The truth about the “death tax”
Yesterday, the Senate passed the tax cut deal by a whopping vote of 81-19, and the House is poised to consider the measure today. While it likely has the votes to pass, few observers expect the lopsided support that it received in the Senate. Too many House Democrats are still furious over the extension of Bush-era tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.
Indeed, Democrats are poised to mount a last-ditch protest — by way of an amendment — over the estate tax, which Republicans commonly refer to as “the death tax.” A Gingrich-era manipulation of the language (and a brilliant one), the phrase “death tax” has led many Americans to believe that a corpse is taxed. It isn’t.
Here’s the truth about the estate tax:
According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes — which they always call “death taxes” for P.R. reasons — would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $1 trillion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010).
That’s worth keeping in mind the next time you hear about the “death tax.”
However, that doesn’t make the Democrats’ amendment worthwhile. Republicans have made clear they will brook no changes whatsoever to the tax deal that passed the Senate, so, if the Democrats’ amendment were to pass, it would risk blowing up the deal — killing tax breaks for the middle-class and unemployment benefits. Besides, as the WaPo’s Ezra Klein makes clear, the House Democrats’ amendment would not make a dramatic change from the compromise:
There are basically three versions of the estate tax on the table. If we do nothing, it’ll exempt the first $1 million of estates and tax the value above that at 55 percent. That would affect 2 percent of estates and raise about $700 billion over the next 10 years. The version in the tax deal — also known as the Lincoln-Kyl rates — would exempt $5 million and tax the rest at 35 percent. That’d affect 0.25 percent of estates and raise closer to $300 billion.
And then there’s what House Democrats are fighting for: A $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent tax rate. Chris Van Hollen calls this “the common sense compromise,” but it really isn’t. It’s the same level as the Bush tax cuts set in 2009. It would raise about $400 billion and affect 1 percent of estates. It’s much closer, in other words, to the Republican vision than to what’ll happen if we do nothing
I could see the argument for getting the estate tax back down to its 2001 levels. The rich have gotten richer since then, and their taxes have gone lower. But I can’t see the argument for blowing up the tax deal over the difference between George W. Bush’s 2009 rates and the Lincoln-Kyl rates. Over the next two years, the difference between those bills is $10 billion. If House Democrats are willing to risk the whole deal to fix the estate tax, they should actually fix the estate tax. Simply affirming the Bush rates isn’t worth it and is arguably worse than just taking a hardline on the necessity of the 2001 levels when the Lincoln-Kyl levels expire in 2012.
-by Cynthia Tucker
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
588 comments Add your comment
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:29 am
@ctucker 11:25 – how do you know they didn’t work hard for it? Often people with large estates have a family business which employ many members of the family. I’d say they worked for it. You are so presumptuous over other people’s money its laughable.
George W
December 16th, 2010
11:30 am
Ctucker….you are still fighting for your 40 acres and a mule. Should you pay taxes on that as well haha. Get a freaking life.
paleo-neo-Carlinist; a/k/a Joe the Plutocrat
December 16th, 2010
11:31 am
Rafe, see my missive to “to the right of Atilla”. the plutocracy has a vested interest in keeping the poor, poor (and this includes the charlatans on the left). remember Eddie Murphy in Trading Places? ’seems to me the way you hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people.” the plutocracy doesn’t ‘recruit’ members, but it certainly expels them from time to time.
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:31 am
@Keep up the good fight! – maybe Ken doesn’t expect anything form the government. Chew on that concept for a minute.
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
December 16th, 2010
11:32 am
“The estate tax applies to people who have not worked hard for the money they inherit.”- Cynthia
Cynthia,
That’s true Cynthia. These people did not work for the money. But their parents did. And their parent’s paid tax on that money. And that money should be theirs to pass on as they see fit. The idea that you see it as the gubment’s money to tax as they see fit or as you see fit is nothing short of disturbing. Not to mention greedy and envious of other people’s wealth. What you advocate is nothing short of using the coercive power of the police state to tax people a second time on money that has already been taxed and give that money to other’s who didn’t work for it and didn’t pay taxes on it.
ken
December 16th, 2010
11:33 am
Keep up the good fight, I have paid thousands of dollars in taxes in my 70 years and continue to pay taxes on dividends and my Social Sec is even taxed .
