The Estate Tax, Soon to Return in 2010

[Oldandtired]

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.



Except, of course, back here in the real world, these people aren't small business owners. The wealth is held in various forms of assets. They're not taking that money to expand a business.

So then please tell me....you are 100% certain that extrea money in the pockets of a business owner does not go back into the business...then what is used to grow a business?

The entire point is that. by and large, these people aren't business owners.

I do not agree with you....although you may be right.

 

[pal_of_poor]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

[.

The deficit is caused by spending mopre than tax revenue.

Furst comes tax revenue then comes spending.

Cut taxes and you must spend less.

Sorry...poor logic on your part. Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit.....cutting taxes but NOT cutting spending is what causes a deficit.

Unless, of course, you believe in spending first and then trying to come up with the money later.

Let us withdraw from the *ssholes of Iraqinam, and Afghanistan, and cut the Pentagon budget to a very reasonable 100 Billion a year, still more than any country pays, to start. Certainly, extravagant excursions to help corporations get oil, or provide services to our sorties into these foriegn sovereign countries, should be the very first to go. That'd be 600 Billion, year, after year, after year, plus interest, since we're already to our necks in debt.

Any discussion about cutting spending, needs to start there.

I'm a big fan of tariffs, and renegotiation of trade agreements, to bring many of these tax paying jobs back home. Seems like a good idea, with unofficial unemployment, and underemployment nearing 20 percent, don't you think?

 

[pal_of_poor]

$1m is to low of a threshold and 55% is way to high of a tax-rate, if you gotta have this tax.

It's ridiculous that $1m in total assets is considered "rich". People in this category certainly aren't hiding monies in some distant land. Most of the people in this group have worked their nuts off, and already paid tax on that acquired wealth. If whoever inherits it sells it, the government will get their share again, and that should be enough.

You'd be an idiot if they tell you they are going to take over half of what you worked for, and you did nothing to protect that investment in your kids future.
My kids and grand kids are much more important to me than a whole class of career welfare recipients "gettin' theirs". After a lifetime of paying for them already, there's no fuckin' way I'm paying for 'em when I'm dead.
It'll be nicer to see my kids life a little better when I'm alive anyway.

Actually, I'm going to agree with you here. I think it should be higher, and one of the problems with it, as well as the minimum wage is that it was never set to adjust upward with the rate of inflation.

That said, on page 76 of Johnston's book (quote from it) he states that the actual amount paid by these estates in 2000 averaged only 24 percent.

Also of note, while 17 percent thought they were going to be subject to the tax, this was more than eight times the actual figure that would be subject to the tax. So, like other taxes, Republicans tend to get way more people to "think" they are going to be affected, than actually are affected. I suspect a bunch of all inclusive "we's", or "Our's," or some other pronoun did that work, along with FAKE News.

The techniques used during Bush's campaign should be closely observed, since they are using exactly the same ones now, with the health care debate, misrepresentation, and absolute lying. The truth never sets them in good stead with public opinion, or voters. So, they lie, and they've got a considerable number of authoritarian sycophants, who take their marching orders, without knowledge, and unquestioningly.

 

[Immanuel]

Let's face it, most people don't have accumulated wealth above a million, much less above this years amount of 3.5 million. People shouldn't be concerned about this, unless they have such a huge accumulation of wealth. Even then, there are all sorts of trusts, generation skipping trusts, and devices that the wealthy have to shield some of the money from taxation, even actually giving people money before you die, at less than ten grand a year.

Estate Tax Exemption Amount

I have a question, simply because I may not accumulate the wealth required to pay the tax, I should not be concerned about it? Is that why this tax passed in the first place, because everyone said, "it won't affect me so why should I care?"

I doubt I will acquire that kind of wealth for one reason, I am not a speculator and I don't like dealing in real estate, but it just goes against my nature to think that the kids of someone who has accumulated say $1.5 in property (say BBD) should have to sell their property in order to pay the tax.

I might understand if it were set up like a lien so that if the heirs made a profit of more than $1 million they were taxed on it, but not as the Estate Tax is currently set up.

Immie

The situation where a farm, or a person would "ONLY" have real-estate, would be rare indeed.

I'm not going to type the whole chart, but the average of people who pay estate taxes is about 1.9 million in assets (pre-2000, as now if you make less than 3.5 million a year, you don't pay any), and the percentage of farm assets, is 3, and they tend to own 8 percent in real-estate.

What most people fail to realize is, people with assets of this size, have myriad investments.

