Democrats fail again

[Jeffg010]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Legacy-for-One-Billionaire-nytimes-544269393.html?x=0

"The one-year lapse in the estate tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001, an accounting quirk in his package of tax cuts. Although Democrats pledged to close that gap and reinstate a tax for 2010 when they took control of Congress, they failed to reach an agreement last December. The Senate Finance Committee is now trying to forge a compromise that would reinstate the tax, but even if that effort succeeds, it is unclear whether any changes might be retroactive and applied to those who have died so far in 2010."

Someone will say this was Bush's fault but Democrats could have easily passed the tax. Oh well anther failure from the big D congress.

 

[khon]

You're right, they did fail to prevent the problem. They didn't cause it though.

 

[KK]

seems criminal to retroact that, then again its the democrats, they don't need to follow the law...

 

[Genx87]

For a law that avgs 25-30 billion in collections per year. It sure does get a lot of attention.

A single year uptick in the economy will generate more revenues than this stupid tax does in a decade.

 

[khon]

For a law that avgs 25-30 billion in collections per year. It sure does get a lot of attention.

A single year uptick in the economy will generate more revenues than this stupid tax does in a decade.

30 billion is $100 for every american. You really trying to tell me that wouldn't make a difference ?

And of course like all the Bush taxcuts its financed vie debt, so it's actually about $200 over 30 years, which your kids get to pay.

 

[Jhhnn]

Magnificent spin. Repubs had intended to extend the one year lapse in the estate tax indefinitely, to make it permanent. There was no "quirk". They would have done that in 2001, except they had to compromise to get the reductions made up to this point, work to maintain their initiative until 2010.

But now it's Dems' fault, of course, that the one year window existed in the first place. That's completely and utterly dishonest, and completely unsurprising coming from Righties.

Lame obfuscation, revisionist history and denial rule the day in those quarters...

It's all Obama's fault, right?

 

[Jaskalas]

30 billion is $100 for every american. You really trying to tell me that wouldn't make a difference ?

And of course like all the Bush taxcuts its financed vie debt, so it's actually about $200 over 30 years, which your kids get to pay.

In the face of trillion dollar boondoggles, it's pennies.

 

[werepossum]

Is no one going to comment on the morality of the law itself? Why in G-d's name is it okay for government to take up to more than half of a person's estate upon his death? In medieval times one important distinction in a person's status (free or unfree) was whether his ancestors had paid the serf's death tax - his lord took his pick of the serf's best animal, or best tool, or best suit of clothing, in return for bequeathing the rest of the serf's belongings to the serf's heirs. In our greed we've become a nation of thieves, accepting our status as property as long as we "punish the rich." And epic fail, we don't even punish the truly wealthy, who shelter their wealth in trusts. Instead we punish the unsophisticated newly wealthy, tearing down in one generation what some enterprising soul has built. Frankly it sickens me.

 

[IGBT]

liberals have an adolescent mind set. you'll have to wait till adult supervision shows up to correct this.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You're right, they did fail to prevent the problem. They didn't cause it though.

That BS. They got health care threw , Why not this . Because it taps into their friends money thats why .

But I don't see it as the dems failed again . I see it as another failure by us to stop the wealthy from taking over country.

It would be nice if we would stop fighting among our selves and unite against the true enemy on both sides of the isle.

I sold all my propreity to my daughter and we just live here now . Ya a sold real cheap . But thats my choice isn't it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is no one going to comment on the morality of the law itself? Why in G-d's name is it okay for government to take up to more than half of a person's estate upon his death? In medieval times one important distinction in a person's status (free or unfree) was whether his ancestors had paid the serf's death tax - his lord took his pick of the serf's best animal, or best tool, or best suit of clothing, in return for bequeathing the rest of the serf's belongings to the serf's heirs. In our greed we've become a nation of thieves, accepting our status as property as long as we "punish the rich." And epic fail, we don't even punish the truly wealthy, who shelter their wealth in trusts. Instead we punish the unsophisticated newly wealthy, tearing down in one generation what some enterprising soul has built. Frankly it sickens me.

Heh. Except that today, we turn it around, tax the estates of the new nobility, the financial elite. It's not like the dead "suffer" from taxation, or that inheritors "earn" whatever they get, anyway... How does the inheritance of vast wealth square with the usual raving about "personal responsibility", anyway?

The same wealth preservation mechanisms used by old money are available to the new rich as well, so there's no point in shedding any tears for the inheritors. Unsophisticated? How lame.

A big part of the reasons for the push by america's wealthiest families to eliminate estate taxes is that trusts can only be made for persons living at the time the trust is created. Many of the trusts created in the 1930's will cease to exist when the last beneficiary of them passes on. Having avoided taxation for all these years, the prospect of having to pay estate taxes at this point is obviously unappealing, and huge sums have been spent to avoid that...

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/268001_estatetaxes26.html

I'll agree that the exempt amount for estates should be raised, but repubs will probably block any efforts wrt to that, taking the same all or nothing attitude they did wrt the patriot act... pure spite and political posturing...

 

[Nemesis 1]

The ones here who agree or disagree do so based on what they may recieve from their parents demise, Thats alarming .

 

[Patranus]

Why is this a fail?

It is a tax that should never exist in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

The ones here who agree or disagree do so based on what they may recieve from their parents demise, Thats alarming .

