Tax Cuts For The Rich With Personhood on the Side!

Call it an un-reversal.

Yet another flashpoint in the debate over tax “reform” legislation passed by the U.S. House last week, which cuts tax rates and spikes the budget deficit by $1.5 trillion or more along with the eliminating a number of targeted tax credits, is a provision that apparently tries once against to establish legal rights for fetuses–another so-called “personhood” provision that could, supporters hope against hope, pry open a path to banning abortion. Rewire:

Page 93 of the 429-page plan, which a Washington Post analysis describes as rewarding big corporations and the “super-rich” at the expense of some small businesses, the working poor, and charities, outlines the GOP’s plan to designate “unborn children” as beneficiaries in 529 college savings plans.

The change appears to be politically motivated. Expectant parents already can put a 529 plan in their own name and switch the beneficiary when their child is born. That’s because 529 plans require the beneficiary’s social security number, which fetuses don’t have… [Pols emphasis]

The Republican plan provides fetuses with the federal benefits by saying that “nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual.” The section of their tax plan goes on to define “unborn child” as a “child in utero”—”a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’

The phrase “at any stage of development” dovetails with the GOP’s escalating anti-choice agenda under President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Republicans on Capitol Hill are behind deeply unpopular “personhood” bills that try to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception. The personhood laws would criminalize abortion with no exception and ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for pregnant people.

This seemingly innocuous language in a provision of the Republican tax bill pertaining to college savings accounts is of course not there by accident, and represents another attempt to give the “preborn” legal rights. Which could, so the legal theory goes, serve as a precedent for more rights, and eventually rights to–here comes the payoff–not be subjected to an abortion. That’s the whole essence of the “Personhood” debate, whether it’s in the ballot measures Coloradans have rejected over and over by lopsided margins, or the “Personhood” legislation in Congress that Sen. Cory Gardner falsely insisted was merely a “statement of principles”–distinct from the equivalently-worded ballot measures he disavowed when he ran for the U.S. Senate. All of these initiatives and bills are precursors to the ultimate goal of banning abortion.

Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver summed it up in her statement blasting the provision:

Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) said the provision in the just-released GOP tax plan allowing the start of a 529 college savings plan for an “unborn child” is an extreme policy that has no place in the tax code.

“This is a back-door attempt to establish personhood from the moment of conception,” DeGette said. “Even in the tax reform debate, Republicans could not resist including offensive provisions to appease an extremist minority. The tax code is no place to define what constitutes an ‘unborn child.’ What’s next, giving a Social Security number to a zygote?” [Pols emphasis]

She’s kidding, of course. But we’d say maybe don’t give them any ideas.

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Every sperm cell should have a social security number. This would outlaw male masturbation,

  2. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Filed under every life is sacred: this meme is making the rounds on Facebook today.  You don't suppose those zany Russians are at it again, using our local celebrity as a pawn in shaping public opinion on gunz?!? 

     

  3. ParkHill says:

    Tax Breaks for the Takers, not the Makers!

    The Idle Rich get the most tax breaks… and the More Idler, the more breaks.

    If you have stocks and bonds (i.e. you are rather idle), your income is taxed at a lower rate than someone who is taxed on their labor.

    If you own your own business (Subchapter S, Real Estate LLC, Doctors, Business Owners), your tax rate changes from your Personal Rate down to 20%. Highly-paid professionals on a salary don't get this break, but are highly incentivized to change their category from salary to consultant. Is Stephen Curry a contractor to the Golden State?

    Rich Heirs are probably the most Idle of all. They have done no work to earn their money, yet they get the biggest tax break.

    • Early WormEarly Worm says:

      Don't forget the step up in basis. You only pay the capital gains tax when you sell the asset. But if you die before you sell the asset (the house, the stock, the bond) your heirs receive the asset at a "stepped up basis" calculated as of the date of death. In other words, stock that grandpa bought for $100 and never sold (because he's rich, didn't need to, and sure as hell didn't want to pay capital gains tax) that is worth $10,000 when he dies, goes to his heirs, and they never have to pay capital gains on the $9,900 increase in value. 

      Bottom line, if you work and spend, you pay income taxes, payroll taxes (to cover SS, Medicaid, Medicare), capital gains taxes (on your 401K distributions after you retire), and state and local taxes, including sales tax when you buy stuff. If you are part of the oligarchy, you do not work (or at least are not stupid enough to classify any of it as a wage), you do not pay income taxes, you do not pay your share of the payroll taxes, and, when you die, your heirs get everything free and clear of any estate tax or capital gains.

      This is not some fancy tax dodge requiring an army of accountants and lawyers. This is simply what you get when policy is driven by unlimited campaign donations and patronage by the wealthy.    

      • MADCO says:

        Oligarchy.

        Plutonomy.

        Feudalism.

         

        We had it for several hundred years and it worked fine, until some rowdy farmers and landowners told their king to f-off. (not Iowa's King)

         

        It is what they want. Rich people do whatever they want, stay or get richer, and pay no tax.

      • ParkHill says:

        Trickle-up Economics. 

        Increase minimum wage to $15/hr, including restaurant and farm-workers. Hire bridge-repair workers. 

        All that increased demand will lead a few business people to pull money out of savings or Bermuda and expand production. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.