<p>I don’t think there should be a 100% estate tax. I’d exclude transfers between spouses, like now, and a $250,000 exclusion per child (or grandchild), with taxation at 50% for the rest. (That’s not much different than the rates we had not long ago.) As to other taxes, I think we should tax ourselves in an amount sufficient to pay our bills - not borrow money our children will have to pay interest on and, assuming they’re more responsible than our generation, pay off. The Reagan, Bush and Bush years are the only periods in American history since WWII where the national debt increased in relation to the GDP - and why? I find the sanctimonious bleating about the burden of taxes - with no acknowledgment of the additional services government provides for all of us that were unheard of in the past - paramedics on call 24/7, anyone? - to be nauseating. We demand more from government, but expect to pay less - and there’s always plenty of oleaginous politicians just drooling over the opportunity to pander for votes by telling us that we’re overpaying, while “other people” are responsible for all of government’s expenses. Poppycock.</p>
<p>Ladies and Gentleman, let me be the first to introduce the phrase that historians of the future will use to describe this time in history:</p>
<p>THE GREAT RECESSION</p>
<p>No bread lines, no riots, no large migrations of people like in the Depression era. But for the vast majority of Americans; their quality of life is heading inexorably downwards. And markedly so. All this will occur faster than most think possible. (A global economy can do that.)</p>
<p>Damn.</p>
<p>mikemac:</p>
<p>
Is it the way I read it or the way you write it? </p>
<p>And you’re right, I don’t believe in bankruptcy when the result is not paying one’s debts. We’ve hashed this one before.</p>
<p>And yet your results may vary. </p>
<p>[RealEstateJournal</a> | Gauging Value in Real Estate As Home Prices Slide](<a href=“http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/tactics/20080314-opdyke.html]RealEstateJournal”>http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/tactics/20080314-opdyke.html)</p>
<p>“Most people want a tax rate on huge estates similar to that of ordinary income,”</p>
<p>There is. The first 2 million is exempt from the estate tax…above is taxed at
45% </p>
<p>I would think 45% should be enough to appease even the most ardent supporter of wealth redistribution.</p>
<p>
erewhon, you really need to read the papers more. In 2010 the estate tax is repealed. For that year, 0% on any amount. </p>
<p>Having passed the law in 2001 erasing it for one year, the Republicans have since been fighting to “make the tax cuts permanent”. And they probably would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for the hurricane which leveled a good part of New Orleans. In 2005 they had passed a permanent repeal in the House, and the Senate looked ready to pass it also in the fall. You can bet Bush wasn’t going to veto this one! (That’s for stem cell research, prohibitions on torture, and the like). But the hurricane came along, and the Republican leadership decided it wouldn’t play well in the press to be handing out huge breaks to the wealthiest in this country just at that time. Not with the rebuilding Bush was promising to do, the “heckuva job Brownie” fiasco, and the like. Events haven’t been favorable to passing it since, but its still a centerpiece of their platform.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’re just not well informed on what’s happening on the national level, perhaps you prefer not mention how close the wealthy have come to getting rid of it entirely. Or can we put you on record as supporting an estate tax? Given as how you choose to label it “redistribution” instead of recognizing its a tax on wealth that for the most part has never paid a penny in taxes, my guess is no…</p>
<p>I have yet to hear anyone tell me who should pay more taxes to make up for the lost revenue caused by ensuring that Leona Helmsley’s dog could inherit $20 million instead of just $12 Million. To me the impressive feat is that the right wing spinmeisters have convinced a lot of middle class people that repealing the estate tax would somehow benefit them.</p>
<p>U-U-Dad -
Do you support requiring corporate shareholders being held personally liable for a failed corporation’s debts, too? Or is financial responsibility only for “the little people”?</p>
<p>Maybe people just feel it’s THEIR GD money and not the governments to take for no good reason except they can. Maybe even average folks think the government will just blow it and at least Leona’s estate had to pay somebody to feed her dog.</p>
<p>So who’s going to pay for the Iraq war, Barrons? My kids? Who? Who? You tell me.</p>
<p>No one convinced me of anything regarding inheritance tax including anyone representing the “right wing” contrary to what some of you may conclude. I think that if I earned money and already paid income taxes on it I should be able to leave it to my kids without them having to pay additional taxes on it. Some people have essentially the same opinion as me only with certain arbitrarily derived exclusions such $250K or $2M. </p>