Richard
December 16th, 2010
11:33 am
To ctucker@11:25: So you get to decide who has worked hard enough for the wealth their heirs might be able to pass on to them? Is that the standard for all wealth, inherited or otherwise? Please address the morality of taking from someone, as I pointed out at 11:27. I suggest reading some of Walter Williams’ many columns on the topic. And then please justify your positions. Is it because any one who has wealth must of amassed it off the backs of others? If so, spare me.
Beat the Death Tax, buy oil, burn it all
December 16th, 2010
11:34 am
One is “awarded” success in AmeriKa with minority set aside money. A guy I went to hs with started his own pharmacy benefits firm, it prospers on minority set aside contracts. It fails completely in competition with non minority business, but it does suck up all that free government money. The atlanta airport is just one big minority set aside project, one the white traveling public pays for with every trip. Amazingly enough, the airport exists only because of a former white mayor, yet the airport is named for a big fat black crook, imho.
Keep up the good fight!
December 16th, 2010
11:36 am
Yep Ken you have paid…and still we have a deficit. So all Americans have a debt. America needs to pay the bill, then you can discuss cutting the money going into the system.
Chris…you mean Ken does not drive, does not use any infrastructure, is not protected by our military…but of course we can all switch to a pay for services needed model. Wait til you hear how that works.
Swede Atlanta
December 16th, 2010
11:36 am
The estate tax is justified for a number of reasons.
One is inheritance passes on a stepped-up basis or unrealized gains so that portion of the appreciated value has not been taxed.
Secondly, wealth is certainly generated by people’s initiative (although of course some of it is pure luck or on the backs of others) but that accumulation of wealth is also made possible by our system. That system is in the form of the taxes we take on income and wealth during a person’s lifetime but also our free market economy, liability protections under our business organization law, open domestic markets and the extent to which we have free trade agreements with other countries. Part of the justification for a wealth transfer tax is to recognize the extent to which that wealth is also made possible.
StJ
December 16th, 2010
11:36 am
“the phrase “death tax” has led many Americans to believe that a corpse is taxed”
Only the dumbest of the dumb would believe you could physically collect tax from a corpse. I’d like to see a poll of that…
james
December 16th, 2010
11:36 am
Interesting reading about the AJC owners- note the last sentence about family trusts that I am sure were being used to reduce the estate tax-
CT- can you give us an in depth blog on this issue tomorrow?
The IRS is demanding that Atlanta billionaire Anne Cox Chambers pay an additional $4 million in income taxes.
The IRS also wants Chambers’ sister, Barbara Cox Anthony and Anthony’s husband, Garner Anthony, to pay another $4 million in additional taxes. The Anthonys live in Honolulu.
On Dec. 19, Chambers and the Anthonys filed petitions in U.S. Tax Court in Washington, D.C., challenging the IRS’ claims, which were sent to the three on Sept. 23.
Chambers and her sister are ranked No. 19 on Forbes magazine’s most recent list of America’s 400 richest people, sharing a “fortune worth more than $10 billion,” according to Forbes. Both are on the board of directors of Atlanta’s second-largest private company, Cox Enterprises Inc., which publishes newspapers (including The Dayton Daily News and the Springfield News Sun) and owns cable TV systems, radio stations and the world’s largest auto auction business.
Three days after Chambers’ and the Anthonys’ petitions were filed in tax court, Cox Enterprises filed its own, separate case against the IRS. Lynda Stewart, director of communications for Cox Enterprises Inc., said that the company would not comment beyond the filing.
The dispute between Chambers, the Anthonys and the IRS stems from a 1987 transaction involving family trusts.
Read more: IRS battling Cox heirs on income taxes | Dayton Business Journal
Kitty Conrad
December 16th, 2010
11:37 am
This is the first time I remember CT wrote something that actually made good sense that reflects reality.
