Federal "Death Tax" Affects 5,500 Estates

[Oddball]

How does the relatively low number of graves robbed justify the act?

I'm against taxes on capital, such as the estate tax. Taxes on capital are terrible taxes.

But that's not the point. The point is to understand the facts to understand the debate. When they cut the estate tax, the GOP made it sound as if small businesses were torn apart en mass by this tax when in fact it effects ("affects?") very few people. Rather than rely on an economic debate, it was framed as an emotive one designed to play on people's fears, which were generally unfounded.

"En masse"?...I've never had that impression.

I personally don't care about whatever emotional appeal anyone wants to use. It's just wrong to go in and commit what amounts to nothing more than high tech grave looting.

 

[Toro]

"En masse"?...I've never had that impression.

I personally don't care about whatever emotional appeal anyone wants to use. It's just wrong to go in and commit what amounts to nothing more than high tech grave looting.

So you don't care if Democrats spin to create an outcome they believe is right, even if they distort the facts to do so? Or do the ends justify the means apply only to one side of the political aisle?

It is important that people understand the facts because a better informed electorate generally makes better decisions. A poorly informed electorate makes poor decisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yepper, MM, you watch out for the far rightoid wingnuts coming to take all of us.

Are you that stupid in real life? Or do you just act stupid on the internet?

MM, I give your extremist right wing inanity the respect it deserves: none. When you (and the rest of the reactionary wingnut far right) grow up and become responsible Americans politically, then we can have a discussion.

You don't like that? Get used to it.

 

[Oddball]

"En masse"?...I've never had that impression.

I personally don't care about whatever emotional appeal anyone wants to use. It's just wrong to go in and commit what amounts to nothing more than high tech grave looting.

So you don't care if Democrats spin to create an outcome they believe is right, even if they distort the facts to do so? Or do the ends justify the means apply only to one side of the political aisle?

It is important that people understand the facts because a better informed electorate generally makes better decisions. A poorly informed electorate makes poor decisions.

I believe the emotional appeals of both sides, whether distorting how many may be affected or via class envy, are intellectually bankrupt. It's one of the many reasons I refuse to support republicans.

Now, if they just came out and said "this is just ghoulish grave looting", they would be intellectually correct and probably gain a smidgen of my attention.

 

[alan1]

Yepper, MM, you watch out for the far rightoid wingnuts coming to take all of us.

Are you that stupid in real life? Or do you just act stupid on the internet?

MM, I give your extremist right wing inanity the respect it deserves: none. When you (and the rest of the reactionary wingnut far right) grow up and become responsible Americans politically, then we can have a discussion.

You don't like that? Get used to it.

So, you are that stupid in real life.
Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are sounding shrill and hysterical, MM. Good night.

 

[The Rabbi]

"En masse"?...I've never had that impression.

I personally don't care about whatever emotional appeal anyone wants to use. It's just wrong to go in and commit what amounts to nothing more than high tech grave looting.

So you don't care if Democrats spin to create an outcome they believe is right, even if they distort the facts to do so? Or do the ends justify the means apply only to one side of the political aisle?

It is important that people understand the facts because a better informed electorate generally makes better decisions. A poorly informed electorate makes poor decisions.

Both sides in any debate craft quick easy to understand sound bites to get their points across. It is like advertising.
The truth is that the inheritance tax discourages wealth building and brings in a miniscule amount of revenue. It probably costs the country more money than it produces. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say that is the case.
Do you really want a tax that is counter productive and exists only because of class envy?

 

[Ravi]

How does the relatively low number of graves robbed justify the act?

I'm against taxes on capital, such as the estate tax. Taxes on capital are terrible taxes.

But that's not the point. The point is to understand the facts to understand the debate. When they cut the estate tax, the GOP made it sound as if small businesses were torn apart en mass by this tax when in fact it effects ("affects?") very few people. Rather than rely on an economic debate, it was framed as an emotive one designed to play on people's fears, which were generally unfounded.

No way...politicians creating fear to push their agenda?

Shouldn't it be properly called the inheritance tax, though...death tax is just another scare tactic.

 

[chanel]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

My curiosity is piqued. Do you have a link?

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

My curiosity is piqued. Do you have a link?

Obama Plans to Keep Estate Tax - WSJ.com
Even if the Federal tax goes away (which it wont under Obama) the states still have it in many cases.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

My curiosity is piqued. Do you have a link?

Obama Plans to Keep Estate Tax - WSJ.com
Even if the Federal tax goes away (which it wont under Obama) the states still have it in many cases.

Yeah, but it doesn't say that Obama wants it lowered to only $1M. Only that this is what it was under Clinton.

 

[chanel]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

My curiosity is piqued. Do you have a link?

I'm not pretending to understand this, but I may be calling an estate lawyer next week.

