, it must be because they are all getting hand jobs from hookers in the back of a dark movie theater while downing a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.
Describing himself as a farmer Senator Grassley runs a farm in Butler County with his son and grandson. Initially Grassley stated his own family farm would not be subject to the estate tax and then changed his mind after rethinking his farm.
If he and his wife died on the same day, the estate would be subject to the $5.5 million exemption rather than the $11 million exemption and likely would have to file an estate tax return.
Enough said.
Mr. Grassley will retire on lifelong healthcare benefits and a nice government pension thanks to his liquor swilling constituents who repeatedly elected him to office. Later in another interview, Mr. Grassley stated his comments were taken out of context.
Hat Tip to Tom Sullivan @ Hulabaloo.
The scenario you suggest of a double death would mean that he had a totally incompetent lawyer drafting his will. A will can provide that in the case of a death at the same time, one party will be presumed to die a bit before the other. Thus allowing the 11 million exemption to hold. This is long established law.
Lyle:
It could be misworded in the Register article too? I thought it was strange also. He probably does not know, which is a bit scary also. Your thoughts make perfect sense to me also. Leave it t an attorney that in a nuclear explosion one had more shelter than the other and survived the blast seconds longer.
The “farmers losing their farms to pay the estate tax” myth plays well in the mid-west and has since at least the Great Depression when banks took possession on defaults an auctioned them off publically. Later the drought (dust-bowl) did the same thing to wide distribution of audiences.
The whole schtick is left over from the “republic of small farmers” Jeffersonian myth as if keeping the old family farm is a constitutional right. I’m not a fan obviously of handing over a mint to heirs on death.
It reminds me of the old English system of Lords who could maintain their estates in the family for generations by law. Somewhere along the line the English finally decided enough was enough preferences given to the wealthy and economic competition finished it off.
Oh those poor wealthy aristocratic lords and their inherited privilege.
This is just another limb of the don’t tax the wealthy because it’s “unfair”. propaganda augmented with ‘trickle down” economic growth myths (like we’re the “job creators”… the “givers” not the “takers”.
It’s so transparent it’s unbelievable that it’s given any credibility at all. Jefferson lives…
Jefferson at least wrote pretty. Grassley is just a jerk and proof that jerks don’t improve with age.
“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.”
Why do you accuse Grassley of insulting his constituents by including them in the latter group? He says or implies no such thing. He is just contrasting those who pass on an estate vs. those who don’t.
Don’t tell me Angry Bear is just becoming another Fake News outlet!
Sammy:
I will entertain your comment:
“In addition to Hatch, Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has represented the state of Iowa since 1981, made even more crass remarks about working Americans. He did so while defending the elimination of the estate tax because he thinks we should do more to punish spenders as opposed to invest.
Did you catch that? Working Americans who don’t have enough money to invest must be that was because they spend their pennies on booze, women or movies.
Any American who has ever fallen on hard times should take offense at what these old guards in the Republican Party think of them. To the extent they have an ounce of empathy, everyone else should as well. This is a craven view of anyone who isn’t wealthy enough to gain approval from those who have consistently backed policies that have contributed to our current income inequality.” Nancy Letourneau, WM
I cannot say it any better than that. Grassley does not respect the constituents who voted him into office for 7 terms.
Run,
You are trying to manufacturing outrage.
Some people invest their money (not just the wealthy), some squander it on booze, women, or movies. It’s just a fact, no need for offense. Your are just trying to include all “working people” for political means without justification.
You think the “working class” is dumb enough to believe your formulation. That is way more condescending.
Sammy:
There is no manufacture, it is a fact. Republicans and Grassley do not favor those who are making <$100,000 annually other than to have them in their place and voting for them after spouting their lies on immigration, welfare, education, income tax, and equality. Even before the 10 years are up, many of them will be paying more in taxes which is the result of Reconciliation in which the revenues/deficits has to be balanced in order for an act to last beyond 10 years and not sunset. It was purposely done too penalize the lower income brackets to keep the skewing of 66% of the tax break to $500,000 annually.
As Lyle points out, Grassley would have been incredibly stupid if both he and his wife died at the same moment causing an increased tax penalty. The fact of the matter is he thought of his words, realized he implied the estate tax never impinged upon his wealth, so he manufactured a reason to be threatened by the estate tax. His attorney as well as Grassley himself to believe such would happen. Grassley is safe and he knows it. Grassley lies to protect his actions.
Run,
Why bother with that cretin?
Obviously your comment about Grassley’s insult is truly clear.
On other possiblity is that with the move to reporters who only have general knowledge not deep knowledge of fields, the reporter did not know this and probably has not done any estate planning for himself. If married any halfway decent will or trust would contain such language. So one might ascribe this along with other matters to reporters having less deep knowledge of the world. (Expected to write society columns one day and financial columns the next etc)
It is not suprising with the revenue squeeze the media are under.
What we need is a factual commentary on the estate tax to counter the “family farms and businesses” mantra of the super rich. (and let’s not ignore that the entire “death tax” thing is a product of the super rich?
I like this one:
T”hen House minority leader Richard Gephardt made an even more prescient observation: “If Republicans were honest about the beneficiaries of their estate tax break,” he said, “it would have been delivered by Donald Trump in a stretch limo, not a farmer on a tractor.”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-09-22/republicans-are-falsely-painting-farmers-as-the-face-of-estate-tax-repeal
But i need to work on something catchy , my Luntzian skills are not very good.
But it comes down to this, the people who pay the estate tax are simply those who do not trust their kids and relatives and who want to control them until the day they die, or beyond.
Thanks for highlighting the 2015 CRS report that says every year family farms are subject to the estate tax, one quarter of which don’t have the cash to pay. Of course many more farms would be subject to the estate tax if President Obama hadn’t signed the tax law significantly increasing the unified credit.
i was gonna say it’s not that Grassly has become old and stupid enough to believe what he said. He’s always believed that “the poor” spend their money on booze. Women and movies seems to be something new, but mostly he has become old and stupid enough to say what he believes in public.
but then Sammy came in and reminded me that even the young (-ish?) can be old and stupid:
Sammy would have us believe that only three or four people who spend their money on booze etc were meant by Grassley. but the comment and the policy would make no sense if he did not mean the working class generally. That picture of “the poor” has been the one that “the rich” justify themselves with for over a hundred years.
Coberly:
Thanks. It is time for the old guard like Hatch and Grassley to get out. The bulk of the constituents have passed them by as well as others in Congress. This effort is their with the tax cut and the estate garbage is more like their last hurrah with the intent to create a legacy for themselves and muck things up for everyone else. They need to go.
Once upon a time the exemption from the estate tax was 60k. All be it at that time a house might run 10-20k.
The question about the estate tax is it an efficient tax, in I suspect more money is spent working to get around it than it raises. (in particular given that Gates and Zuckerberg will never pay a lot of it since they are given their money away.
On the booze issue it is a common meme that was used a lot 100 years ago when prohibition was under consideration. Then it was the poor little girl going to the saloon to bring her father home who had drunk up the money for food for the family.
lyle
the “can’t pay the workers more because they would just spend it on drink” is older by far than prohibition.
the hatred of the rich for the poor is at least as old as the English revolution (1640 or so). I found a detailed book about that time… nothing has really changed.