You can be against the tax if you like, but this situation is not one for which you have to worry. The average stock and cash of average estates this size, is 44 percent. So, no worries there, and find someone deserving of your sympathies. These kids will be fine, financially anyway, outside of the suffering and grief that afflict anyone who loses a loved one. Poor folks won't have the cash for comfort.

You put that well.

I would have no problem with an estate tax if it were a reasonable amount. Fifty five percent is outrageous and nothing short of governmental bullying as well as liberal "share the wealth" mentality and that is where I have a problem. I don't mind paying the taxes (I used to have a goal that I would have an estate large enough to have my kids taxed at least $1 under the estate tax, unfortunately I'm not that ambitious) but when the idea is justified as nothing more than keeping others from having what is rightfully theirs so that others can have what belongs to them, well, I frown on that.

Preventing the rich from passing on their assets to their children because we don't want rich families to be rich for multiple generations is nothing more than mis-founded jealousy.

Immie

 

[pal_of_poor]

$1m is to low of a threshold and 55% is way to high of a tax-rate, if you gotta have this tax.

It's ridiculous that $1m in total assets is considered "rich". People in this category certainly aren't hiding monies in some distant land. Most of the people in this group have worked their nuts off, and already paid tax on that acquired wealth. If whoever inherits it sells it, the government will get their share again, and that should be enough.

You'd be an idiot if they tell you they are going to take over half of what you worked for, and you did nothing to protect that investment in your kids future.
My kids and grand kids are much more important to me than a whole class of career welfare recipients "gettin' theirs". After a lifetime of paying for them already, there's no fuckin' way I'm paying for 'em when I'm dead.
It'll be nicer to see my kids life a little better when I'm alive anyway.

On the concept level, I'd have no power with increasing the deduction by a significant amount. Of course, the opponents of the estate tax don't want that.

Actually, in 2000, the democrats offered to raise the threshold to 10 million for a couple. That would mean only 1200 estates would be affected, and all the laws allowing them to skip paying would still be ample.

Even when Bush was pushing the repeal, the democrats offered a much higher cap. Instead, we ended up with an increasing cap, until 2010, when there would be no tax, then it'd return as it was in 2011. The sad thing is, with the massive debt of the economy being crushed by conservative ideas and policies of the last 30 years, from both parties, it's going to be much harder to get rid of it, or alter it in 2011, as we're really going to need the money to pay for these expensive wars, forever wars, I suspect.

 

[Immanuel]

. The sad thing is, with the massive debt of the economy being crushed by conservative ideas and policies of the last 30 years, from both parties, it's going to be much harder to get rid of it, or alter it in 2011, as we're really going to need the money to pay for these expensive wars, forever wars, I suspect.

Quick question, why do you keep mentioning the wars (which I believe are not being waged well) and ignore the new spending brought to us by President Obama? The stimulus package was a disaster of deficit spending and now we are talking about healthcare reform which will ultimately result in more deficit spending.

Why is it only the war that you seem to want to discuss?

Immie

 

[Oldandtired]

Sure it does. Cutting revenue by x amount adds just as much to the deficit as raising spending by x amount.

[.

The deficit is caused by spending mopre than tax revenue.

Furst comes tax revenue then comes spending.

Cut taxes and you must spend less.

Sorry...poor logic on your part. Cutting taxes does not cause a deficit.....cutting taxes but NOT cutting spending is what causes a deficit.

Unless, of course, you believe in spending first and then trying to come up with the money later.

Let us withdraw from the *ssholes of Iraqinam, and Afghanistan, and cut the Pentagon budget to a very reasonable 100 Billion a year, still more than any country pays, to start. Certainly, extravagant excursions to help corporations get oil, or provide services to our sorties into these foriegn sovereign countries, should be the very first to go. That'd be 600 Billion, year, after year, after year, plus interest, since we're already to our necks in debt.

Any discussion about cutting spending, needs to start there.

I'm a big fan of tariffs, and renegotiation of trade agreements, to bring many of these tax paying jobs back home. Seems like a good idea, with unofficial unemployment, and underemployment nearing 20 percent, don't you think?

I agree with emnotion...yes...But I disagree with my head for economics. If we make it difficult for our US companies to operate overseas, there will be international retaliation and we will lose as mnay jobs domestically...if not more. If we force a US company with some operations in Japan to close up in Japan and, instead, hire in the states, Japan will reatliate and force Sony, Toyota, etc to close up in the states and hire in Japan.

