The GOP's blatant condencending views of the American Public

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=311153

Under current law, the estate tax is reduced gradually through 2009, repealed in 2010, and then reinstated in full force in 2011. Few expect things to actually play out that way.

The president and many members of Congress would like to repeal the tax permanently, and many would like to do so before 2010. Repeal would be expensive, however: immediate repeal would reduce revenues by over $400 billion over the next decade. Even making repeal permanent as of 2010 would cost $270 billion in the next 10 years. Repeal would also be regressive, would reduce charitable giving by over $15 billion a year, and would invite significant tax sheltering. It would increase the concentration of wealth, and may increase the political power of a wealthy elite.

Critics of the estate tax counter that it burdens small farms and businesses with confiscatory tax rates, discourages work and thrift, and retaxes money taxed under the income tax. In fact, few small farms and businesses appear to be subject to the estate tax, although many families may undergo costly planning to avoid it. The empirical evidence on saving behavior is ambiguous: The tax may discourage work and saving for people subject to it, but it has the opposite effect on heirs who?expecting smaller bequests?choose to work harder and save more. And while the tax may "double tax" income in some cases, much of the wealth subject to estate tax was earned through untaxed capital gains and so has never been subject to the income tax.

In contrast to repealing the tax, retargeting the estate tax to very wealthy households and lowering its rates would blunt much of the criticism against it while retaining many of its advantages. This brief explains how the estate tax works and examines who is affected by it under current law. It discusses how reform would affect tax revenues, the distribution of tax burdens, farms and small businesses, and charitable giving and bequests. A concluding section discusses ways to reduce the tax's complexity.

Background

According to federal law, the executor of an estate must file a federal estate tax return within nine months of a person's death if the gross estate exceeds an exempt amount?currently $1.5 million. The exempt threshold has been phasing up and tax rates have been phasing down since 2001, when the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) enacted a gradual phaseout of the tax.1 After a scheduled elimination in 2010, the estate tax returns in 2011 with an exemption of $1 million and a top statutory rate of 55 percent.

The estate tax allows deductions for transfers to a surviving spouse, charitable gifts, debts, funeral expenses, and administrative fees. About 90 percent of married decedents who file estate tax returns avoid the tax entirely, largely because of the unlimited spousal deduction. Aunified credit exempts taxes on the first $1.5 million of taxable transfers in 2005 (including gifts made during life and transfers at death), a figure scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. In addition, the valuation of assets can often be discounted through careful tax planning, so the effective exemption far exceeds the statutory amount for many estates (Schmalbeck 2001).

Family-owned farms and closely held businesses receive especially generous treatment under the estate tax.2 Farmers and small business owners may reduce the value of their real estate using a special formula as long as their heirs maintain its use as a family-owned farm or business and do not sell it to a nonrelative for at least 10 years. Special use valuation can reduce the value of the real property portion of most farms by 40 to 70 percent of its market value. In addition, estates in which farm and business assets make up more than 35 percent of the gross estate may pay their estate tax in installments over 14 years at reduced interest rates. Only interest is due for the first five years. In 2003, the interest rate on the first $493,800 of estate tax was 2 percent; the interest rate on amounts above that was 45 percent of the interest rate that applies to underpayment of tax (which was 4 percent for the third quarter of 2004).

Who Pays the Estate Tax? About 66,000 estate tax returns were filed in 2003, of which less than half were taxable (Internal Revenue Service [IRS] 2004). Most of these returns reported deaths in 2002 when the estate tax exemption was $1 million. In that year, less than 3 percent of decedents had to file and less than 1.5 percent owed any estate tax. 4 By 2004, the estate tax exemption had increased to $1.5 million. The Tax Policy Center projects that about 37,000 estate tax returns will be filed for people who die in 2004, of which almost 19,000 will be taxable (table 1). The total estate tax will be an estimated $17.6 billion, or about $935,000 per taxable return. Based on historical averages, about $2.8 billion in gift tax will be paid on inter vivos transfers made in 2004.

Cliff Notes:
1. The individual limit is 1.5 million and 3 million for a couple - not exactly your average middle class.
2. Much of the wealth was earned through untaxed capital gains and so has never been subject to the income tax.
3. About 90% of the married people who filed the return avoided it altogether.
4. Only 66,000 filed estates tax returns in 2003 of which less than half were taxable. In a country of 280 million that is a very tiny fraction - hardly the vast middle class as some claim.
5. Loss of revenue is estimated to be above 270 billion -affecting the budget deficit negatively.
6. Repealing the tax is estimated to cut charity by around 15 billion a year. Thats money largely used for the poor or misfortunate.