However, the Democrats SHOULD have fixed the estate tax in 2007…or 2008…or 2009…or early 2010. Certainly in 2009 when they had a supermajority and their own president. They didn’t. They sat around being politicians, pontificating and fiddling instead of governing, spending all that time telling me I have to buy an insurance policy and proving they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
big steve
December 16th, 2010
11:38 am
Perfect rationale by the losers of the Left. Earn and already have paid taxes on everything within your estate. But when you die, your wife and kids will have to sell the house in order to be double-taxed…
Seems a bit counter-intuitive in a Free Market economy — but of course, Liberals believe that everyone should earn the same for the greater good of the proletariante — isnt that right Comrade?
Ann
December 16th, 2010
11:38 am
My parents never went to college, started with nothing, worked and sacrificed and paid taxes all their lives. They were not wealthy but had a farm that they had paid off and the government has no right to any of it. They had already paid taxes on every dollar and for the govt to come in and claim any of that money is wrong. Instead of robbing citizens of their inheritances, maybe they should stop doling out money to those who don’t make anything of their lives. It used to be that you got what you earned, the dems have turned that on it’s ear. Cynthia Tucker is a great advocate for robbing Peter to pay Paul. The keyword in that sentence is ROBBING. Washington’s greed and corruption would make the mafia blush. Shame on all of them.
ken
December 16th, 2010
11:40 am
Cindy, I saved MY money for MY family not Government Controled leaches. Call your tax whatever you want .
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
December 16th, 2010
11:41 am
I give them kudos for now allowing the IRS to “launder the money” and I think they know it’s really not their wealth.- Joe the Plutocrat.
Sorry Joe but if they earned it then it is indeed their wealth. Plain and simple. And if they want to give it away then so be it. As for all the people that are born into wealth such as your example of Paris Hilton, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys- I say so what. Who cares if they inherited their wealth? Why do you care if someone was born into wealth? Does that somehow give you a right to tax them and knock them down a peg or two because they were born into it?
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:41 am
@Keep up the good fight – what would be the problem with a ‘pay for services needed’ model. God forbid a government agency have to justify their existence or funding level. I shiver at the thought.
Paddy O
December 16th, 2010
11:41 am
granny – you claim middle class status with far less than 250K, but we all know the middle class tops off at about 80 max, and this new number the wealthy trying to shield themselves. So, under this new middle class #, do you still qualify, and, in what industry did you make a living in?
Paddy O
December 16th, 2010
11:43 am
Cynthia’s 1.6% number is flat out incorrect. Anyone who has inherited their parents house, which should comprise 60% of those who suffer the loss of a parent, would be affected by this death tax.
Kamchak
December 16th, 2010
11:43 am
The family farm means the house and possessions inherited as well as any extra retirement money.
Geez….
Despite the oft-repeated claim that the estate tax has dire consequences for family
farms and small businesses, no evidence supports that charge. Indeed, the American
Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times several years ago, when
the estate tax was more expansive than it is today, that even then it could not cite a
single example of a farm having to be sold to pay the estate tax.
Hootinanny Yum Yum
December 16th, 2010
11:45 am
blah blah blah. Evil rich. blah blah blah. Global warming. blah blah blah. DADT. blah blah blah. Birthers. blah blah blah. Browning of America. blah blah blah. Bush’s fault. blah blah blah. Tea Baggers. blah blah blah. Party of NO! blah blah blah. White, Christian Right Wingnuts. blah blah blah. Amnesty for immigrants. blah blah blah. Stricter gun control. blah blah blah. Wall Street. blah blah blah. Beck, Boortz, Hannity, and Rush. blah blah blah. Greedy corporate executives. blah blah blah.
There. Now you’re done for the rest of the year.
Could you go away for a few days again? Please?
David S
December 16th, 2010
11:45 am
There is nothing that the government does that cannot be done better and likely cheaper by a truly free and competitive market (no, that is not the same as “privatization” which is basically just the transferring of the government monopoly to a private entity so that they can screw everyone). Ending the government monopoly on service provision doesn’t mean it goes away. What it means is that the marketplace determines what is needed (as opposed to the corrupt political process) and what price the users are willing to pay (and that would include charitable giving for those in need.
