The truth about the “death tax”

Everything that was left to an heir was purchased with dollars that have already been taxed as income. In addition, the items that are left to an heir were purchased, likely, with sales tax and in some counties, self-imposed SPLOST taxes.
To be required to pay even more tax buy leaving after tax items to your kinfolk is double taxation and should not be allowed.
Your problem with it is that you want redistribution, as do many ultra liberals. You would not want to use your after tax dollars, buy a car, pay sales tax on it, then get taxed again when you give it to your child would you?

• Link
• Report this comment

America needs to pay its bills. Time we made sure we have the tax revenues to do so and charge those who seemingly benefit the most with bailouts and pork deals. Reinstating the estate tax is a smart move.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s funny that even Andrew Carnegie spoke in front of Congress in favor of the estate tax when it was first being considered.

The “death tax” is just another way the Republican tools get their middle and lower class voters to support legislation that is against their best interest.

If you read Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone he did an expose on the “death tax” a year or so ago. Well worth the read.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s one of my problems. Your father dies, leaves you the family farm that is worth over $100k, so you get the farm, but now owe 1/3 of your assets to the tax man, even though it’s already been taxed through income and property taxes. So you sell the family farm, transferring yet another family owned business to a big corporation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian, you should learn the difference between supporting something and compromising on something.

These intelligence capabilities should be learned before people graduate high school.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian…you confuse compromising with “promoting”. They are not the same.

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn,

According to you libs, you are the champions of the middle and lower class. How does Repubs have a hold on that? Maybe you should do your research.

How did Obama get elected?

Those voters and minorities.

Why are Dems fighting immigration reform? Why do they want tax increases? Why do they want free health care?

Answer is simple. To trick poor unsuspecting Americans into voting for their liberal agendas.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jimmy62, so the person couldn’t sell 1/3 of the farm assets they inherited?

• Link
• Report this comment

I do have sympathy for the unemployed, but this is a bad bill, loaded with ear marks and should not pass. The egregious part is the reduction in social security tax for one year. The republicans have been trying to kill social security from its beginning and this is the largest nail in its coffin, so far. The terrible irony is that it is being hammered by a president from the democratic party. It seems that the working class no longer has any champions in washington, d.c.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep and Finn,

OH! So Obama “compromised” so even if the plan was crafted by him with Repubs his name can’t be linked with it because he “compromised”.

Not so fast, my friend!

Obama accepted this and promotes this because he knows its what is best for the country. He even has said it is the plan that will create the most growth. He also has said if the cuts are not extended as agreed on IT IS THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY.

Don’t cheapen your great leader by saying he does not promote this deal. He told Dems this was the only plan they would get. HE is the author of this tax cut plan. Don’t fool yourselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well of course the wingnuts forget that there are spousal exemptions and exemptions for chartiable donations…And of course, much of the actual tax is based on unrealized gains in stocks, land and other investments that has NOT been taxed previously. But once again, we see arguments from the right that are devoid of facts and lost to reality…..

The lunacy of the right continues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian…please provide a direct quote from the President and not some claim of quote from a questionable source…..

You fool yourself if you think promoting a compromise means that any person agrees with all of the concept in the compromise. I know these are hard distinctions for you but do try to keep up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep,

What was our founders reasons for declaring independence from Great Britian?

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian….play your games elsewhere. Let’s deal with reality not your wild wingnuttery.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep,
So, for you to shut your whiny, I want mine, welfare, government subsidized housing, food stamp collecting, reparations now mouth, the people who have worked their whole lives just need to write your liberal kind a check, give you the keys to their house and fortune and that will be almost enough. Then when they die you can have what’s left. I think all of the working people should quit their jobs & stop paying taxes all together. Then who pays the bills, D.A.?

• Link
• Report this comment

I love how a 1924-page, $1.1 trillion spending bill is thrown up before Congress, and CT istrying to teach us about the Estate Tax. Classic change of direction. Both she and the WaPo article sling out some pretty good ‘wealth envy.” ‘The rich have gotten richer…’ Those jerks, we should take their money away from them, they didn’t do anything to earn it, it was jsut given to them, so we should forcibly take it and give it to those that we deem deserve it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep, the step-up in basis is paid as INCOME TAX when it is taken by the recipient.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just say no to the estate tax! We’re cutting off needed future revenue and economic activity for a one-time bonanza. In the grand scheme of things the amount raised now is miniscule.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep,
No melt down. Just facing the facts. Hoof, what the hell does that mean? Childrens corner, is that where you sat while waiting to see your dad in prison?

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn,

Who is responsible for those add-ons to the orginal deal? DEMOCRATS. Because House Dems hated the bill, they started throwing in perks for themselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

I love it …take take take!!! thats the Dems for ya…Hey Libs do you think the estate tax will line your pockets with money…do you think you will ever see it? Its not the govt’s money… and still they SPEND!!! taxing the republicans is what this all about…cuz ALL REPUBLICANS ARE RICH..lol!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I fall more on the conservative side, obviously. So let’s do some research into earmarks.

When a spending bill is established, the amount of money in the bill is set at a certain point in time. Then, Senators and Representatives can go through and tag certain portions of the already decided amount to be used for special projects in their home states and districts. This does not mean that more money was added to the bill.

But earmarks can cause the amount of spending to change. Our example here is the 2007 Water Resources Development Act. Both the House and the Senate passed their own versions of the bill, totaling $14B and $15B respectively. When trying to reconcile the difference in desired appropriations, a compromise was struck that sent the cost of the bill up to $23 billion, a $8 billion increase, all as a result of earmarked appropriations. President Bush vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode his veto. Bush cited the increase in funds as unnecessary to accomplish the desired goal of the bill.

So, yeah, earmarks can cause the value of a bill to go up, but it’s not as simple as saying Senator So-and-so added a $20 million earmark, so that means he added $20 million to the bill. That might not be the case.

• Link
• Report this comment

bottom line….the gozillion billion trillion dollars I leave my girls will be income to them and as such should be taxed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nothing,

Thats the Big Government/Democrat way, spend our money, spend money they don’t have, and then say oh we can make it up by over taxing the wealthy because it is their duty to carry this nation. They don’t need it anyway. And while we’re at it, lets throw in a little something for the do-nothings out there put ourselves further in debt. And lets not forget those big auto companies with all those Unions. They give us support too. And who cares that the illegals are taking our assistance and don’t pay taxes! They support us too, we can handle going further into debt because we can just tax those “rich” Americans.

I just love a Democrats definition of “rich”!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up

- -Cosby…a little meltdown today? Must be related to a few other posters here. Now hoof it over to your little corner for children.- -

Another day of temper tantrums from you? Pal, you need to grow up.

Do you have the ability to control those emotions? So far, no one has seen it. Why don’t you at least make an attempt today?

• Link
• Report this comment

“bottom line….the gozillion billion trillion dollars I leave my girls will be income to them and as such should be taxed.”

It will be — unless you’ve already paid taxes on it. In which case it won’t be, and shouldn’t be.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian

I wish I could afford to spend the same amount of money on food that I would get if I were on food stamps. Why would anyone on public assistance want to get a job?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny,

So the gov’t should be able to tax that same “trillion” twice? And make a profit off of YOUR families earnings? That is YOUR families civic duty? To pay double taxes on the same money, at a higher rate than other Americans, while other Americans get by paying nothing.

• Link
• Report this comment

granny godzilla

December 16th, 2010
9:33 am

Income? No way! It’s a gift that will allow them to continue your legacy once your final accounting has been rendered.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Can I poke you back or will you cry and whine – again?” – I wasn’t whining. I was pointing out that you were being a hypocrite on judging and profiling people when you judged me for living in a college town.

• Link
• Report this comment

The estate tax is now just another attemp to redistribute wealth. That’s it nothing else. It serves no other purpose. Also if anyone actually read the history of the tax it was only instated in small amounts on large estates to pay off war debt and then abolished. This was true after the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, and the Civil War. Then in 1916 it was established to cover the costs of WWI and then never again abolished until this year. FDR actually raised them to unheard of levels for a short time and then figured out how damaging they were and reduced them.

I can hear the argument now of well we have war debts so it should be reinstated to full effect… If they operated it like they had in the past I’d agree. It would only target the top few tenths of a percent of estates and it would be much lower than 35%. Also it would only cover war debt but we all know this won’t happen.

Luckily for most people that it applies too estate planning basically makes it a moot point because most assets can be protected from this tax by either passing them on early as gifts (has to be planned because otherwise there is a gift tax though) or putting them in protected assets such as trusts (ask the Kennedys for an explanation if necessary). The only ones affected by this will be the newly affluent because they couldn’t plan for it. So way to go dems you can continue to keep people in the middle and below under the pretense of punishing the “priviledged”…

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny,

Its not changing hands, its going from family member to family member.