It will be an offset at best...and a loss of tax revenue.

Plus....it will futher hurt international relations.

It is not as cut and dry as it sounds.

 

[ba1614]

$1m is to low of a threshold and 55% is way to high of a tax-rate, if you gotta have this tax.

It's ridiculous that $1m in total assets is considered "rich". People in this category certainly aren't hiding monies in some distant land. Most of the people in this group have worked their nuts off, and already paid tax on that acquired wealth. If whoever inherits it sells it, the government will get their share again, and that should be enough.

You'd be an idiot if they tell you they are going to take over half of what you worked for, and you did nothing to protect that investment in your kids future.
My kids and grand kids are much more important to me than a whole class of career welfare recipients "gettin' theirs". After a lifetime of paying for them already, there's no fuckin' way I'm paying for 'em when I'm dead.
It'll be nicer to see my kids life a little better when I'm alive anyway.

Actually, I'm going to agree with you here. I think it should be higher, and one of the problems with it, as well as the minimum wage is that it was never set to adjust upward with the rate of inflation.

That said, on page 76 of Johnston's book (quote from it) he states that the actual amount paid by these estates in 2000 averaged only 24 percent.

Also of note, while 17 percent thought they were going to be subject to the tax, this was more than eight times the actual figure that would be subject to the tax. So, like other taxes, Republicans tend to get way more people to "think" they are going to be affected, than actually are affected. I suspect a bunch of all inclusive "we's", or "Our's," or some other pronoun did that work, along with FAKE News.

The techniques used during Bush's campaign should be closely observed, since they are using exactly the same ones now, with the health care debate, misrepresentation, and absolute lying. The truth never sets them in good stead with public opinion, or voters. So, they lie, and they've got a considerable number of authoritarian sycophants, who take their marching orders, without knowledge, and unquestioningly.

I'm speaking for myself about inheritance tax, nobody else, and what I do know about my situation. I don't give a **** about anyone else's inheritance, and that's the way it should be. It's nobody's business what I or anyone is passing along to whoever we choose to leave it. I've been taxed on what I have, you've no right to tax me, or my estate again on it.

But if you're going to insist on it, and give me no choice, then hitting me with 55% on everything over $1m will do nothing but force me to get creative. There's no way in hell I will hand over that much, knowing how hard I worked for it, to an increasingly greedy government.

You can save your conspiracy bullshit, Bush was an asshole for the most part, and the repubs haven't been performing well for a long time. I've never said anything different,

 

[Toro]

The estate tax is an inefficient tax and should never have been implemented.

However, since the only people who pay it are upper income earners, it should be replaced by a higher income tax on upper earners such that the effects are revenue neutral.

 

[pal_of_poor]

I have a question, simply because I may not accumulate the wealth required to pay the tax, I should not be concerned about it? Is that why this tax passed in the first place, because everyone said, "it won't affect me so why should I care?"

I doubt I will acquire that kind of wealth for one reason, I am not a speculator and I don't like dealing in real estate, but it just goes against my nature to think that the kids of someone who has accumulated say $1.5 in property (say BBD) should have to sell their property in order to pay the tax.

I might understand if it were set up like a lien so that if the heirs made a profit of more than $1 million they were taxed on it, but not as the Estate Tax is currently set up.

Immie

One, to pay for a very expensive war. We've got two going on now, and truth is, we pay a fortune for potential wars, even when we manage to stay out of them for a few years. Also, this tax hits the very people who have tripled their wealth, and who benefit most from the wars in foreign land. If you supported the war, then don't complain about the taxes.

Snip

Pal,

The truth of the matter is that the Estate Tax does not even provide a drop in the bucket when compared to our federal budget (2007 37.7 Billion/2.67 Trillion = 1.41%) so using your first argument about this paying for our defense is disengenuous at best.

Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Estate Tax and Government Revenue | OMB Watch

Note: the OMBWatch site IS projections, I did not have time to look for the actual figures if they are even out yet.

As for payroll taxes, well it is true that Social Security (and only SS) is not taxed after $100k, but then it is also true that the so called rich don't benefit from Social Security at the higher levels anyway not that I agree with the cap but that is besides the point.

If liberals were honest, they would admit that the entire remaining part of your/their argument is nothing more than class envy/warfare and a desire to "Share the Wealth". It is also shameful.

