Part of the Bay Area News Group

McNerney, Stark oppose estate tax bill

By Josh Richman
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm in Jerry McNerney, Pete Stark, taxes, U.S. House, Uncategorized.

Congressmen Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, and Pete Stark, D-Fremont, were among 26 House Democrats who broke from the party pack today to oppose H.R. 4154, Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009.

The bill, which passed on a 225-200 vote, would prevent the federal estate tax from expiring on Dec. 31, extending it indefinitely at a top rate of 45 percent and permanently exempting couples’ fortunes of up to $7 million, according to Bloomberg News. Congress in 2001 decided to drop the estate tax in 2010 before reinstating it in 2011 at the previous higher top rate of 55 percent for estates valued at more than $1 million.

Jerry McNerneyMcNerney issued a statement saying family farmers and small business owners should’ve been exempted, and the bill should be indexed to inflation so there’s not an increase each yaer in the number of farms and small businesses affected.

“California’s family farmers and small business owners need real reform that lifts the devastating burden of the estate tax, not a tax increase at a time when our economy is struggling,” McNerney said. “Unfortunately, today’s legislation represents a flawed attempt at reform. The bill offered would harm many family farms and small businesses in our area, costing jobs and damaging the local economy.”

McNerney last month introduced the competing H.R. 4015, Family Farm and Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2009, which he said would permanently exempt from the estate tax farmland that remains in operation and is passed down from one generation to another; would exempt small businesses worth up to $8 million; and is indexed to inflation.

“This was an opportunity for real reform, but instead the proposal passed today was a watered down approach. I’m going to keep fighting for the legislation I introduced and estate tax reform that benefits family farmers and small businesses owners,” McNerney said.

Stark’s nay vote was for markedly different reasons, according to his statement on the House floor:

Pete Stark“Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax. The American people have more pressing concerns. Our priority should be to create jobs, enact health reform, and extend unemployment insurance and COBRA assistance, not provide gifts for the wealthiest 7000 Americans.

“I favor a one-year extension of current law, and then we can consider the estate tax in the context of all of the expiring Bush tax provisions. This provision should not be given priority over helping those who can’t find affordable health coverage or have lost their home or their job.

“Now is not the right time for this legislation. Let’s pass a one-year extension and get back to the issues that are truly important to the American people—creating jobs and assisting struggling families. I urge a no vote.”

Share

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

5 Responses to “McNerney, Stark oppose estate tax bill”

  1. Elwood Says:

    Pete Stark in favor of higher taxes?

    Who woulda thunk it?

  2. Gerard Says:

    This noise about how the estate tax affects farmers and small business people is a sham. This country is fast becoming one where inherited wealth and wealth generally controls all – including public policy on any issue. I do not believe there should be such a thing as inherited wealth. The conservatives are so enthusiatic about “working” for one’s wealth yet work constantly to protect those who have done nothing to earn what they have (eg. the Bush family and their ilk.
    Why such people as Stark and McNerny (for whom I have personally campaigned) having taken their current positions is something I do not understand – unless they too are selling out to the rich.
    the mos

  3. John W Says:

    Inheritance income should not be taxed at confiscatory rates (ordinary tax rates will do), and provisions should be made for family owned and operated businesses/farms so that they don’t have to be sold off in order to pay taxes. Some of those provisions already exist in current law. However, the idea that somebody who inherits Uncle Bob’s $7 million Berkshire-Hathaway stock, purchased decades ago and never taxed, should not have to pay income tax on that windfall is absurd. We tax productive activity — wages and investments. We tax it again when people pay sales taxes on the things they buy with the fruit of their labor. We tax it again when they buy a house and pay property taxes. So, arguments that taxing inheritances somehow amounts to singling out this form of wealth for double taxation is completely bogus.

  4. RR, Uninvited Columnist Says:

    As usual, Stark is stark(raving mad!)

  5. Frank M Arouet Says:

    Stark and McNerney

    aren’t you glad to be a Democrat?

Leave a Reply