The applicable exclusion amount is slated to change as follows:

Jan.1, 2009 $3.5 million
Jan.1, 2010 repeal of the estate tax
Jan.1, 2011 $1,000,000[/QUOTE]

Estate Planning - Estate and Gift Taxation

BTW- Isn't Jillian and/or members of her firm supposed to help people AVOID this tax? Just saying...

 

[RadiomanATL]

Doesn't Obama want to change the exclusion amount to $1 million? That will be a hell of a lot more than 5,500 households. A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

I'm sure the socialists would love to raise it to 100% of everybody's estate. Coming soon?

My curiosity is piqued. Do you have a link?

I'm not pretending to understand this, but I may be calling an estate lawyer next week.

The applicable exclusion amount is slated to change as follows:

Jan.1, 2009 $3.5 million
Jan.1, 2010 repeal of the estate tax
Jan.1, 2011 $1,000,000[/QUOTE]

Estate Planning - Estate and Gift Taxation

BTW- Isn't Jillian and/or members of her firm supposed to help people AVOID this tax? Just saying...

Yeah, but in the previous link the WSJ says that if congress doesn't do anything, then the estate tax goes away.

Elimination of the levy on big inheritances was approved by Congress under President George W. Bush in 2001, with rollbacks phased in slowly and its full elimination slated to take effect next year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)
Following up my recent item Republicans fail to abolish estate tax ... here are two relevant and useful discussions by friends of mine: Susan Dunn's 1999 New York Times op-ed, "Teddy Roosevelt Betrayed" explaining why both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt supported inheritance taxes ...
---------------
When Theodore Roosevelt demanded that Congress pass a steeply graduated inheritance tax in 1906, he was proposing the one bill that members of his own patrician class feared most. In attacking what they cherished - not just their money but also their sense of entitlement and superiority - he was challenging the class system, not the capitalist system, turning the upper-class world upside down. As far as these plutocrats were concerned, T.R. had betrayed his own class to the point of no return.
As Republicans today seek an end to the inheritance tax, they are betraying the legacy of their great Republican President.
Roosevelt, the Oyster Bay patrician who used his inheritance to lead a life of public service rather than a life of leisure, always believed that the transmission of enormous wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large."

 

[Care4all]

just some info regarding taxes and the estate tax....it isn't class envy...that's just something the wealthiest have made up for you all to bid their case imo.

you can't ignore the actual reasoning...
NOTE, this is not copywrite

FAQs: Taxes
History of the U.S. Tax System

The following is an excerpt from the Ways and Means Committee's report on the Revenue Act of 1935. The report reproduces a June 19, 1935, message from President Roosevelt to Congress advocating an inheritance tax, in addition to the estate tax. Although the inheritance tax proposal was not adopted, the message provides information on why the taxation of individuals' estates was considered appropriate.

Message to Congress on Tax Revision
June 19, 1935

To the Congress:

As the fiscal year draws to its close it becomes our duty to consider the broad question of tax methods and policies. I wish to acknowledge the timely efforts of the Congress to lay the basis, through its committees, for administrative improvements, by careful study of the revenue systems of our own and of other countries. These studies have made it very clear that we need to simplify and clarify our revenue laws.

The Joint Legislative Committee, established by the Revenue Act of 1926, has been particularly helpful to the Treasury Department. The members of that Committee have generously consulted with administrative officials, not only on broad questions of policy but on important and difficult tax cases.

On the basis of these studies and of other studies conducted by officials of the Treasury, I am able to make a number of suggestions of important changes in our policy of taxation. These are based on the broad principle that if a government is to be prudent its taxes must produce ample revenues without discouraging enterprise; and if it is to be just it must distribute the burden of taxes equitably. I do not believe that our present system of taxation completely meets this test. Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power.

With the enactment of the Income Tax Law of 1913, the Federal Government began to apply effectively the widely accepted principle that taxes should be levied in proportion to ability to pay and in proportion to the benefits received. Income was wisely chosen as the measure of benefits and of ability to pay. This was, and still is, a wholesome guide for national policy. It should be retained as the governing principle of Federal taxation. The use of other forms of taxes is often justifiable, particularly for temporary periods; but taxation according to income is the most effective instrument yet devised to obtain just contribution from those best able to bear it and to avoid placing onerous burdens upon the mass of our people.

The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market.

Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. Without mass cooperation great accumulations of wealth would 'be 'impossible save by unhealthy speculation. As Andrew Carnegie put it, "Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are · always silent partners." Whether it be wealth achieved through the cooperation of the entire community or riches gained by speculation—in either case the ownership of such wealth or riches represents a great public interest and a great ability to pay.

I My first proposal, in line with this broad policy, has to do with inheritances and gifts. The transmission from generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance, or gift is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American people.

The desire to provide security for oneself and one's family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others.

Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.

Creative enterprise is not stimulated by vast inheritances. They bless neither those who bequeath nor those who receive. As long ago as 1907, in a message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt urged this wise social policy:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."

A tax upon inherited economic power is a tax upon static wealth, not upon that dynamic wealth which makes for the healthy diffusion of economic good.