It might be easy to dismiss those who want to get rid of government as naive. The truth is that we are very aware of how much money government wastes, how much of government is completely unnecessary, and how much better a free market would address the needs of society. It is the rest of you government lovers that are naive in believing that government is actually doing either a good job or one that is worthy of all the money they are spending (consuming).
Keep up the good fight!
December 16th, 2010
11:46 am
Chris…you miss the point. Yes, let’s see. How much should you personally pay for the 2 wars? How much do you drive — let’s bill you by the mile? Have a fire — we should bill you for the fire deparment visit? And of course, since the fire department will now have to cost-justify their existence and only can bill those who use them, well you may find your fire department is 40 miles away. Shall we continue with the silliness?
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
December 16th, 2010
11:47 am
Don’t want to give the liberals any ammo but I was told by a professor in college where the income tax came from and the reason why- he was of course a liberal economics professor so I’m not 100% sure of his stats.
Anyway, he stated that the death tax was brought about by a Republican administration- Teddy Roosevelt of all people. And that the reason for the death tax was because at that point in our nation’s economic history nearly 50% of all economic wealth in the country had become concentrated amongst about 20 families- the Carnegies, Rockefellors, Fords, Mellons, Vanderbilts, etc. This was considered a dangerous concentration of wealth by a Republican administration and hence the death tax to redistribute wealth and begin decreasing this enormous concentration of wealth.
Even though I’m against the death tax in principle I will leave that little tidbit of info for the rest of you to argue about. I’m out for the day.
Georgian
December 16th, 2010
11:47 am
If Buffett and Gates and all those others want to “give” their wealth and fund all these things, why aren’t they donating their billions to the government?
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
December 16th, 2010
11:48 am
Sorry I said the income tax but I meant the estate death tax being introduced by Teddy.
Larry
December 16th, 2010
11:48 am
Call it whatever you want, death tax, envy tax, soak the rich tax, how about the white caddilac with a red door tax or the buzzard or carrion tax? It’s an attempt to take something from someone for no other reason than they are a minority. What is the justification for this tax? Taxes have already been paid on it so it’s not like we didn’t get our pound of flesh while it was being accumulated. Now we want to rush in and confiscate somebody’s estate because they were successful in life. Now we will get even with them after they die. And if the person is the owner of a small company so that the assets are not stocks and securities, let’s force the heirs to sell the business and put the employees on the street. That will teach those successful people. What is the reason we believe we have rights to another person’s property or that there should be a limit to how much a person can leave to their family? By the way, I am not impacted by this and will not be unless Washington doesn’t do something about controlling the deficit in which case we will be spending $10,000 for a loaf of bread and everybody will be subjected to this.
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:48 am
@Kamchak – apparently you missed the point, the family farm doesn’t literally mean a farm.
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:51 am
@Keep up the good fight – so I guess the alternative is to put a fire department on every corner no matter what the cost? Well lets go ahead and put a McDonald’s and a Starbucks on every corner too cost be damned. Oh wait those are private companies, they actually have to be responsible in their spending.
Swede Atlanta
December 16th, 2010
11:51 am
First of all, a primary residence is not subject to estate tax if it is passing to a surviving spouse. It is subject to taxation, over the exemption limit, when the last spouse dies and passes the property to children or other beneficiaries.
The taxes are to be paid out of the estate prior to transfer to beneficiaries. It is a tax on the estate and not on the takers, similar to the gift tax. The person receiving a gift in excess of allowance doesn’t pay, the person making the gift pays as a wealth-transfer tax.