Immie

Yea, the truth is, we aren't paying for these very expensive wars at all. And with less employees in the future, to pay taxes, young people in particular should be very concerned, and very interested in collecting enough money to pay for what we are doing now, and pay back a bit each year. Of course this foolhardy notion of continuing to go into debt, is just causing us to have ever less money to be able to actually spend, since a big chunk of each year's budget is spent on interest, paid to the richest people in the world. The interest, in effect, is just another tasty little tax treat, for the rich, as the poor and middle class hold very few treasuries, and most don't even have investments, at least not significant amounts.

Cutting this, or any tax, without cutting spending, is foolish. As the debt grows, from year to year, so does the interest. It is consuming us, and someone has to pay.

I hate to keep on going back to this, but it really isn't a question as to whether we can "cut" our way out of this. We're gonig to have to raise taxes, something no one wants to say. And it is because we've "chosen" to not pay enough for nearly 30 years now, of conservative policies of going into debt. Grover Norquest has pushed this policy, hoping to starve the beast, but all he's done is choked it nearly to death. The real question is, do you want millionaires, deca-millionaires, and centa-millionaires, and billionaires to start paying it back, or do you want another tax on you??

With the exception of one person posting here, every one who has mentioned their income, is in the lowest 90 percent, the group that has fell behind under the last 30 years conservatism. It doesn't take a genius to see that many of them have been brainwashed to think they are in the top groups. It also appears they think they've got a better chance of getting rich that reality might dictate.

If we don't start paying it down now, we're going to become just another hollow Empire, and fail, like Portugal, Spain, England, Holland, and even Rome.

 

[pal_of_poor]

lmao............just another tax to torpedo the economy!!! Fine with me........Americans are getting a good dose of the fcukked up economic thinking of liberals. Good intentions with disasterous results.
Of course, many of the k00ks are driven beyond any level of common sense due to their disdain for the successful. Its a common theme amongst liberals........their loathing of people who are succesful is driven by their refusal to acknowledge their own personal fcukk ups...........so its, "Get the successful guy at all costs!!!"
What it resluts in is trickle up opverty economic principles that end up screwing over many in the working class who find themselves unemployed due to an anti-business government............its feel good stuff for the k00ks but its a huge vote loser amongst the folks. Fine by me s0ns................

If you pay attention at all, the problem with the economy today is that people aren't spending enough money. That means we don't have large enough salaries to buy things, products, services, the things that make businesses successful. Now the rich can pretty much buy anything they want, they've got no purchasing problems.

By the way, the disparity of incomes between the rich and poor was a large part of the problem that created the last Great Depression, in 1929, when unemployment was estimated to be 25 percent. The actual levels now between the richest and the poorest have now become GREATER than they were then.

So, if you want to pick up the economy, you need to tax the rich MORE, not less, and redistribute the income in varying ways, to continue to create jobs to fix the infrastructure businesses use to make their money, to give health care to all of us like all other civilized countries. This frees up a lot of money to spend buying products from your businesses, we'd have spent on insurance, that would end up just being part of some CEOs pay-package. During the period of high taxation, from 1940 to 1973 or so, we had high taxes, and we had the largest period of economic expansion of all classes, in our short history as a nation. I fully believe the reason it stopped were the tax cuts put in place in 1964 by Kennedy through Johnson, since he was already dead by then.

And by the way, I'm not the one who loathes people so much that I want to use them as wage-slaves. Maldistribution is our problem, not redistribution. The money would not have to be redistributed if it were properly distributed in the first place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And by the way, I'm not the one who loathes people so much that I want to use them as wage-slaves. Maldistribution is our problem, not redistribution. The money would not have to be redistributed if it were properly distributed in the first place.

oh that's rich. and who decides what the "proper" distribution of money will be?

it ain't hard to earn more. all you have to do is learn what the market needs and find a way to fill that need.

 

[pal_of_poor]

How does one pay for tax cuts to "the rich"?

Tax CUTS costs no one anything. It is the excess spending that costs people something.

Tax cuts allows the investment of the money into growth.

As much as you want to address the very small percentage of the people that earn their money by being born into money...MOST earn their money by starting, developing, and growing their companies. MOST of those people look at a tax cut as an opportunity to invest more in their company...as such a mindset is why they have acheived success to begin with.

It is not and never was tax cuts to the rich so they can have mopre money in the bank. It was tax cuts to the business owners so they can invest MORE in their companies in an effort to increase GDP...which of course increases employment.

And as has been proven....such has always worked.

Your biggest problem is you fell for the rhetoric of "tax cuts to the rich".......it was rhetoric successfully used to win an election.

post of the month award right here ^^^


Its also called common sense. Only a dummy thinks its a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is in recession!!