Those who argue for the benefits secured to society by great fortunes invested in great businesses should note that such a tax does not affect the essential benefits that remain after the death of the creator of such a business. The mechanism of production that he created remains. The benefits of corporate organization remain. The advantages of pooling many investments in one enterprise remain. Governmental privileges such as patents remain. All that are gone are the initiative, energy and genius of the creator—and death has taken these away.

I recommend, therefore, that in addition to the present estate taxes, there should be levied an inheritance, succession, and legacy tax in respect to all very large amounts received by any one legatee or beneficiary; and to prevent, so far as possible, evasions of this tax, I recommend further the imposition of gift taxes suited to this end.

Because of the basis on which this proposed tax is to be levied and also because of the very sound public policy of encouraging a wider distribution of wealth, I strongly urge that the proceeds of this tax should be specifically segregated and applied, as they accrue, to the reduction of the national debt. By so doing, we shall progressively lighten the tax burden of the average taxpayer, and, incidentally, assist in our approach to a balanced budget.

II The disturbing effects upon our national life that come from great inheritances of wealth and power can in the future be reduced, not only through the method I have just described, but through a definite increase in the taxes now levied upon very great individual net incomes.

To illustrate: The application of the principle of a graduated tax now stops at $1,000,000 of annual income. In other words, while the rate for a man with a $6,000 income is double the rate for one with a $4,000 income, a man having a $5,000,000 annual income pays at the same rate as one whose income is $1,000,000.

Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.

III In the modern world scientific invention and mass production have brought many things within the reach of the average man which in an earlier age were available to few. With large-scale enterprise has come the great corporation drawing its resources from widely diversified activities and from a numerous group of investors. The community has profited in those cases in which large-scale production has resulted in substantial economies and lower prices.

The advantages and the protections conferred upon corporations by Government increase in value as the size of the corporation increases. Some of these advantages are granted by the State which conferred a charter upon the corporation; others are granted by other States which, as a matter of grace, allow the corporation to do local business within their borders. But perhaps the most important advantages, such as the carrying on of business between two or more States, are derived through the Federal Government. Great corporations are protected in a considerable measure from the taxing power and regulatory power of the States by virtue of the interstate character of their businesses. As the profit to such a corporation increases, so the value of its advantages and protection increases.

Furthermore, the drain of a depression upon the reserves of business puts a disproportionate strain upon the modestly capitalized small enterprise. Without such small enterprises our competitive economic society would cease. Size begets monopoly. Moreover, in the aggregate these little businesses furnish the indispensable local basis for those nationwide markets which alone can ensure the success of our mass production industries. Today our smaller corporations are fighting not only for their own local well-being but for that fairly distributed national prosperity which makes large-scale enterprise possible.

It seems only equitable, therefore, to adjust our tax system in accordance with economic capacity, advantage and fact. The smaller corporations should not carry burdens beyond their powers; the vast concentrations of capital should be ready to carry burdens commensurate with their powers and their advantages.

We have established the principle of graduated taxation in respect to personal incomes, gifts and estates. We should apply the same principle to corporations. Today the smallest corporation pays the same rate on its net profits as the corporation which is a thousand times its size.

continued...

U.S. Treasury - FAQs: History of the U.S. Tax System

 

[The Rabbi]

I've never understood why Teddy Roosevelt was the darling of the rightwing. He is responsible for most of big government meddling.
And like most wealthy people who inherited their money, they're fine with keeping other people from doing the same thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.

Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government.

Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, no inheritance tax, per se. Just have the Social Security and Medicare Tax that I pay, at the percentage that I pay, applied to all income, period. Many problems solved in one fell swoop.

 

[The Rabbi]

It obviously is class envy, as your quotation proves.
Here:

With the enactment of the Income Tax Law of 1913, the Federal Government began to apply effectively the widely accepted principle that taxes should be levied in proportion to ability to pay and in proportion to the benefits received. Income was wisely chosen as the measure of benefits and of ability to pay. This was, and still is, a wholesome guide for national policy. It should be retained as the governing principle of Federal taxation. The use of other forms of taxes is often justifiable, particularly for temporary periods; but taxation according to income is the most effective instrument yet devised to obtain just contribution from those best able to bear it and to avoid placing onerous burdens upon the mass of our people.

Note that INCOME is considered the right thing to tax. Never mind that it isn't, that taxing income discourages its formation. But we'll let that slide.
Now on to inheritance:

I My first proposal, in line with this broad policy, has to do with inheritances and gifts. The transmission from generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance, or gift is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American people.

The desire to provide security for oneself and one's family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others.

Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.

Note that the tax is not justified as a means to raise revenue. It is not justified as anything other than a desire to stick it to people who have become wealthy through their own hard work and desire, naturally, to leave it to their children.
In any case, nature takes its toll on inherited wealth. Look at the great fortunes that were around in 1900 and see where they are now. Go back to 1800 and the numbers are even starker.
There is no "vast transfer of fortune from generation to generation." This is a lie.