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg

Yes, I judged that you were not nearly as qualified to pass judgement
on climate change as Honda, Continental AIrlines, Insurance companies world wide…..do you claim you are?

• Link
• Report this comment

granny,
“bottom line….the gozillion billion trillion dollars I leave my girls will be income to them and as such should be taxed.”

I think that is the most asinine thing I have ever heard

• Link
• Report this comment

Is there ANY tax that Cynthia Tucker DOESN’T like?

• Link
• Report this comment

The whole idea of taxing an estate, whether it is a big estate $5M+) or small one (10K), is wrong. A person who made the money paid tax on it all the way to the very end. Additionally, the person pays into social security. So the person one day dies and Ms. Tucker thinks the government should get 35 or even 55% of it! No! That money should go to the family. Parrish the though the government would have to do with less.

• Link
• Report this comment

So Granny – if I buy you a present…say a gift card, on which I have paid sales tax, do you think you should report it as income and also pay taxes on it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny – It really isn’t the same thing as earned income because of the way that it was transferred, which falls under different IRS rules. For example, the IRS allows the tax free giving of $13,000 per child per year ($26,000 for a joint gift from a couple). Likewise, you can pay the child’s tuition and that is not taxed, either.

You should consider consulting the Federal Tax Code before declaring what is taxable.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up

Not today. I won’t stoop to your level.

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn McCool

Infrastructure is mostly the responsibility of the states, not the fed.

• Link
• Report this comment

No, Granny, even your beloved IRS doesn’t consider it income unless it was never taxed to begin with.

• Link
• Report this comment

this is a tricky subject. on one hand, I do not believe taxing already taxed “income” to be fair. on the other hand, show me a “fair tax” and I’ll show you an opportunity for the wealthy to continue to hoard wealth. who “owns” wealth? in order for ANY economy to flourish, the wealth must CONSTANTLY be re-distributed. anything else is unsustainable. eventually, a miniority (the proverbial 2%) own 95% of the “wealth”. and what about the Good Lord’s “render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar’s” advice? seems to me that if the “wealth” held in the estates of retired Bank of America, Wal-Mart, Lockheed-Martin, Pfizer, Merck, or ExxonMobil executives; whose “income/wealth” was funded by debt-funded programs like; wars, Medcaid and the Medicaid Prescription Plan, unemployment insurance; pretty much ANY government program run by a government that is nealry $14 trillion in debt; is it even “wealth” at all? and finally, for the sake of argument, let’s say Colin Powell or and other retired civil servant; miltary or not, began his/her accumulation of wealth on the Federal payroll. Are not the assets acquired (including pensions, retirement benefits, etc.) the “property” of the state? as I said, this is a tough call.

• Link
• Report this comment

wwr201

December 16th, 2010
9:50 am
So Granny – if I buy you a present…say a gift card, on which I have paid sales tax, do you think you should report it as income and also pay taxes on it?

I believe the current regs state that if that gift card is over 13,000…then yes it should be reported as income and taxed.

However, the 25 dollar Barnes and Noble gift card will get no more than a polite thank you note.

• Link
• Report this comment

The truth about the “death tax” is that it is the least justifiable tax ever conceived by the leftists, even worse than the immoral income tax. Capital formation is the seed corn for the economic progress of the next generation.

Whereas at least a portion of the income tax diminishes consumption, and only a portion is visited against the section of income that is “savings,” all of the death tax diminishes that capital the frugal accumulate over a lifetime. The message – “incentive” – thus sent to our society is, “spend everything and accumulate nothing,” a message all too-well absorbed over the past generation. The absence of capital ensures a slow-growth economy.

In a rational world there would be no tax on capital, thus to encourage economic growth. But we have many parasites in the country today, all of whom wish to consume the seed corn accumulated by the frugal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seems most of the objections are to any taxes at all. Government should be free! Yeah! No need to have a rational discussion about a comprehensive system of tax policy and payments. Soundbites work much better. Paris Hilton needs her inheritance tax free.

• Link
• Report this comment

Instead of viewing this as Obama vs the right vs the left vs tea party vs whomever, lets just look at the ISSUE in play here. If your grandparents or parents die leaving you their life savings, the govt comes in and takes a large part of that money. Is that fair? Heck no it’s not.
CT please don’t whip out the percentages and say b/c only a small percentage of americans are getting screwed then it’s alright.

Following that logic, Why not propose a 35% tax on african american women between the ages of 45-50?(I’m guessing your age, sorry if I’m way off) That segment only represents about 1-2% of the population, just like the people affected by the estate tax. Would the 45-50 black woman tax be OK b/c it too only effects a small number of people? I ithink not. Your logic is flawed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Senior Citizen Cane–wrong, unless the new bill is different,, which I suspect it is not. Estate tax law has always given the inheritor a tax basis on stock and land at its FMV at the time of the deceased death or within 6 months of death. Therefore, much of the deceased’s wealth, in most large estates, was never taxed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up

Has anyone said that we don’t need any taxes? Try to stay on subject and stage a debate about what others are actually saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

granny- you are simply wrong. the assets of the deceased go into estate which is then taxed. the executor of the deceased does in fact write the check. you are simply flat out wrong.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ll leave you all with this for a while….

FROM the Boston Globe

JEFF JACOBY repeats a lot of tired myths and misinformation about the estate tax (“Let’s keep the death tax dead,’’ Op-ed, Jan. 3). But he rests on the “moral argument’’ – that the estate tax punishes people for working hard and accruing fortunes. But Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Carnegie, and Warren Buffett have made an even stronger moral case for retaining the estate tax.

They argue that US society plays a substantial role in facilitating the creation of private wealth, through public investments in infrastructure, private property protections, financial oversight, etc. Individual effort, creativity, and sacrifice are necessary for success, and they should be rewarded, but our shared commonwealth provides the fertile ground that makes private wealth creation possible. The estate tax is how the very wealthy pay back society.

The other moral argument about the estate tax is that a democratic self-governing society cannot co-exist with the distorting effects of great concentrations of wealth and power.

Chuck Collins
Boston
The writer is cofounder of Wealth for the Common Good and co-author, with Bill Gates Sr., of “Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.’’

• Link
• Report this comment

Wouldn’t all of this be simpler with a flat/fair consumption-based tax??

• Link
• Report this comment

The writer is cofounder of Wealth for the Common Good

Nuff said.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t see how a death tax is fair no matter how wealthy someone is. I agree with other logical posters that those dollars were already taxed. If a person leaves land, property tax was paid, if a person leaves savings from income, income tax was paid, if a person leaves stocks, capital gains tax will be paid when the stocks are sold. Cynthia: Your focus should be on how Obama and the administration have not planned for cost reduction. All Americans have had to scale back. We’re not ’stealing’ or ‘printing’ money to fix our personal household economic downturn; thus we expect the government take a lesson from ‘us’ – the American people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian, you can claim it is unreasonable taxation but the reality is that taxes are down from what they were years ago and there is growing income disparity and an increasing deficit.

King Obama? — utter nonsense.

Nonsense….do try not to have a breakdown today okay. We dont push you over the edge for the holidays. Do try not to post more lies.

• Link
• Report this comment

If the government finds a way to tax something, people will find a way to shelter/hide/loophole it. My parents off shored their hard earned money and their investments years ago so that the tax friendly State of Costa Rica would protect their inheritors upon their death.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another vote buying scam by dems. Vote for me and I will make sure that guy can’t leave his money to his kids unless we get our fair share.

• Link
• Report this comment

Separated at birth, far left socialistic class warfare instigator……..Cynthia Tucker. Keep cutting and pasting Cyn, you are doing great….

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn

I pointed out that we have war debt and if they had the estate tax setup as it was originally intended and ended it after that then I would agree. As usual the democrats would not possibly agree to that as they want it to redistribute wealth, which as I also mentioned it does a terrible job of doing. It mainly affects those who barely qualify and can’t plan for it (small business owners, larger family farms, etc.). Larger businesses and estates like mine are well prepared for this and have the means to be as we are well above the base threshold. As it stands I can make sure that very little of what I pass on will be taxed no matter what they set the minimum at. Or what will be taxed will be paid for by extensive life insurance policies so will have no actual effect on my children. More progressive liberal nonsense that will just keep people at their level and dependent on the state. Wouldn’t want those who work for it to succeed and pass it on to the next generation while others who don’t can’t…

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Libertarian @ 10:07, of course you are right. The silly arguments above your post, on the nature of “income,” reveals the pure immorality of the income tax. Those arguments also reveal why lobbyists spend so much money to get exceptions to the code carved out.

Unless the law was changed – don’t follow every gyration of the Congress too closely, as it would lead to motion sickness – Pulitzer Prize money escapes taxation.