JoeFann
December 16th, 2010
11:52 am
Ms Tucker–To follow your line of reasoning that “people who have not worked hard for the money they inherit” should not benefit from inheriting it, could also be applied to citizenship. You “inherited” it by birth. You did nothing for it (at that time,) yet you gain the benefit. Should that be “earned” as well? I see no difference. Except…
I think that passive gains received through inheritance probably should be taxed, though I’m sure we would not agree to what extent. I think that land and real estate, if “significantly” occupied by the inheritor at some point, should be passed free from taxes. That would protect family homestead property. Commercial real estate should be taxed in a separate category that should capture some tax on the appreciation of the property, though there should be an exempt holding period (10 years?) to handle the fluctuations in market value. Financial assets, stocks and bonds, should be taxed on their appreciated value (subject to an inflation index) as any other capital gain (minus their cost basis,) retaining their original cost basis if rolled from the decedent’s tax-preferenced account into the inheritor’s tax-preferenced account. If cashed out, they should be taxed as ordinary income. Lower the total exemption to $1 million, excluding the primary homestead real estate, and limit the value of the primary homestead to $5 million. You protect family dwellings and livelihoods and capture tax on passive gains that even the decedent would have had to pay if surviving. Corporations and LLCs provide protections for the owners from catastrophic business losses. If the property is held by a corporation or LLC, then it should not be subject to protection from estate taxes. They should be treated as financial assets and appreciated stock transfers should be taxed as ordinary income (or a capital gain subject to cost basis and indexed inflation) to the inheritor.
Kamchak
December 16th, 2010
11:54 am
– apparently you missed the point, the family farm doesn’t literally mean a farm.
Apparently you didn’t click on the link.
A Congressional Budget Office study, as well, exploded the myth that small businesses
and farms have to be liquidated to pay the estate tax. CBO found that of the few farm
and family business estates that would owe any estate tax under the 2009 parameters,
the overwhelming majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts,
stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the
farm or business. For instance, of the 65 farm estates that would owe any tax after the
$3.5 million exemption, just 13 could potentially face liquidity constraints, and CBO
explained that even this figure likely overestimates the number of farm estates with
liquidity constraints, because CBO was unable to take into account certain assets held
in trusts (such as life insurance trusts) when calculating the liquid assets available to
estates to pay the tax. Furthermore, the few, if any, farm estates that would face any
liquidity constraints would have other important options available to them — such as
spreading their estate tax payments over a 14-year period — that would allow them to
pay the tax without having to sell off any of the farm assets.
Toby
December 16th, 2010
11:55 am
Then I guess we all agree that lotto winnings shouldn’t be taxed ?
Get Real
December 16th, 2010
11:56 am
CT would not know truth if it hit her in the head like a baseball bat
Keep up the good fight!
December 16th, 2010
11:56 am
Chris we dont have a fire station on every corner. Government does strive for quick response time. But we could charge for every mile driven by you so you pay more than I do for roads. You use a bridge, so you pay for that, I wont. Your subdivision has a bridge leading into it, then the entire subdivision pays not the county. Etc……
Your McD and Starbucks rebuttal is utter nonsense. Those companies generally average costs and have generally standardized prices (minor fluctations) and franchise pays fees for advertising, etc. Thanks for playing.
Chris
December 16th, 2010
11:57 am
@Kamchak – OK I get it, so someone should have to pay the government for losing their parent because they can? Sympathy and compassion liberal style I guess.
in response to
December 16th, 2010
11:57 am
What is fair about 35, 45, or 55%? Not one thing. The exemption level should be raised or eliminated all-together. Here is my mother-in-law’s case (who is in good shape, but NOT rich, but is considered as some would define rich). She inherited 400 acres of farm-land from her husband when he died (that he farmed his whole life). If she died with the $1MM dollar exemption in place, it would look like this:400 acres @ $5000 per acre = 2,000,000, plus her house (whether paid off or not), 200,000, plus her life insurance policy, 200,000, so let’s say her estate is worth $2.4MM (and it’s figured on gross, not net)….deduct the $1MM, so the family would have to come up with .55 of 1.4MM or $770,000 in TAXES because their mother died. So, to make a long story short, all of the family would have to come up with $770,000 in TAXES to settle their mama’s estate….which means selling the land……..Fair?
Keep up the good fight!
December 16th, 2010
11:58 am
Toby, of course they should not be taxed if someone wins millions. We dont want to tax the rich, right?