Full article here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311153_IssuesOptions_10.pdf

Sailor, the bill's sponsor, Kenny Hulshof, is a whore for the Walton-Laurie-Kroenke clan here in central MO. He takes MAJOR contributions from them, so this is their payback.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,765
4,291
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Family farms and family businesses were not rare occurances.
No matter how you twist it, only ~2% of people ever paid it. That is rare. Of that 2%, most were wealthy. Yes, some people were taxed by it. I fully admit that. But that isn't the point of contention here. Today the bottom tier of family farms have a net worth of ~$575K. The top tier of family farms have a new worth of ~$1.5M. Both are still far under the current exemption level. Only 4% of small businesses have a net worth over $3.5M. Thus it is still a rare occurance when a small business is taxed in this way.

If you do fully own a small business worth more than $3.5M, would you consider yourself middle class?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,765
4,291
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
but my point was when it was much lower it would and probably did hit a much larger portion of the population.
That point is correct.

But, like I showed with median housing prices and median retirement plans, the limit was still well over the median total values of those. Thus, it didn't affect the median family. It may have just started to impact the upper-middle class / lower-upper class families depending on your definition of each. But even then, the tax was pretty miniscule (remember the first $350k was 100% exempt and only the marginal value above that was taxed). A miniscule tax when you get a huge windfall doesn't sound to me like "Effectively keeping them in the same bracket they were in before." But we'll probably never agree on that point.

Only those with estates well above the cutoff were subjected to a high tax rate. And in that case, I don't think your theory of "Effectively keeping them in the same bracket they were in before" applies. When Bill Gates dies, will the people that inherit his money really be confined into a bad bracket? Come on.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Farmers lose their farms over this Death Tax. It takes them a whole lifespan to come up with enough money to pay the Death Tax. All of these funds would be spent on other things and taxed, and help to people employed in many service industries if people who may be considered well off did not have to take their entire life savings to pay off the Death Tax. This also includes people who may own a small business like a restraunt or a grocery store or something like that.
 

RMich

Member
Jul 6, 2001
87
0
0
If death should not be taxable, neither should it be a tax break.

As things now stand, if you inherit assets that have unrealized capital gains (such as Microsoft stock purchased in 1981) when you sell it you pay taxes only on the capital gain since you inherited it. All these assets are now given a new basis value determined by their value on the day the former owner died. It would seem fairer to me to keep the original basis value, perhaps with a rule of thumb to estimate the basis value when the heirs lack the necessary records to establish one.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: RMich
If death should not be taxable, neither should it be a tax break.

As things now stand, if you inherit assets that have unrealized capital gains (such as Microsoft stock purchased in 1981) when you sell it you pay taxes only on the capital gain since you inherited it. All these assets are now given a new basis value determined by their value on the day the former owner died. It would seem fairer to me to keep the original basis value, perhaps with a rule of thumb to estimate the basis value when the heirs lack the necessary records to establish one.

Why are some people's deaths taxable and others not?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Can someone please come up with a single, VERIFIED example of a family farm that was lost to the estate tax? I have heard and seen this song and dance routine many times now but have yet to see it played out.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
They keep getting elected no matter how little they do in regards to what they preach to their base so I think that they have a pretty good idea already.

(LINKS)

So, as pointed out a few times already, aren't there more pressing issues than these? Why does regulating decency (thought policing) and giving the rich a tax break that, over ten years, would equate to more than the shortfall in SS take precedence?

Answer (at least in my mind) is two fold. The first is that they are just trying to make hay to give the appearance of accomplishing something, anything. The second is that they are fearful of November and they are attempting to get as much of their goals, no matter how much it costs the majority of Americans, passed while they still have a majority.

Why does the FCC fines need such a drastic overhauling and fines increased 10x when the violations are either minor, stupid or both? How can they justify this while they are unwilling to do anything on reforming ethics rules that have a much, much greater impact on society than Janet Jackson's tit?

Who really believes that repealing the estate tax will encourage entrepreneaurship(sp)? And do we really want the likes of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie in charge of the U.S. economy?

Discuss.

Of course there are more pressing issues. But does the importance of those issues mean that congress should do NOTHING else until those issues are solved?

Repealing the death tax has been on the agenda for six years. It's implementation has likely been delayed to this point by those other pressing matters. And how much effort does it take to raise FCC fines? I don't think that action has crippled congress' ability to work on bigger problems.