• Link
• Report this comment

granny@10:007. great post, which is why it will be “refudiated” by the faux libertarian zealots

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn McUncool,
far left liberal ‘intellectual superiority’ template in use…..too easy.

• Link
• Report this comment

You want the real ‘truth’ about the death tax?

Okay, here goes.

1) I don’t care HOW MANY people it affects. If something is wrong, it is wrong, no matter if it affects one person or a million.
2) the reason there is a ‘death tax’ in the first place is due to the fact that everything one inherits has a ’stepped up’ basis (so, no, not EVERYTHING one inherits has had the tax paid on it, actually, Shawny).
So the reason for the tax (and if you *did* die this year, no there were technically no ‘estate taxes’ but the basis is the ORIGINAL basis, to account for the ‘no taxation.’
So, I can hardly find and calculate the bases for the assets *I* have that *I* bought. It’s a real pain in the neck.
So think how my heirs would figure it out.
Which is why we come to – stepped up basis.
The ‘tax’ is supposed to ‘make up for’ the stepped up basis. I.e., if your grandfather leaves you some type of stock, that was bought 50 years ago, chances are it appreciated in value. How are you going to find the cost to HIM when HE bought it? For most people – that would be impossible. But you *can* know the date of death. So the ‘new’ basis is what the stock (farm/house/whatever) cost on the date of death…but you have to pay some percentage of *that* cost to ‘make up for’ the fact that it has a stepped up basis.

SO NO it is NOT a tax to punish people, it was supposed to help people with the crazy ways that the IRS does business. What has happened (as has happened with all taxes, because the people in DC can’t leave well enough alone) – is that they look at it as a revenue source, which it really isn’t and was never intended to be.

• Link
• Report this comment

“the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever “..so your point is that it is OK to have a totally immoral policy and tax, as long as it does not impact too many people?

• Link
• Report this comment

paleo-neo-Carlinist

It’s a great post if you support class warfare. Please tell me a country where this has worked. We have been doing it for almost 100 years and the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

So who has all this distribution helped?

• Link
• Report this comment

A Death Tax is exactly what it is!

How can anyone believe that the government is entitled to 55% or more of ‘an estate’ after someone dies? The fact that someone actually came up with a number of how much revenue it would generate tells me that all this is is another money grab by out of touch politicians.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hope you all saw Dan Heninger’s essay in today’s WSJ, “What Are Taxes For? – Should the primary purpose of taxation be to support the government or maximize economic growth?” Worth the cost of the paper by itself. (Sorry, on-line link is disabled for non-subscribers, otherwise I would post it.)

• Link
• Report this comment

inheritance and gift taxes good for democracy to prevent plutocracy, oligarchy or pltuarchy.

lot of rich get theirs taxed only at cap gain rates or if heir of hedge fund folks only 15%….i say bs

i think the house version should be accepted and should be indexed so we don’t keep fighting over threshold….

let’s see the waltons would save about 23billion, get to keep about 35 billion…..think of how many companies and people have lost jobs to them…..with all this efficiency and economy of scale and higher productivity what are we supposed to do with oversupply of people? let them eat cake?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Too many House Democrats are still furious over the extension of Bush-era tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.”

Cynthia- You are a professional when it comes to distortion. As you are well aware, the GOP fought for extentions of tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS at ALL INCOME LEVELS. Why do you continue to phrase your comments in a way that suggests otherwise regarding this tax bill?

• Link
• Report this comment

Good Grief, I am sorry the phrase “resdistribution of wealth” makes you cringe. perhaps you should rely on any of the number of English language dictionaries, and not neo-con talking points to define words. but to answer your question; the revenue generated by taxes “becomes wealth” AFTER it flows through the economy (via any government program; i,e; ‘welfare or warfare’ and you can add TARP). the $$ doled out via food stamps does not become “wealth” when the recipient gets his/her check card; it becomes wealth when he/she uses the card to purchase goods and services (ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, Sony). Just as the $750 billion DoD budget does not become wealth when G.I. Joe cashes his paycheck, or gets a box of ammo for his M-4. It becomes wealth when the checks clear and Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman or and of the vendors at the PX (see: Sony, Coca Cola, Hormel, etc.) report their earnings and pay bonuses to executives and dividends to shareholders. did you read granny’s 10:07 post? I can’t think of ANY wealthy American whose wealthy was not facilitated or nutured by government spending. You want to wage war on “spending” I am all for it, but until we get spending under control and there is an even playing field for ALL Americans (why do you think the wealthy empploy the services of lobbyists?), I’d tax any estate over $5 million at 75%

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny @ 10:07, Quoting another’s opinion doesn’t make it right.

• Link
• Report this comment

The real truth is….It is government confiscation of personal property. The patriarch of a family dies and the government swoops in and wants to seize half the estate….sounds like something from the 1940s…Not good Comrade

Now for the omnibus bill, which Democrats intentionally waited to bring up until after the November 2nd election. Truly unbelievable that a now illegitimate congress voted out by an overwhelming majority wants to dictate funding throughout all or most of 2011. Fund the government through February which could be done in 1 page instead of almost 2000…period. I do not want the government to shut down but if that is the only option then so be it.

Unlike the government shut down in the mid 90s, the American people will see this for what it is, illegitimate Democrats, voted out of office in the most lopsided statement by the American electorate in nearly 60 years, trying to hang on to power and negatively impact the ability to govern of the legitimate congress coming into office in January.

• Link
• Report this comment

Stupid rationale!

• Link
• Report this comment

Statistics are almost always so deceiving. “the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever” Sounds like such a small number of people doesn’t it? I’m not sure if that .6% is of people who died in a particular year or if it is of the entire population. Hard to tell from the excerpt. If it is of the entire population that would be .6% of around 308 million people. So that means that the heirs of 1.85 million people would be affected. Doesn’t sound so small anymore.
Besides, it is just not right to tax money a second time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ronald…again with the distortion. All Americans under the Dem plan for tax cuts would receive a tax cut on the first $250k. Not all Americans, in fact, few receive the bonus.

Of course, a much fairer way to deal with the tax cut issue instead of the bogus bonus for millionaires would be to give all American (312 million or so) $1000 and let the prior Republican plan from 10 years ago go into effect (an end to the temporary cut). Then we all get the same amount. A lot cheaper too.

• Link
• Report this comment

B Cosby

Your statement is correct.

That’s why I don’t post Andy Brietbarts opinions.

However, Chuck Collins and Bill Gates JR are correct in this instance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is there any appetite, anytime, ever for Democrats to cut the size of the government. Can they not agree on even one thing that we can do without. Looking at hte projects funded in the curent pork fest Pelosi and Reid call an Omnibus spending bill, it seems that democrats want to spend everything they can, as much as they can for as long as they can.
The democrats did not get the message.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia likes to immorally tax classes of people that she know she will never be a member of. Also, who the heck obtains the house of all these people who die? That 1% she is quoting? It is unethical to tax an estate that has already been taxed while the person lived. But, Democrats are too terribly aligned with ethical behavior.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Of course, a much fairer way to deal with the tax cut issue instead of the bogus bonus for millionaires would be to give all American (312 million or so) $1000 and let the prior Republican plan from 10 years ago go into effect (an end to the temporary cut). Then we all get the same amount. A lot cheaper too.”

You don’t deserve the same “amount” of anything, you deserve to pay the same “rate”. Otherwise, you continue to penalize hard working high income earners, which, as we know, is your ultimate goal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia refuses to recognize that which all liberals fail to address, you must reduce the size (fire employees) and scope (no more sociology studies, no more billions to Haiti or Africa for AIDS, no more dozen air craft carriers doing exactly what every day?) in other words, start earning your congerssional salary & make the tough decisions – slash spending – reduce salaries, fire unneeded employees, stop giving 2 billion a year to Pakistan.

• Link
• Report this comment

Classic Argument:

Liberals want to punish success. Conservatives want to award success.

Liberals think that it is unfair that others succeed. Conservatives want everyone to succeed.

Losers vs winners.

Classic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Double taxation. How American; how Progressive American.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nothing is Free, I do not “support” class warfare, but I accept it as a fact of life. You know who agrees with me? some guy named Warren Buffett. in 2006 he said (paraphrase) ; “class warfare exists, and it is being waged by the wealthy, and we’re winning…”. as I suggested to Good Grief; put down the neo-con/plutocrat Kool-Aid and don’t assign political definitions to words like class, warfare, wealth, distrisbution, re-distribution. when you buy a car, you are redistributing your wealth to the dealer, and the corporation that sold him the franchise. when you pay sales tax you are re-distrubuting your wealth. when you buy groceries, pay Georgia Power, or if you have cable TV you are “voluntarily exchanging” wealth for goods and services. AND the point of the article posted by Granny is; it is not possible to accumulate wealth in the US without the aid of the government. AND the point of Warren Buffett’s comment is. the wealthy have rigged the game to make it easier for them to accumlate wealth, at OUR expense.