Georgian
December 16th, 2010
12:00 pm
Chris,
Kam only lives in the literal. The rest of us live in fantasy.
Swede Atlanta
December 16th, 2010
12:00 pm
Paddy O
60% of people that inherit a family home will be affected? No, I think you misunderstand. There is an exemption up to a certain value. If the law is not changed the first one million is exempt. I don’t know that many homes or even estates that are over $1M. It is only the value in excess of the exemption that is taxable. The number of estates over $1M is very small indeed.
Chris
December 16th, 2010
12:00 pm
@Keep up the good fight -’Your McD and Starbucks rebuttal is utter nonsense. Those companies generally average costs and have generally standardized prices (minor fluctations) and franchise pays fees for advertising, etc. Thanks for playing.’
So I guess you can put up a McD’s or Starbucks anywhere you want huh? The parent company has not control over it or vested interest at all.
George W
December 16th, 2010
12:01 pm
Democrats will just do not get it. Keep up the blind faith for Obama. I cannot wait until 2012. Keep passing bills and laws that the American people do not want. Great job!
Rafe Hollister
December 16th, 2010
12:02 pm
The Death Tax is immoral, that is all that needs to be said. It is wrong to steal.
Sinthee: Many of your arguments deal with the low percentage of people effected. You imply that since only 1.6% are effected, we shouldn’t care.
If there are ten people standing around, who want to go to the movie, and nine of them have no money, is it OK to take the wallet of the tenth person and pay for the ten tickets. If I am one of the nine, I would not say it is OK or its only a movie, he will get over it. Sounds like you would say, 90% of us benefitted, why is he complaining?
Swede Atlanta
December 16th, 2010
12:02 pm
In response to….
Life insurance is not included in a person’s estate
Julie R Camp
December 16th, 2010
12:02 pm
“According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes — which they always call “death taxes” for P.R. reasons — would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $1 trillion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010).”
You should research your data before you publish anything! Every one that owns a business is subject to the death tax. If your business is worth a certain amount, your estate will pay taxes on the value of the business. If your children do not have enough cash, they have to sell the family business. I’ve had many friends that lose the family business and then their job after selling off the company or farm to pay the taxes. I do believe that a small percent inherit 100k, because it usually is taxed and or split with siblings. But that figure does not mean that the “death tax” is fair, nor does it hurt only the rich.
Georgian
December 16th, 2010
12:02 pm
In response to,
That is exactly what they want. No reason that land should be in your family for generations. You’ve had it long enough!
monty
December 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
Just a difference in philosophy Cynthia, you believe in BIG Government,higher taxes for entitlement programs, more government regulations,less individual freedoms and more government intrusion, more spending by taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots,(redistribution of wealth). You believe the government should take almost half of someone’s inheritance and use it to fund free healthcare to somene who dropped out of school at 16 or got pregnant at 15 and is now 23 with their 3rd or 4th child all by different fathers. That is something most Americans cannot stomach. I am a pastor who runs into this situation on a regular basis. I can’t afford healthcare for my family,but my wife who worked 4 years at a OBGYN office saw everyday young women who recieved free healthcare and deilvery and yet they all had cell phones,hair and they’re nails done. Nice that the haves could help out with all the child birthing. I can certainly understand the need for higher taxation if that is your philosophy.I just don’t buy into that and I don’t believe most Americans do either. The more people that recieve entitlements and grow accustomed to them, the greater dependency on Master(Big Govt).I would have thought you of all people would be opposed to that. Freed from one form but enslaved to another.
james
December 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
The department’s gang unit, auto theft task force and other specialized teams set up traffic safety check points and flooded high-crime areas in the city for seven days, starting Dec. 7, Atlanta police spokesman Carlos Campos said.
These poor thugs were profiled!!!! I am outraged and you should be as well.
Larry
December 16th, 2010
12:03 pm
Kamchak,
None of the farmers I know are cash or investment rich? Everyone of them lives crop to crop on loans so if they have to borrow to run, where are these huge cash reserves that you cite coming from? I know you love your studies, but I base my beliefs based on what I have seen and learned in life.