<p>Corporations should be financially responsible to the extent they go out of business and their assets go to zero if they’re not. The shareholders typically lose when their shares go to zero. If the loss of those shares mean the investor can no longer afford their boat then let them lose the boat rather than file bankruptcy.</p>
<p>erewhon, you really need to read the papers more. In 2010 the estate tax is repealed. For that year, 0% on any amount."</p>
<p>Silly boy. I’m well aware of the one year moratorium on estate taxes. I didn’t mention it because I’m not aware of any ultra wealthy, or even only somewhat wealthy, individuals intentionally scheming to die during the 2010 fiscal year to avoid taxes. </p>
<p>If you have some inside knowledge of any wealthy folk planning their demise in 2010 with the intent of screwing the government out of estate taxes, by all means share with us. I’ll be the first to petition congress to pass a law forbidding such a hideously selfish act. God forbid we deprive our legislators of funds for earmarks </p>
<p>Mikey, I have to assume you’re not part of the despicable wealthy class. If you were, you would be cognizant of the fact, even if the estate tax isn’t repealed, no intelligent, wealthy individual will pay taxes, regardless of tax law. Think trusts or Cayman Islands. Take your pick. ;)</p>
<p>I agree with Barron’s, if you have paid taxes all your life why do you have to pay after death as well. Nobody is stopping all those who want to pay more taxes from doing so. Knock yourselves out, I’ve paid enough in taxes contribute willingly to charities and do not need any more reaching into my pocket.</p>
<p>Anybody that has to pay estate taxes is 1) too ignorant to prepare for wealth transfer, 2) too cheap to hire tax and legal experts, 3) Can afford to pay the taxes, 4) foolish to depend on the government to make a decision that is not altogether the government to make. 5) too greedy to depend on someone else’s wealth to make their own wealth. </p>
<p>If you don’t know already, there is also State Inheritance Tax.</p>
<h1>77. Barrons:</h1>
<p>Oregon tax rate is progressive at three brackets, 5,7, and 9%. The poor can reach to the top bracket at $14,600 AGI, joint. The poor also pays 5% on the First dollar earned to $5800 joint. The middle bracket is 7% between $5801-14,599. joint AGI. The wealthy pays essentially a flat 9%. Singles pay same rates but exactly half of the AGI. </p>
<p>In Oregon, practically everyone is in the wealthy category. </p>
<p><a href=“Oregon Department of Revenue : Page not found : State of Oregon”>Oregon Department of Revenue : Page not found : State of Oregon;
<h1>91. Erewhon. The nouveux riche, tres nouveux.</h1>
<p>“if you were, you would be cognizant of the fact, even if the estate tax isn’t repealed, no intelligent, wealthy individual will pay taxes, regardless of tax law.”</p>
<p>Blu Cheese for the nouveux. I’d have Rouquefort</p>
<p>*I agree with Barron’s, if you have paid taxes all your life why do you have to pay after death as well. *</p>
<p>How do they bill you after you are dead? Do you leave a forwarding address?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks mercymom. I’ll be sure to let them know.</p>
<p>
Great example of what is either willful ignorance or someone swayed by the right-wing propaganda. At least he didn’t say its all about “saving family farms”, another oft-repeated reason proffered for the repeal. The point is that the majority of the wealth subject to the estate tax has never been taxed. See post 70.</p>
<p>So let me put it to you plainly, TerpDad. If someone has wealth accumulated thru capital gains, wealth that has never paid a penny in taxes because tax liability occurs when something is sold, do you think that wealth should pass-tax free to the heirs and they should also never pay taxes on the gain?</p>
<p>Back to the main thrust of the thread, the LA Times is opining today that BearStearns is just the 1st in what will be many upheavals.
Like I said last summer, the fat cats on Wall Street have taken their billions off the table to fill their pockets thru fees, commissions, etc. No, they won’t have to pay a penny of that back. But the average Joe on the street and his children are going to pony up to bail out the financial institutions from this mess. And, if the Republicans ever get their way, the bill will go only to the average Joe as they fight to exclude untaxed wealth from the estate tax.</p>
<p>Mikemac and Emeraldkity, of course you’ve punctured the twin fallacies of the anti-estate tax argument, but to me the big question - which I’ve already asked and which none of the “free lunchers” have responded to, is - if wealthy heirs get to receive a fortune tax-free without ever working a day to earn it, whose taxes are going to be raised to make up the revenue shortfall? Do we raise TerpDad’s taxes? Barrons? Hike the regressive SS taxes some more and keep transferring the surplus to the general fund? Or keep on like we have for the past 30 years and just steal the money from our kids’ generation? </p>
<p>There is no free lunch. If you set your tax rates below the level needed to pay the government’s bills, you’re stealing from your children. If we exempt one group from taxes, we’re going to have to increase the burden on someone else. Personally, I don’t see any rational reason to exempt the heirs of the wealthy from their share of the collective burden.</p>