• Link
• Report this comment

The funny thing about these tax breaks for the rich is that they are for the same people who were and are receiving the outrageous bonuses everyone was so up in arms about.

• Link
• Report this comment

No, the truth about the death tax is that government firmly believes that every penny in the possession of the private, productive sector belongs to the government and that it is only by the good graces and benevolence of government that the private sector is allowed to keep any of it.

Government does not believe that it has any responsibility to EARN any of the money it gets from the productive sector. If it honestly felt that it could EARN the money, it would not STEAL it as it does.

The truth is that any belief that either income or inheritance monies “belong” to the government is an endorcement of slavery – plain and simple. Either you own the fruits of your labor or you are a slave to the government or the ones doing the taking. It is shameful to see those with a well-documented acestral history of being slavery victims now rejoicingly endorcing a different, but essentially similar version in today’s modern age. You should be ashamed Cynthia.

• Link
• Report this comment

Class, I buy a office building for $200k. It is now work $500k. I sell it. I have income of $300k. I pay income tax. But if I die and leave it to a family member, they must pay the estate tax and not the income tax on that gain. The gain was never taxed twice. However, when they pay the estate tax, they get a step up in basis on the property to $500k.

• Link
• Report this comment

wft- agreed

you would think an honest two or three sentences on how the estate tax works would have been expected. first- a person must first die. Thus the name death tax- it is not used to stir emotion- it does not kick in until that person dies. The tax is then computed by the executor on the value of the assets on the deceased. If there is no cash money to pay the tax- the executor must sell assets or borrow to pay the tax. The folks who ultimately receive the residual assets (net of tax) do not pay the tax- it is not income

• Link
• Report this comment

Isn’t it amusing when CT claims to relate the “truth” about a subject.

“Now let me be clear on this… I think at a certain point, you’ve made enough money” – Barry Soreto

• Link
• Report this comment

Another case of Republicans advocating for billionaires because … they think they may actually be billionaires themselves someday? The “death-tax” was heavily lobbied for by the Waltons, who not only have never done a lick of work, but have betrayed everything their father stood for. One beneficiary of the Walton fortune was only married to one of the sons for a few months. Why should people like that be rewarded with more money? Inheritance breeds royalism. Hence, families like Walton have more power than govt. Anything inheritance over $5 million should be taxed at 90%. The only reason people can amass that kind of wealth is because the country has enabled them to pursue their ideas. Their customers, not their offspring, are the ones who made them wealthy. These people do not only inherit the money, they also inherit the jobs. Henry Ford IV is on the Exec Board of Ford and Goodrich tires.

• Link
• Report this comment

paleo-neo-Carlinist; a/k/a Joe the Plutocrat

December 16th, 2010
10:40 am

You have hit the nail on the head. The rich write the storyline.

• Link
• Report this comment

Since it only affects 1.6% of all Americans, it must be totally acceptable to tax estates whatever our good leaders decide is fair or needed. Its that kind of thinking is exactly why the US is a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. Just think of all the other great things that could happen if it came down to a simple majority.

• Link
• Report this comment

wealth envy?

that old canard?

I know it’s hard for the terminally greedy to get their heads around this…but most of us are perfectly content with our lives as they are.

We have a nice home, some vehicles, great vacations, gonna have a delightful Christmas, and a safe retirement….I live the American dream
and we’ve managed to do it on middle class salaries well under 250G’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, this article assumes that it’s the governments money from the beginning.

It’s not! The money belongs to the family of the deceased.

Our entire economy rests on prosperity, by those who have a passion to make something out of themselves and not simply becoming a parasite by way of government payments.

No money being made by people and businesses means to tax money means no money to fund the government.

You can only suck money out of the people for so long before you simply run out of money to tax anymore.

Tell me. When there are no more jobs or our people are making such crappy wages, where will the government get it funding: beg, borrow, steal? Oh wait, they are already stealing ours now!

Tell me again. Where does the government get its funding when the majority of people are getting handouts from the government. There won’t be anymore rich to mug since their money has already been taken.

Who will you cry out to then?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I know it’s hard for the terminally greedy to get their heads around this…but most of us are perfectly content with our lives as they are.”

I agree. And since there is currently no estate tax, I see no reason to change. Glad we agree.

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

Raymond Huffman @ 10:49. you state the point fare better than yours truly! I once again ask Producer, et al; how do you account for “wealth” that originates from the U.S. Department of Treasury? When we balance the budget and wipe out the $14 trillion debt, we can re-calibrate the economic machine (level the playing field) and change the tax codes (it’s Christmas, I can ‘wish” cant’ I?). again; until then we (wealthy included) need to “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s…”

• Link
• Report this comment

So folks subject to a death tax are too poor to hire a accounting firm ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, you knew my eyes were brown! I didn’t think you remembered.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thus the name death tax- it is not used to stir emotion-

Too funny!

In Luntz’ own words:

4. Inheritance/Estate Tax – The Death Tax

While a sizeable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, fully 78% think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep,

Its acutally bipartisanship that Americans have been asking for. Obama realizes it is needed to keep the economy going. Dems just want more money for the do nothings and freebies.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And Cynthia, why does the fact that it affects so few people make it fair in your mind?”

Class of 98- Its because Cynthia and her ilk are masters of playing the game of Class Warfare. They are driven by Class Envy and almost all of their decisions revolve around isolating high-income earners, convincing the rest of the country that they are evil and greedy, and then convincing Congress to punish those high-income earners by forcing them to pay insanely high income tax rates. With people like Cynthia- Its always about isolating high income earners and turning the rest of the country against them.

• Link
• Report this comment

well said steve- the lib theory is that we should punch 1% of the population in the face daily as one, they can live through it, and two, it is only 1% of the population

keep up the good fight “kugf” forms partnership with keep up the bad fight “kubf”. the business does well and kugf gets run over by tea partier in a hummer going to a rally at the ritz carlton. kugf executor goes there is a 10million value on the share of the entity and a 4 million estate tax has to be paid. the tax has to be paid with cash money. kugf would need to have been paying to fund an insurance policy to fund the tax and an attornry to plan around it. collectively kugf (now deceased) and kubf are worth 4 million less because of the hummer accident and the money goes to fund NPR.

• Link
• Report this comment

class envy?

that would require having some wouldn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

“A Wise and Frugal Government … shall not take from the mouths of laborthe bread it has earned. This is the Sum of Good Government.” Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801

• Link
• Report this comment

willie lynch

I believe each individual can gift $13,000 a year to a child/family member and it’s not reportable. Might be $11k.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tucker,

The problem with it all is that you Liberals and your Liberals in government just spend spend spend and expect the rich to make up for your lousy ideas and erroneous spending. It doesn’t matter if someone receives a penny from inheritance or a trillion gazillion dollars, the principle of the matter is that it is their money, not the government’s or yours. You can’t expect the rich to bail this country out of the hole it’s in just because they have a successful life and have the money. Get your boy Barry in Washington and his entitlement pushing cabinet to quit spending like it’s a game show and actually show some improvement or intelligence with their decision making, and you may see unemployment go down and a happier America, which will drive tax revenues up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia,

If you think its “fair” to have a small percentage pay more tax than they have already have had to pay at their death then why don’t we make the tax impact everybody? Pick the threshold that you want it to impact estates for the monetary tax to be imposed (say $1 million). Then all other estates (the death of a taxpaer) that don’t meet that threshold would require all heirs of that estate to work for free for the “good of their fellow country men” to cover that estate’s fair share of the average estate tax collected for the year. How many heirs of estates wuld quickly disassociate themselves from a decedent?

Why is it the estate tax burden is only imposed upon just a few estates? Why not all estates whether they have assets or not? Is it becuase democrats thinks it’s not “fair” that some estates assets are greater than others? If they really care about their fellow man why aren’t the insignificant monetary estates contributing their taxes at least in the form of free services?

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t know what the people in the article are smoking to get $1 trillion in 10 years in estate taxes (federal government collected $14 billion in 2009, last year it was collected). But why let some crazy facts get in the way.
Estate taxes represent the peak of stupidity. Someone has spent their whole lives earning money and being taxed and then is taxed again simply for dying? Why don’t we just extend the government a bit more and abolish any limits…all assets owned by people when they die are expropriated by the government. Isn’t that what liberals really want? (Excuse me, guess the Kennedys, Kerrys, etc. might not like that)

• Link
• Report this comment

ITS ALL THE GOVERNMENT’S F’ING MONEY!!!! HOW DARE YOU THINK ANY OF IT IS YOURS TO KEEP?????? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN SINCE THE PROGRESSIVE ERA?