And it's not like nothing is being done on SS or other issues. For crying out loud, SS was all anybody was talking about last year. It was debated to death and in the end the Rs and Ds were so far apart on the issue that nothing could get done. (Or you could take the conspiracy theorist stance and say that both sides need the issue so they are letting it fester on the side)

As for ethics reform, there is legislation in the pipeline as we speak. Link The House and Senate have both passed bills and they are awaiting conference review. Admittedly, the reforms are fairly weak (the real reformers in congress were beat down on the bigger issues like travel) but the issue itself isn't being ignored at the expense of FCC fines or tax cuts. If anything, the majority in congress are torqued about having to give up some of their better *cough* perks. And that is a bi-partisan issue if ever there was one.


Just because they passed two pieces of legislation that you disapprove of doesn't mean they aren't working on the legislation you want to see.


 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Curious: If everybody paid their fair share of the death tax, not just the rich, how much would it lower our defecit?
 

RMich

Member
Jul 6, 2001
87
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Sponsor Kenny Hulshof at right: Death "should not be a taxable event." (File Photo)

"The death of a family member should not be a taxable event, period," said Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.), the bill's sponsor.

Zendari, I was responding to this in the OP. And if a "fair share of the death tax" were obvious to all, there'd be nothing for us to debate.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Curious: If everybody paid their fair share of the death tax, not just the rich, how much would it lower our defecit?


So you support raising taxes on everyone just to satisfy your worship of the rich?
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
So you support raising taxes on everyone just to satisfy your worship of the rich?

I support fair taxation of all Americans.

It seems like you nicely exempting everyone but the rich from these taxes is worshipping the poor.

If Bill gates Jr can pay $1 billion on $10 billion, Joe Schmo can pay $10 on $100.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Engineer
So you support raising taxes on everyone just to satisfy your worship of the rich?

I support fair taxation of all Americans.

It seems like you nicely exempting everyone but the rich from these taxes is worshipping the poor.

If Bill gates Jr can pay $1 billion on $10 billion, Joe Schmo can pay $10 on $100.

I would rather worship the poor/middle class than the rich. I have no sympathy for RICH lawmakers spending our country into the ground and then funding it with money from the RICH.

How would you fund the extra deficit from this? Offer something real instead of a red herring this time. Don't tell me that you don't care about the deficit as you mention the future liabilities from SS/Medicare all the time so BS before you call it.

/waits again.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits

Here's a wild thought... And I know it's a crazy idea but bear with me. We could shrink the budget. Spend less money. Demand fiscal responsibility from our representatives.

I know I know... Monkies will fly out my butt before that happens... But a country can dream right?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down?

/waits

First off, it is $290B the FIRST year. It will equate to over a $1T over the next decade.

* The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that extending repeal beyond 2010 would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone.

* But the Joint Tax Committee?s estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal. The revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal ? for the period from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2021 ? are much higher, about $745 billion.

* When the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.

Secondly, for Whoz (and all of the other supporters of the repeal), please explain how the GOP has been able to trick you with symantecs into believing that this is a "Death Tax"? The dead person isn't getting taxed and neither is his estate. Those that are inheriting a total over $2M in cash, merchandise or property are being taxed however and they are very much alive.

You seem like a pretty smart person. How did they dupe you so easily?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits

Trim the bloated budget by that amount. Shocking, yes I know.

Read my links, it is interesting in the house link they talk about the costs associated with collecting the death tax are about the same as the actual collection.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits

Trim the bloated budget by that amount. Shocking, yes I know.

Read my links, it is interesting in the house link they talk about the costs associated with collecting the death tax are about the same as the actual collection.

That's only because the uber-rich are dragging it through som many laundrymats that it is taking 20x the actual manhours to track it down and enforce the laws of the land. Maybe if they would just be honest, I know...another novel concept when asking the wealthy to part with money, the associated recovery costs would be lower.

And I call shens on whomever said that it costs $290B to collect the estate tax. I'm not from MO.....but they need to show me nonetheless.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down?

/waits

First off, it is $290B the FIRST year. It will equate to over a $1T over the next decade.

* The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that extending repeal beyond 2010 would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone.

* But the Joint Tax Committee?s estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal. The revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal ? for the period from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2021 ? are much higher, about $745 billion.

* When the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.

Secondly, for Whoz (and all of the other supporters of the repeal), please explain how the GOP has been able to trick you with symantecs into believing that this is a "Death Tax"? The dead person isn't getting taxed and neither is his estate. Those that are inheriting a total over $2M in cash, merchandise or property are being taxed however and they are very much alive.

You seem like a pretty smart person. How did they dupe you so easily?

The dead person's money is confiscated by the government. Call it whatever you want. That fact doesn't change. It is a death tax.

