Political Quotes

“For the last five sessions I have worked to try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them permanent. The amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the 2009 levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the Senate compromise. The rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. The estate tax in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years. My friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered from his family. He did not say it was at a much higher rate of tax than was ultimately achieved in 2009. In fact, the rate in 2009 means 99.8 percent of the families in this country have no estate tax. Zero. It went gradually lower and lower, and in 2009 hit a lower rate of taxation for estates than was ever the case under Ronald Reagan, was ever the case under George Bush I, was ever the case under George W. Bush. Now, why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the Senate deal? It's simply a matter of money: $23 billion over 2. And, quite possibly, the levels in the Senate bill would be the new rate for the estate tax. In that case, we would lose $90 billion over 10. I have heard on the other side such concern about unpaid-for unemployment benefits. I have not heard one word about unpaid-for estate tax levels. They would add to the national debt $23 billion more than the 2009 levels.”