• Link
• Report this comment

In 2006, the Dems took over Congress. In 2008, President Obama took office. The Democratic Party has had total control of the government for the last two years and have been able to shove some pretty egregious legislation down the collective throats of Americans. The “BUSH-ERA TAX RATES” have been in place for almost 9 years. Ask yourself why they waited until the 11th hour to bring up the issue? POLITICS. When 47% of all Americans don’t pay income tax at all, it is pretty ballsy to complain about that to which you contribute nothing and take a great deal. Libs want to complain about the tax money that won’t be received from the smallest percentage of Americans, but are not complaining about the gross overspending and unwillingness to get a sensible budget in place. Keep taxing the “rich” as you call them, and they will quit hiring, quit investing, and may in fact, leave your state or this Country. Just ask Maryland how well in worked out when they decided to raise taxes on the wealthiest in their State. The wealthy just packed up and left and the tax revenues declined by a huge margin. Level the tax playing field and there will be more overall funds collected. Unfortunately, both Parties are using the “TAX CODE” as a stick and carrot against the American public. If you don’t recognize that, then ask the government to give you back that $12.50 worth of education you took such great advantage of during your formative years.

• Link
• Report this comment

The truth about the death tax is that it is immoral. That’s why people who will never be subject to it still oppose it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve,

On that same point its fascinating to see just how selfish and cold harded Dem leaders are with their own money. I remember in the 2008 election it was reported that Obama contributed something paltry like $3,000 to charity out of a million dollar income. It was something like 1% of his income. Same with Lieberman- he gave something astonishingly embarrassing like $1,000 for the year to charity- and he is a millionaire.

In the meantime Bush gave away a lot and Dick Cheney gave away millions- as a matter of fact Cheney has a practice of donating 20% of his earnings to charity.

When it comes to the FACTS and putting their money where their mouth is the Democratic leaders are appallingly selfish, greedy, and flat out cold hearted. Don’t believe me? Look at their tax return releases in the last presidential election cycle. FACTS speak louder than words.

• Link
• Report this comment

I said same with Lieberman- correction I meant to say same with Biden- he is even more selfish and petty with his charitable giving than Obama was.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve…

This is a lie….”Use the government funded healthcare that you gutted us with (oh, all the reps and senators DON”T have to use it)”

Rafe

I hope so to. They work hard, have nice homes too and growing families…couldn’t be prouder.

And yes, Rafe you appear greedy to me. It stands out particularlly this time of year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tax cuts don’t cost anything. Spending costs. When will liberals understand that?

• Link
• Report this comment

What nobody seems to what to comment on is that this tax is hitting the WW2 generation the hardest (and their heirs). They are the generation that benfitted the most from high real estate appreciation, the 80’s stock boom, etc. Conveniently the republicans knew this, conspired to only reduce the rates by 10% per year over 10 years, and then put the whole hottible tax back in place at truly high rates after only a year without any tax. Clearly the greatest hatred should be directed at the republicans. They had the house. They had the senate. They had the white house. They could have ended the death tax completely and permanently and forced another group to take on the citizens by putting it back in place with a new vote. But the republicans knew they would need lots more money to waste on their imperial and immoral wars of conquest in Afghanistan and Iraq and to line the pockets of their contributors from the military industrial complex. It is no shock that the scum in the democratic party are doing everything they can to steal even more money from the citizens, but the republicans could have avoided this completely if they actually had any principles and had ended the tax back in 2000 when they had the chance.

Only libertarians have priciples that support freedom.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s easy to cast stones when you have-not. If you had wealth to leave behind or had wealth to inherit, you might have a more jaded view of the government’s “right” to steal it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Tax cuts don’t cost anything. Spending costs. When will liberals understand that?”

Good point, Chris. Its just more deception cranked out of the DNC. They’ve convinced America that tax cuts “cost” something. Why would they have planned to spend money that they haven’t received yet anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

Class warefare at its best…haha Demoncrats never learn. This is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor dont want to work to make themselves better they would rather spend their time trying to STEAL from the rich!

• Link
• Report this comment

William:

Since you’re for the estate tax, why not make all estates responsible for paying something, whether it be in cash or free labor? The tax for wealthy estates is basically paid by their beneficiaries for these people would inherit more if not for the estate tax. So, why shouldn’t all the heirs of deceased poor people contribute their “fair share” too? Couldn’t they pick up trash on the side of the highway for a month or more to pay their “share” of the tax too?

Shouldn’t those that contribute their part to the housing decline by buying more house than they coud afford contribute their “share” to the tax burden too?

I think if everybody was forced to pay estate tax in cash or forced labor, it would give a whole different viewpoint to the overall popularity of it!

• Link
• Report this comment

CTucker….my family worked for it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Should you not be able to give the money that YOU worked for to however you want without penalty. The tax has ALREADY been paid on that money when it was EARNED!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Furthermore, generational transfer of wealth is the primary vehicle through which 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants become affluent. If there was no incentive to be able to transfer wealth then there would be no incentive to create wealth beyond the needs of one’s existence- no Fords or Rockefellers or DuPonts, and we’d all be arguably worse for the wear.

• Link
• Report this comment

11:21 CT- exactly the punch in the face of only 1.6% of the folks. great argument that is impossible to refute

• Link
• Report this comment

ken…please explain to me why you expect government to provide you services for free.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Keep up the good fight! – maybe Ken doesn’t expect anything form the government. Chew on that concept for a minute.

• Link
• Report this comment

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 .

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cindy, I saved MY money for MY family not Government Controled leaches. Call your tax whatever you want .

• Link
• Report this comment

@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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

@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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Then I guess we all agree that lotto winnings shouldn’t be taxed ?

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

Chris,

Kam only lives in the literal. The rest of us live in fantasy.

• Link
• Report this comment

@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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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?

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak,

None of the farmers I know are cash or investment rich?

Huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

Can’t go a day without another class warfare article, huh, Cynthia?

What is it about Democrats and “taking” other people’s money? So someone who worked hard, built and save wealth, dies and the US government is not entitled to “steal” their own money? Thats a Democrat in a nut shell.

With Democrats it is ALWAYS about raising taxes and taking more money from “those evil reach people.” Unbelievable. Hey Cynthia, why not an article about the exploding costs of Medicare (basically free health insurance), Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc…where people are ‘TAKING’ money.

P.S. All you libs actually need to do a little research. There are as many wealthy registered Democrats as Republicans. In fact, most of the big money, Wall Street included, actually supported Obama.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak: The article you posted is hogwash. Yes, many of these family farms have some liquid assets and life insurance. What good is land, if you don’t have the capital left to operate the farm. Land that is not being used is a liability to a certain extent, in that it is all outgo and and no income. Outgo in property taxes and costs to maintain. A field will grow up in trees if not mowed or cultivated. Bulldozers to clear grown up fields are expensive. People left with land and no capital quickly sell the land to someone with the means to make money off this land. Then they pay taxes on the sale of the land.

• Link
• Report this comment

Swede….dammit man….what do actual facts and reality have to do with it. Let me rage against a tax that in not imposed on a tax avoidance tool

• Link
• Report this comment

Swede, So what? So what if the number is “small indeed.” It doesn’t flipping matter. It’s the family’s money! Period. It’s not the inept, corrupt governments’. What’s so hard to understand about this?

But honestly, you’re nuts if you think the number of estates over $ 1 mil is small indeed. It doesn’t take much at all for a few tractors and some land and some pine trees and a house and a barn and some cattle to add up in a hurry! And don’t forget this too, as you try to justify why these people should in your misguided opinion pay even MORE taxes: they’ve been paying property taxes on this this land for years and years as well. In fact, one of the sad things is that when land passes on to the next generation (death tax notwithstanding), these kids often have a hard time paying even the property taxes!

• Link
• Report this comment

Some people are stupid,

Your grammatically WRONG ramblings really go well with your name.

• Link
• Report this comment

When all else fails..resort to name calling and grammar/spelling errors.

• Link
• Report this comment

Take money away from people who likely worked very hard all their lives and want to give it to their kids only to make sure parasites that have been on unemployment for 2 years keep getting bennies. Great idea.

I own my own business and a week rarely goes by that I don’t work 80 hours…..vacation….what’s that? I am certainly not rich but to be in my mid 30’s I think I am doing very well and it absolutley enrages me to think the taxes I pay (this year will be nearly 6 figures in taxes) will go to some useless parasite that has been out of work for 2 years. News flash Cynthia…… If the benefits dry up in just about every case they will go out and find work.

DFJ

• Link
• Report this comment

I tend to vote democratic, but I don’t like estate taxes. It smells of double taxation, and that’s just not cool.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aaahhh!,

So nice to see Kamchak back to his real job of posting 24/7. Does this loser ever got a job or is he still living off his govt check- disability, social security, etc? Since I got a real job I’ll get back to work and check back in say around 11 pm to see if this whiner is still posting about needing more goodies from the annointed one in Washington.