Gee...thanks.

Truth is, I am an example of it. Started with np money...took a chance...dealt with the anxiety....started in my apartment...made some money...opened an office...hired a person to help....made more money....hired more people...made more money...hired more people...made more money....gave employees healthcare....made more money....opened a second office.

Now my taxes are going up. No major concern as they will only go up 3%...BUT....I am a realist. Sales tax will go up locally....estate tax will come into play...cap and trade is on the table....state taxes are going to go up...payroll taxes will go up....FICA cap will go up....

SO whereas I had no plans to hire in a recession...I would be foolish to consider ANY hiring until I see what is left after all of these new proposed taxes.

Certainly not a smart move if they want me to hire.

Meanwhile..if they promised me no new taxes...I would be more likely to hire without concern of not being able to support my family and my company.

And I am just one small business owner.....

You still don't get it. Taxes are going up, as we've been borrowing money through several republican administrations. The question is, do we do the sensible thing, and keep the inheritance tax, and raise the top marginal rates of the richest 2 percent, enough to start paying back, and stop these insane wars, and overwhelming DOD budgets that are larger than the whole of the rest of the world? Or do we add to the sales tax, raise the FICA taxes that are only paid up to a hundred grand.

It isn't about whether we need to raise taxes or not. Christ, we're ten Trillion in the hole from idiot policies where we don't collect enough to pay our bills, and mostly, as you guys point out, it has been from tax cuts to the rich.

All the while, over the years, sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, and toll roads, are springing up everywhere. FICA taxes, on earnings below $100,000 a year, have steadily increased. Along with that, from 1963 until now, the top rate has dropped from 91% to 35%, a direct correlation, taxes dropped on the rich, and they've been heaping them on the poor.

If you make less than $100,000 a year, it is you who make the choice. So do you want a guy who can afford it, and still be able to go out and buy all the huge LCDs, iPods, pay the high electric bills, buy several houses, and cars, to pay the tax? Or do you want actual consumers to pay higher regressive taxes, which by the way, will hurt the economy much, much more than a few thousand super rich people having to pay more.

 

[chanel]

it should never have been ended

Agreed!

this year, 3.5 million is exempted. So if all of your assets, your houses, cars, accounts, and everything are less than 3.5 million, you don't pay it. Amounts of wealth above that, you pay 45 percent.

In 2010, you can die, and keep all your money. So, 2010 is the year for lucky dying, regaring this tax.

In 2011, it comes back, at taxing over a million, at the rate of 55 percent taxation on all amounts above this one million dollar asset limit.

Let's face it, most people don't have accumulated wealth above a million, much less above this years amount of 3.5 million. People shouldn't be concerned about this, unless they have such a huge accumulation of wealth. Even then, there are all sorts of trusts, generation skipping trusts, and devices that the wealthy have to shield some of the money from taxation, even actually giving people money before you die, at less than ten grand a year.

Estate Tax Exemption Amount

My accountant has indeed researched this issue and the only way I can leave my farm and assets to the kids is to put it in a trust so they don't get hit with a ton of taxes. That in itself is bullshit because having already paid many taxes on this farm, and other assets, I should not have to do this just to avoid my heirs paying estate taxes. You can't even die in this country without it costing you money. That's a very sad situation. Just for your information, a million dollar estate is not all that hard to accumulate. A million dollars is not a huge amount of money.

I agree. Many people with a small businesses or nice homes in NJ have assets over a million dollars. My husband and I split our assets a few years ago, but have bought and sold cars and our house since then. Might be time to see the lawyer again.

# A New Jersey estate tax return must be filed if the decedent's gross estate plus adjusted taxable gifts as determined in accordance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code in effect on December 31, 2001 exceeds $675,000. It must be filed within nine months of the decedent's death (nine months plus 30 days if the Form 706 method is used). Additionally, a copy of any Federal estate tax return filed or required to be filed with the Federal government must be submitted within 30 days of the date it is filed with the Internal Revenue Service and a copy of any communication received from the Federal government must be submitted within 30 days of its receipt from the Internal Revenue Service.


# The New Jersey estate tax is due on the decedent's date of death and must be paid within nine months in all cases. Any tax not paid within nine months generally bears interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the expiration of nine months until paid. The Director may extend the time for the filing of the return but not for the payment of the tax. Payments are first credited in satisfaction of accrued interest.

Estate Tax - Important Provisions and Filing Requirements - NJ Taxation