At 2011 rates, 99.75% of theoretically taxable estates will fall under the exemptions provided, and that doesn't account for estates with negative or no worth, which are becoming more common, it would seem... And it's not like inheritors don't get free money, either.

At least that's iirc. that number may be off a little bit.

Wealthy seniors with greedy relatives probably don't want to let 'em come around until after Jan 1, 2011, that's for sure...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dollar bills have Washington's face on them and we are admonished to give to Washington what is Washington's.

DC believes that it's all theirs and you ought to be grateful they let you keep any.

 

[BoberFett]

Frankly, this is a tax I don't feel too badly about. Let each person earn their own keep in this world. If I had a choice, I'd rather see low taxes during life and a 100% tax at death with no ability to hide money in trusts.

But what Democrats keep missing is that they have had congressional majority for over three years now. They need to stop blaming Republicans for everything.

 

[dmcowen674]

But what Democrats keep missing is that they have had congressional majority for over three years now.

They need to stop blaming Republicans for everything.

Obama was President 3 yrs ago?

Lying won't make it true.

 

[BoberFett]

Obama was President 3 yrs ago?

Lying won't make it true.

You don't know what a congressional majority is, do you?

Go away, Duuuuuuuhve. You're not wanted here.

 

[Carmen813]

Is no one going to comment on the morality of the law itself? Why in G-d's name is it okay for government to take up to more than half of a person's estate upon his death? In medieval times one important distinction in a person's status (free or unfree) was whether his ancestors had paid the serf's death tax - his lord took his pick of the serf's best animal, or best tool, or best suit of clothing, in return for bequeathing the rest of the serf's belongings to the serf's heirs. In our greed we've become a nation of thieves, accepting our status as property as long as we "punish the rich." And epic fail, we don't even punish the truly wealthy, who shelter their wealth in trusts. Instead we punish the unsophisticated newly wealthy, tearing down in one generation what some enterprising soul has built. Frankly it sickens me.

The estate tax, if I remember correctly, applied to estates worth > $1 million. I'm fine with upping that a bit, to say 5 million.

The argument for the estate tax is to prevent the creation of an America aristocracy. Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton should be the only justification you need to support it

I feel the law is perfectly moral, as it acts to prevent concentration of wealth (and thus power) into few families over a short period of time.

 

[Genx87]

30 billion is $100 for every american. You really trying to tell me that wouldn't make a difference ?

And of course like all the Bush taxcuts its financed vie debt, so it's actually about $200 over 30 years, which your kids get to pay.

This tax regardless of how they structure it takes in 25-30 billion a year for the last 3 decades. We can see an uptick in the economy and gather in 200-300 billion more in revenues in a single year. Instead of wasting time on this we should focus on policies that truely generate growth.

That said this tax funds less than 1% of our federal budget.

 

[Argo]

The estate tax, if I remember correctly, applied to estates worth > $1 million. I'm fine with upping that a bit, to say 5 million.

The argument for the estate tax is to prevent the creation of an America aristocracy. Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton should be the only justification you need to support it

I feel the law is perfectly moral, as it acts to prevent concentration of wealth (and thus power) into few families over a short period of time.

Taking somebody's money away is still stealing, regardless of what justification the thief comes up with.

P.S. And despite what you say people like Paris Hilton are good for society. They spend their parents money, stimulating the economy. They create numerous jobs (just TV shows alone). And they provide entertainment for some (even if it's of the "she's so dumb" kind)

 

[khon]

Is no one going to comment on the morality of the law itself?

The morality is the same as any other income tax. You get money, and you give some of it back to society for all the services it provides you with.

 

[khon]

This tax regardless of how they structure it takes in 25-30 billion a year for the last 3 decades. We can see an uptick in the economy and gather in 200-300 billion more in revenues in a single year. Instead of wasting time on this we should focus on policies that truely generate growth.

That said this tax funds less than 1% of our federal budget.

1% of the federal budget is still a hell of a lot of money, and its not as if it's an either or situation. With the current size of the deficit every little bit is needed.

 

[Elias824]

Frankly, this is a tax I don't feel too badly about. Let each person earn their own keep in this world. If I had a choice, I'd rather see low taxes during life and a 100% tax at death with no ability to hide money in trusts.

But what Democrats keep missing is that they have had congressional majority for over three years now. They need to stop blaming Republicans for everything.

As as an evil conservative I have to agree with this, im all for low taxes and allowing people to keep what they earn. After you die though, your dead I dont see why all your kids should be able to just ride off of your hard work for hundreds of years. I dont know about 100% I think you should leave enough to allow you kids to live comfortably. Even bill gates isnt leaving that much to his kids.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taking somebody's money away is still stealing, regardless of what justification the thief comes up with.

The deceased aren't people, and the notion of entitlement wrt inheritance dates from the ancien regime, the idea that royalty was somehow superior via accident of birth. It runs entirely against the grain of the whole "personal responsibility" schtick espoused by modern Righties. Not that they'd notice, even when they get their faces rubbed in it.

In the process of estate tax collections, assets are sold to people who actually earned the money to buy them, assets that would otherwise be locked up in the hands of inheritors who didn't.

Who worked for what they get? Who's more likely to use those assets constructively?

It's not as if heirs are impoverished in the process, and spouses pay no estate taxes, either...