• Link
• Report this comment

Supporters of ANY amount of estate/death tax are wrong thinkers. Ms Tucker states there is a very small percentage affected, as if that justifies taxing them. How many are affected has nothing to do with it. The estates have earned their wealth and already paid taxes on that wealth. But no, that is not good enough for Progressives, they want to tax them again and redistribute the money to people setting on their butt.

Most people think of silver spoon children when discussing estates. There are some of those, but there are also many, many first generation estates where blue collar people have built businesses to estate size wealth. Paying estate/death taxes in many cases will result in abolishment of the company. There are also farmers where the wealth is in land and there simply is not cash available to pay the taxes. This results in selling the farm, literally.

If a person supports any kind of estate/death tax, they are engaging in class and wealth envy. They need to search their soul. People don’t work their whole life to give what remains to the government to be passed to someone they don’t know. Instead they want to give it to their children.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep,

Which truths would you like me to post?

• Link
• Report this comment

These politicians spend most of their time re-branding failed ideas rather than coming up with real solutions. Rather than address the cause, they address a symptom or two and call it ‘good’. Nothing changes in Washington.

Also, how many times does the government get to tax your income? You get taxed on your paycheck, get taxed at the store, some of us even get taxed again at the end of the year. For a government that says we should ’save’, their policies sure don’t reflect that.

Regarding Bush Tax Cuts: There is some very interesting peer reviewed economic science regarding spending vs. tax cuts to stimulate the economy…and I don’t mean Fox News peer reviewed.
Google ‘Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna – Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes versus spending.’
It is pretty interesting that out of 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries, tax cuts seemed to work. I have a hard time swallowing that as well but it is an interesting read for those who don’t let the partisan propoganda fuel your every thought. Oh but I’m rambling…

Back to your partisan bickering…

• Link
• Report this comment

I own my own business and a week rarely goes by that I don’t work 80 hours…..vacation….what’s that? I am certainly not rich but to be in my mid 30’s…

Do you believe that you are alone in that 80 hour work week?

I did it for 25 years in the construction biz.

Come back here after 25 years of those kind of hours, then do your pearl-clutching and couch-fainting bit and maybe I’ll have some sympathy for you.

• Link
• Report this comment

I dont believe CTucker actually believe in what she posts. She is just attempting to get people to respond to her comments. Firestarter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Its is ludicrous for any American to believe dead people pay taxes. Their families have to pay an inheritance tax.Once again the Know Nothing voters believe one it could be their family being tax. Give me a break, these people never pay the appropriate tax rate because of the loop holes in tax law which were passed by congress

• Link
• Report this comment

how bout public funding for elections…..that way politicians might not be bought as often……most pols spend probably 50% time raising money and not looking legislating…they might actually look at arguments for or against something instead of which side their benefactors are on

• Link
• Report this comment

You worthless POS liberals think you can steal people’s money and redistribute everything.

ronnie-poo in melt-down mode.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchak…..Please tell me why you are in favor of the “estate tax”?

• Link
• Report this comment

As Cynthia conviently left out, the money has ALREADY been taxed! Socialists are lazy good-for-nothings with their hands always in someone else’s pockets. I wish they would all leave ASAP.

• Link
• Report this comment

My parents have been middle class all of their lives. My brother is middle class. I have been blessed to be a little more fortunate, but I am certainly not rich. However, because of this immoral theft by the government, we have been forced to make detailed “death plans” for m mother because her “huge estate” (a medium sized family farm, farmhouse and some liquid assets) wold be siezed by the death tax.

Not fun planning your last parent’s death, but better to do that than give it to our society of takers. How about we pay for the elimination of the death tax by eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit?

• Link
• Report this comment

The “wealthy” already pay more income tax per dollar earned and yet you still want to double tax only them with the apprpriately named “death tax”. You do not pay it until someone dies, right? If you want to ahve an estate tax then have it for everyone and make it much smaller. almost 50% of all wage earners pay NO income tax. Is that fair? The folks looking for jobs would gladly pay income taxes. Bush cut the taxes for EVERYONE, so if you want to let them expire then let them expire for EVERYONE. All Cynthia wants is to tax the “wealthy” more. And of course no one wants to talk about reducing our deficit and our debt by reducing how much we spend. That would be too logical, too practical and too fair.

• Link
• Report this comment

You libs are just plain stupid. You are blinded by your party’s politics. You are actually telling me it’s a good thing that our federal government, who time and time again has shown to be very wasteful with it’s spending, you’re telling me we should give them MORE of our money??????

If you had to carry water in a bucket from a well to your home but the bucket had a leek in it so by the time you got home there wasn’t much water left in the bucket. Would you A) fix the hole in the bucket or B) just fill the bucket up more so you had more water left by the time you got home?

Under taxation is not the problem, Spending/wasting our money is the real problem.

I guess I’m the real sucker though. I’ve been reading CT’s articles for a few weeks now, and she obviously is just stirring the pot, nobody is reallt that stupid. She has ZERO understanding of ecconomics or taxation or budgeting based on her commentary

• Link
• Report this comment

When I lived in Charleston, I remember one of the hardest hit groups by the estate tax was poor rural blacks. How is that possible? Easy – in the post Civil War many former slave families were given plots of land. Now that land is being encroached on by the Charleston metro area, and naturally prices are rising. It is common to see the descendants of those former slaves all have houses scattered around the property. But when the matriarch or patriarch dies, guess what? They are considered “wealthy” because of the cost of their land. Often their children or grandchildren cannot put enough money together to keep the property, which forces them out of their homes, and developers gobble up the land.

If we do keep some form of estate tax, let’s make sure it has some way of identifying homesteads such as these vs. liquid assets. Be careful before jumping the gun and saying this only affects the wealthy.

Most families with liquid assets can get around the estate tax too, if the person has some idea they are in demise, they can just gift out their assets before they pass on. Harder to do that with property though.

• Link
• Report this comment

khc-
Huh?? really not sure what you were trying to say.

Georgian-
Oh no, not bad grammer. Forgive me for not spell checking or hitting f7 on my computer to make sure every word was structurally correct…so do you disagree with what I said, or since you had nothing else to say you chose to mention my errors in typing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Coward

You attributed a position to me that I did not take, then expect me to defend that position?!?!

I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

• Link
• Report this comment

Always interesting to watch the bed wetters try and justify taking other people’s money. It doesn’t matter what the country it surfaces in, is always about them getting yours. They really don’t want to put any skin in the game, they want the producers to do it all, so they can keep theirs and get more of yours. Sometimes they just can’t make it on their own and sometimes they are just mean and jealous, but they always use gobment to do their treachery. They want to appear to be Robin Hood, but the stats speak loudly and if they were Robin Hood, the poor would be last on their list.

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Compassionate liberals…oxymoron…..

Long live the motivated, educated, hard working, risk taking, compassionate conservatives that are real human traits to aspire to.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well seeing how I posted factual information about taxes. Please tell me where you disagree. Are personal taxes not person to person? Please tell me where you disagree. I’m sure with your wealth of tax knowledge, you have some great insights on taxation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Can you say UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Richard; yes, CT does get to make the decisions on who worked hard enough and infer that if someone inherits something, there is no possibility that this particular family member might have done work to ensure that it was there for the inheriting. Just like she gets to decide what kind of income or wealth is “too much; they don’t need that much”, just like she gets to twist the income tax to “only cuts for the rich”, etc. Just like she pops on here and answers about one hand-picked post per hour that is a ’softball’ rather then reply to ANY of the posts that ask her to respond to a specific question that she cannot answer. Don’t get your hopes up. I log on here a couple of times a week out of ‘morbid curiousity’ to see how little intelligence is out there (reference, GG and almost any post she makes).

• Link
• Report this comment

What part of ILLEGAL don’t you understand?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The purpose for cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” John F. Kennedy

– I believe JFK may have been the last Democrat to understand the economy…

• Link
• Report this comment

blue

nope

see previous post re barnes and noble gift card

please do keep up.

• Link
• Report this comment

get it right

and what were the tax rates during that time?

• Link
• Report this comment

George W

December 16th, 2010
1:47 pm

He’s not juvenile at all. He’s an old retired construction worker who went to school in the 40’s and still tries to apply those theories to his life today. He is frequently frustrated because the pieces of the economy that he once understood don’t fit together the way they used to and this makes him sad and angry. I am impressed that his nursing home has internet access.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ronald….Good point. I hope they change his diaper soon, I can smell it from here!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jason….this is what happens when the slaves attempt to run the plantation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Goerge W

Want to get into name calling? you oafish bootlicking GOP syncophantic serf.