And if you read my posts in this thread (both of them) I never gave my support to the repeal of the Estate Tax (although I do support it). I gave a smart ass - but truthful - answer as to how we can make up for the lost revenue and I addressed the concerns you expressed in your OP about the type of legislation that is being worked on in congress.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down?

/waits

First off, it is $290B the FIRST year. It will equate to over a $1T over the next decade.

* The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that extending repeal beyond 2010 would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone.

* But the Joint Tax Committee?s estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal. The revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal ? for the period from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2021 ? are much higher, about $745 billion.

* When the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.

Secondly, for Whoz (and all of the other supporters of the repeal), please explain how the GOP has been able to trick you with symantecs into believing that this is a "Death Tax"? The dead person isn't getting taxed and neither is his estate. Those that are inheriting a total over $2M in cash, merchandise or property are being taxed however and they are very much alive.

You seem like a pretty smart person. How did they dupe you so easily?

You need to reread that, it is 290 over the next decade, not in 1 year. They are expecting an avg of 29 billion a year in lost taxes if it is repealed. When you think about the amount of tax revenues collected by the federal govt, 29 billion dollars a year is about 1%.

If they cut the pork they could easily cough up multiples of that.

Uh you thinking this isnt a death tax have been duped. When are the assets taxed? Upon death, thus a death tax.

If we are going to piss and moan about it, lets at least reduce it into its appropriate columns. Assets such as stocks, bonds and property held for more than 1 year should be taxed at the long term capital gains rate. Anything under at the short term rate. Any outright cash in hand should be taxed at the federal income rate.

Taxing something at 50% outright is ridiculously high.

I suggest reading my two links, they are very interesting articles. After reading them I question why we even bother. It is such a small amount of taxes collected and it puts a burden on people unnecessarily, not to mention appears to really hurt small business and farms.



 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits

Trim the bloated budget by that amount. Shocking, yes I know.

Read my links, it is interesting in the house link they talk about the costs associated with collecting the death tax are about the same as the actual collection.

That's only because the uber-rich are dragging it through som many laundrymats that it is taking 20x the actual manhours to track it down and enforce the laws of the land. Maybe if they would just be honest, I know...another novel concept when asking the wealthy to part with money, the associated recovery costs would be lower.

And I call shens on whomever said that it costs $290B to collect the estate tax. I'm not from MO.....but they need to show me nonetheless.

Read my link to the house website, Clintons own advisors admit so much. They estimated the collected revenue to be about 23 billion and felt the costs were roughly the same.


 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
The dead person has no belondings anymore. That is the point. It might sound like symantecs, but it isn't. The people who are now in possesion of those belongings, either willfully or granted by an executor, are the people that are being taxed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The dead person has no belondings anymore. That is the point. It might sound like symantecs, but it isn't. The people who are now in possesion of those belongings, either willfully or granted by an executor, are the people that are being taxed.

It is symantecs, and the assets are taxed on death.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Engineer
Curious: How would you supporters of removing this tax fund the extra $290 BILLION dollars that it is going to add to the deficit/permanent debt over the next 10 years? Continue to borrow more and more while driving rates up and the economy down? Lobby your Congressman for lower spending (yea, right! :roll: ). I'm curious or do you even care? Probably not as long as it's cut regardless if it helps you or HURTS you in the long run.

/waits

Here's a wild thought... And I know it's a crazy idea but bear with me. We could shrink the budget. Spend less money. Demand fiscal responsibility from our representatives.

I know I know... Monkies will fly out my butt before that happens... But a country can dream right?

I understand we can try. I write my reps/Senators often on cutting the pork. Falls upon bought off......er.....deaf ears.


Everyone here with a brain knows that the government will simply shift this onto the debt pile. I don't even know why I, or anyone else, cares about the debt anymore. Once it grows big enough to collapse the economy (through higher interest rates and other fiscal problems), I guess it will take care of itself then. But of course, once the economy sinks, the government will simply spend more to pull it out causing the problem to become even worse.

*shrugs*

I'm too tired to debate. Elimiate all the taxes and borrow all of the funds to pay for government. I just about don't give a flying fvck anymore (serously).

/leaves thread. If I had any sense, I would leave P&N too as it's almost as worthless as the government itself and life would be much better simply rolling along not giving a crap of what's going on and letting the "other man" worry about the problems.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The dead person has no belondings anymore. That is the point. It might sound like symantecs, but it isn't. The people who are now in possesion of those belongings, either willfully or granted by an executor, are the people that are being taxed.

You can look at it any way you want. The fact remains that the property in the estate wasn't eligible for taxation until the person died.