Now that’s name calling.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny, can you tell me in most cases who pays the CEO’s?
“UnChristian”? That is hilarious. Where do you get that from. I thought the bible said Reap what you Sew. Not Steal from the Rich and give to the poor and lazy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….its going to take him days to look up all those big words.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Are you completely unaware of the income gap in this country? Have you not seen the stats on CEO pay? The 95% contribute to the economy the old fashioned way, they work.”

Granny Godzilla actually suggesting that CEO’s somehow “don’t work”. The missing part in the liberal’s brain (other than the area which understands fairness) has something to do with the failure to equate hard work to wealth and success. It is the liberal’s “missing link”

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla

Early on in my blogging life you informed me of Dilbert’s law of things #14.

Just a friendly reminder.

• Link
• Report this comment

I LOVE how Obama ran on a premise of “no more pork aka earmarks”. And he has yet to support a bill without earmarks! Liar Liar pants on fire.

• Link
• Report this comment

GW….wow is that really a requirement of the Sam Houston Institute of Tech – Houston Eastern Adjunct Division? I though you just had to draw the picture on the matchbook.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Granny Godzilla actually suggesting that CEO’s somehow “don’t work”.”

Bull hockey.

Sitting behind a desk on a private jet being a master of the universe is most certainly work, but I suspect it’s not as hard on the body as stringing power lines or digging subway tunnels.

Are you suggesting firemen don’t work? Or combat soldiers don’t work?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….are you suggesting that firemen should be paid more than CEO’s?

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB, yes i realize that we all pay taxes in some shape or form. However, the death tax doubly taxes families that have worked hard and acquired wealth. Do you understand that, all of the taxes have already been paid once, and when they die must pay an additional 55%.

• Link
• Report this comment

GW…Its not hard to find out what my thoughts are on the estate tax…go back and read for yourself.

Reading is Fundamental, but comprehension really weeds out the morons

• Link
• Report this comment

The death tax is the ultimate manifestation of greed.

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way granny, if 95% contribute to the economy the old fashioned way, by working, then why have they not ammassed some savings to leave to their families. Because they have made poor financial decisions along the way (while hurting the economy). They do not have anything to leave their children except for debt.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….how in the world does that have anything to do with what I asked you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….you are RIGHT and he is TIMES person of the year. Amazing isnt he?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tax Free Student

Best keep studying…..who said they had no savings? why is being a fireman or a machinist a poor financial choice? Trust me young one,
fiemen and machinists are good for the economy.

You don’t have anything to leave your kids in the compassion department.

• Link
• Report this comment

George

But I posted a bunch of strawman questions just like you did.

Pretty silly ain’t it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….agreed firemen and mechanics are noble professions. However why do you want to penalize those who got more of an education and are willing to work to reach higher platforms in their lives?

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

IF the argument of gays is that the laws preventing gay marriage is unconstitutional and wrong, then how can you tell this Professor that he violated law. How is it the government’s business to oversee two adults in a consenting relationship and say they cannot and should not behave as such if they cannot do the same for the gays.

Because doesn’t both cases come down to what is accepted and not?

• Link
• Report this comment

George

Do you want to penalize folks who are second generation firefighters because they chose a life of service to their community so a CEO can make 40 times (I think it’s actually much higher)the average Amerrican salary?

Isn’t a higher platform in life a matter of opinion? Francisan Monks are not making the big bucks. Sr. Theresa wasn’t getting much of a haul eiher.

• Link
• Report this comment

Those lucky CEO’s….let’s go tar and feather them NOW. How dare they go after higher learning, hard work, risks on a venture, motivation skills, etc. Now what should we do with a Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Barbara Streisand, Opera Winfrey, Peyton Manning, Elton John, and ilk. They surely make more than is allowed in the liberal mind and MOST people I know would love to have their job. Better than digging a ditch or stringing a wire. never mind their talent and willingness to hone such talent. These elitist are 1st generation and are not entitled to that obscene amount of wealth. No…. I don’t see any of the libs going after entertainer type….hmmmmm…..just the evil CEO.

• Link
• Report this comment

wonder why we the people calls CEO’s evil.

nobody else did.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian December 16th, 2010
2:20 pm

It has been made illegal to have carnal relations with BIOLOGICAL offspring….this was based primarily in genetics. This is why Woody Allen got away with marrying his “daughter”…..they were NOT BIOLOGICALLY common. That’s the issue here…..
“How is it the government’s business to oversee two adults in a consenting relationship…..” THAT is the prevalent argument…but one also has to take into account the biological impact. Also, remember I also stated that in certain states it IS legal to marry your first-through-nth COUSIN! Although biological…it’s not an IMMEDIATE biological relationship…….that’s the DIFFERENCE!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Im still waiting on georgian to give me his wonderful insight on taxes

• Link
• Report this comment

Marrying your daughter, cousin or the same sex….does it really matter? It is all demented.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

So again, where is it the feds place to tell them they can’t due to genetics or it appearing wrong or certain health risks. Is it hard to determine whether Im talking about gay marriage or incest? Because they both apply.

• Link
• Report this comment

George W

Funny I have a corporate job too, and employ 3 in my small business and am an officer in my husbands firm….I don’t feel penalized in the least.

I worked hard, continue my education to this day and never took a penney from anybody to accomplish it.

And kept my figure, got grey hair, had some babies, worked for the poor,
work for abused woman and kids, do the yard work and make my own drapes. I also make fabulous gravy.

I am grateful for every opportuniy I have gotten and have made myself.

• Link
• Report this comment

George W,

My point exactly, but the hypocrisy of liberals and gays is appalling.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….ok so please tell me…why are you for the “estate tax”?

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxFree Student. kudos to your dad for living frugally. one question; how many of the 21 rental properties he owns are sustained by Section 8 housing stipends? Has any of his tenants ever relied on unemployment benefits to pay the rent? did he own these properties when ALL mortgage interest was tax deductible (as opposed to the primary residence)? just asking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxfree

If pop has socked away 2 mil I’d be thrilled, and if the time came that his estate had to be taxed – I would not complain.

But I’m quite sure it ain’t that much.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….didnt he already pay taxes on that money? Why does it need to be taxed again?

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB….Good job on the cut and paste. Feel free to take your perverted views and live in one of those countries.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe to answer your question, yes some renters did benefit from section 8, aswell as unempolyment benefits. However, everyone of them that i can remember did not strive to get a job for that very reason, it was being given to them. Just another example of how people abuse kindness and help.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny….also you state that the USA is a business? It is not. A business is built on the fundamental structure to turn a profit. The government is not!

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgian
December 16th, 2010
2:35 pm

Application is different because of the biology!! States have made it illegal for familiar units (parents/children) to marry and procreate….marriage is primarily between two UNRELATED people who wish to create a mutual bond…..but also note that is IS legal for certain COUSINS to marry…that’s because the immediacy of the biology isn’t AS immediate…….

To amplify further would take more investigation….which I don’t mind doing!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“also you state that the USA is a business”

I can see that my leaving out two articles has caused you some confusion.

The line should read:

in order to take care of the business of the United States of America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny i realize you like all of those things, my question, how were they ever paied for before the death tax got so outragious? we were still able to have roads and bridges and schools and the National Guard and parks and libraries and all those marvelously American things before the 55% of everything over 1 million was taxed. It is the recent spending by the government that has made it a necessity to rais the death tax. rather than cutting back on spending the gov. is steeling to keep spending. I mean do we really think we needed public health care with the economy we are in right now? No, america is a business, and no buisiness can sustain itself if it spends more than it makes.

• Link
• Report this comment

George W December 16th, 2010
2:42 pm

It’s not perversion…it’s the LAW!! I’m looking at the pure LEGAL sense, not placing moral aspersions on the law!! Can you see THAT!! Remember…sometimes what is LEGAL ain’t right…and what’s right AIN’T legal!!

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxFree

The estate tax has become much less outrageous since the 1950’s.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB…I understand but it IS still illegal in most states.

• Link
• Report this comment

James….she is having a very hard time understanding the premise of the taxation law.

• Link
• Report this comment

james

nope

yu are 200% wrong with a cherry on top.

i implore you to stop imploring me.

also with a cherry on top.

• Link
• Report this comment

James…..see what I mean.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxFree….Actually more like a non-profit organization than a “business”. Meet budgets and perform duties.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

What are you correcting, the one Indian tribe? It is legal in 3 states by court ruling, in two other states and the district it is legal by their legislatures.

Now show me where the USA recognizes those marriages as legal, or the other 45 states. Show me where any gay marriage is recongized as legal other than those 5 states.

Can those married lesbos and homos claim they are on their income tax? Do they get federal recognition as married? Are they recognized in Georgia as being married? Are any of those married in those countries you listed recognized in the state of Georgia or any other 44 currently not allowing gay marriage?

Give me the proof

• Link
• Report this comment

From the IRS web site the “your” is the “dead person” “property” is not income it is stuff or assets- stop the foolishness of move the Mylie Cyrus bong smoking blog.

Estate Tax
Estate tax may apply to your taxable estate at your death. Your taxable estate is your gross estate less allowable deductions.

Gross Estate
Your gross estate includes the value of all property in which you had an interest at the time of death

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB…that is not entirely true. Many states have laws that include federal statues that are not recognized in all 50 states.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

In response to your comment to George W. Gay marriage is not legal, so its not right.

• Link
• Report this comment

HDB,

If it were that easy to “force” gay marriage to be legal as you say due to the 14th, then it would already be. There is no legal basis for applying the 14th to gay marriage.

• Link
• Report this comment

GG ….why did you say “bottom line” in your 1st post…nobody else did. Divert, divert, divert. you are the best at doing so. From what I have read today, people in your camp do not seem able to connect a CEO’s value to their compensation. My bad, I just assumed youl feel they are evil. I am really curious to where you would rank a CEO’s compensation in comparison to other professions. What should they make? Who should decide? What is too much?

• Link
• Report this comment

My net worth at present is about 743K +/-. I know you Socialists (AKA: “Progressives”, Liberals, Demoncrats) have me pegged to pay more income tax…uh, I believe you hype it as “paying (my) “fair” share, ad nauseum. If someone on this blog can tell me what my “fair share” is, how it was determined and who determined it, I may listen. My feelings are that the USA should abandon the income tax altogether and create a “Fair Tax” (how’s that for a ring?) for everyone to participate.
BTW, my wealth was EARNED by hard work and didn’t just fall out of the sky (thank God, or you Socialists would have grabbed it before it hit the ozone layer which, oops! I’m sorry, the Ozone Layer has now been burned up and we are having Climate Change due to man’s hideous treatment of the atmosphere). Same idiots who believe that are still looking over the side of the boat awaiting their boat falling off the face of the earth (well, the earth IS flat, isn’t it? You Socialists also don’t realize thatthere was once an Ice Age. My, my.
Wanting my money – and that of others who have worked for it – won’t play. You are nothing but envious, jealous jerk-offs who couldn’t get the job done: getting an education, working hard and saving your money. Hell no! I got news for you a@@holes…you ain’t getting mine when I’m gone.
WNR

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia, you miss the entire point. The money DOES NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT. It belongs to the heirs of the deceased. The fact that it a wealthy deceased person is irrelevant. The fact that it is a small percentage of the population is irrelevant. You libs are all the same.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some People….EXACTLY a Death Tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

And demoncrats wonder why the wealthy place their funds in swiss bank accounts and cayman banks. It is hilarious. They just dont get it.

• Link
• Report this comment

CT:” 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.”

Cynthia, why is it that the political extremes of both parties think they were elected to be our dictators? They were actually elected to do our vital business, even if they have to forgo an ideological point or two on occasion to make it happen, yes?

As a compassionate moderate, I have much more in common with the Dems than the Pubs. But when it comes to being self-serving in the face of dire circumstances, I’m afraid the libs can be every bit as obstructive as anything from the other side of the isle – unfortunately!!

• Link
• Report this comment

to nothing is free: the point is that the heirs probably CAN’T FIGURE OUT the basis. So the basis is stepped up.
When you say: the taxes will be paid when it’s sold…i mean, really. Seriously? how much of that stuff do you have laying around?
What *I* said was that most people have a hard enough time figuring out the basis on their investments. now give it to some heirs, and, well, good luck with that….really.
Which is why the compromise is that a small percentage is taxed, over a certain amount. That amount should be low – this whole idea that 55% is okay is absurd.

• Link
• Report this comment

An asset transfer from one to another is the very definition of income. You can call it what you want, but an estate tax is nothing more than an income tax…upon death.

Some people are stupid- an asset transfer is nothing more than income???? So buying a business is an income tax to the buyer. How moronic.

• Link
• Report this comment

more class warfare?

yep.

and the middle class has the largest number of warriors.

• Link
• Report this comment

Cynthia, do you believe in Double Jeopardy? If not, then why should someone have to pay tax AGAIN on something they are receiving from the estate of a dead family member? Would you like that Intangibles Tax reinstated, so everyone can again pay taxes on what is in their bank account or portfolio? Just how often should we pay tax on the same thing? Let’s not forget to declare as part of our income those Christmas presents! And how about engagement and wedding rings that someone might receive. Heck Cynthia, we can likely come up with lots of things we can add to the taxable list!

• Link
• Report this comment

** The reps’ Economic Plan = Going Back to Failed Bush Economic Policy
Republican congressman Mike Pence says Tax cut package won’t help create jobs !

Back when Bush was pushing his tax cut packages through Congress in 2001 and 2003, supporters said the cuts (which weren’t balanced with spending reductions) would initiate an era in which the American economy would grow so robustly the nation would be running a surplus of more than $5 trillion at the scheduled expiration date. U.S. now is facing a $14 trillion deficit.

In sharp contrast, Former President Bill Clinton left a record surplus, despite the warning of potential economic disaster over tax increase for the wealthiest.

** Investment in Education, Energy, & Infrastructure.

Let’s be clear. These tax cuts will do little or nothing to stimulate the economy despite the hollow claims of Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits. According to a Moody’s report, making the Bush tax cuts permanent will lead to 30 to 35 cents of economic stimulus for every $1 U.S. give up in federal revenue. That’s a very poor investment. By comparison, revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure or extending unemployment benefits will lead to roughly $1.60 in economic stimulus for each $1 U.S. spend.
　
Sanders’ amendment calls for stripping out the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. That money would have instead been spent on deficit reduction and infrastructure needs.

These enormous tax cuts have led to record federal deficits, contributed to the government’s current financial woes, and have not helped many Americans who face the greatest financial burdens,” Leahy said,
“Assurances at the time to the contrary, the Bush tax cuts failed to ‘trickle down’ to help those Americans most in need, while the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans benefited substantially.”
　

• Link
• Report this comment

Some people are stupid, Please contribute to my cause also.

• Link
• Report this comment

TnGelding- a scheme to purchase insurance? So buying insurance is a scheme to fund liabilities upon death including the estate tax? Truly, truly romper room today.

• Link
• Report this comment

To heck with the right wing nuts out there!

Fantastic!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t .025% of the population have rigrts??

• Link
• Report this comment

we had to deal with the far right for 6 years- thank goodness the far left is just about done-

• Link
• Report this comment

If not for the Estate tax, wouldn’t the Smith family still own the Falcons and we would be 2-11 instead of what we have now?

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re only compassionate with other people’s money.

Second mistake.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxFree Student. SO, you’re father’s “wealth” actually originated from government assistance? You’re father rented to “moochers” and not “producers”? I never “volunteered” my hard earned income to be “redistributed” to your father. actually, I am just kidding (unless he paid cash for all 21 properties, the “wealth” was redistributed to the mortgage holders.

• Link
• Report this comment

typo- cold hearted not cold harded

• Link
• Report this comment

paleo neo carlin,

You gonna be contriubting to my fund?- the toll free number is on my post at 3:59. Need some compassionate help here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchump,

Your umpteenth mistake. I’m not playing baseball fool. I’m playing football. And I just scored a touchdown. Now go back to your game of hopscotch ma’am.

• Link
• Report this comment

To heck with the right wing nuts out there!-

I asked this question before, what does charitable donations have to do with anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxFree Student, and yet, theorhetically, a portion of your dad’s taxes were actually “redistributed” to him via the rent paid by the Federal Government. ergo, a portion of his “wealth” (and for the purposes of this blog) your inheritance/his estate is the result of “liberal entitlements. surely you see this.

• Link
• Report this comment

To heck…, I am not a “compassionate plutocrat”.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Transfer of cash(asset) to another for the sale of a business(assets, liabilities,equity) is income to both”

Some people are stupid(or not as bright as they think),

Really? Both the buyer and seller had income in the transaction? Wow. Didn’t know I have income when I buy something. I’m going to to go Walmark and buy some stuff. I should get paid for buying some stuff right? So after I buy some paper towels the cashier will give me back money for buying something? I’ll make money while buying something at the same time?

• Link
• Report this comment

Every liberal is missing the point – or maybe not – maybe they just don’t care – THIS MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED!!!! PUT ASIDE YOUR JEALOUSY OF PEOPLE WITH MONEY AND UNDERSTAND THIS MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED AND NOW THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAX IT AGAIN! It is amazing how many people want the government to get as much money possible and run all of our lives. It is scary how many of you want to be dependent upon the government for our well-being. Unfortunately I am even more concerned that this group is growing – Woe for my children and grandchildren if that is the case!

• Link
• Report this comment