4 Senate "Democrats" prove they absolutely hate the poor

[TeePee4Prez]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Excellent post and I forgot to add the indexing for inflation.  I'm glad some Republicans don't agree with full repeal.  Even I recognize the fact that a $1 million estate, especially in this part of the country with a home plus remaining 401(k)s, CDs, stocks, bonds, etc. could add up to just that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

You are correct that areas like the bay area can get screwed over by failing to take into account cost of living, but that's a can of worms the Republican party will never open.

[dazzleman]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

What you're forgetting is that the people currently dying didn't buy at today's prices.  Many neighborhoods with sky-high prices were once modest middle class neighborhoods with affordable prices, and many of the people currently living in those neighborhoods are holdovers from that period.  They are wealthy only on paper, and they didn't necessarily have a high income or live a particularly lavish life.  These are not the sort of people who should get hit with an inheritance tax when they pass on.

People who live in high income areas, and are not necessarily wealthy, do get hit with higher taxes relative to their standard of living than people who have relatively better lifestyles in lower cost areas.  But honestly, those higher income areas vote for higher taxes, so it's hard to feel much sympathy overall.  I happen to live in one of those areas myself.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

What you're forgetting is that the people currently dying didn't buy at today's prices.  Many neighborhoods with sky-high prices were once modest middle class neighborhoods with affordable prices, and many of the people currently living in those neighborhoods are holdovers from that period.  They are wealthy only on paper, and they didn't necessarily have a high income or live a particularly lavish life.  These are not the sort of people who should get hit with an inheritance tax when they pass on.

Some people win the lottery too.

[dazzleman]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

What you're forgetting is that the people currently dying didn't buy at today's prices.  Many neighborhoods with sky-high prices were once modest middle class neighborhoods with affordable prices, and many of the people currently living in those neighborhoods are holdovers from that period.  They are wealthy only on paper, and they didn't necessarily have a high income or live a particularly lavish life.  These are not the sort of people who should get hit with an inheritance tax when they pass on.

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

[dazzleman]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

I don't think you understand my point.  Maybe you will when you get past living on a government stipend, if ever.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

I don't think you understand my point.  Maybe you will when you get past living on a government stipend, if ever.

WTF are you talking about? I understand damn well what housing values are around here, and they're a lot higher than in CT, and I still see no need for people to get over $4 million tax free at a time.

[Richard]

And I simply see no reason that society (including YOU) should take MY STUFF that belongs to MY FAMILY after I die.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And I simply see no reason that society (including YOU) should take MY STUFF that belongs to MY FAMILY after I die.

Well it's no surprise that the apartheid supporter supports having a permanent landed aristocracy.

[Democratic Hawk]

And I simply see no reason that society (including YOU) should take MY STUFF that belongs to MY FAMILY after I die.

Me, me, me

Dave

[??????????]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

[Democratic Hawk]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

I support a modest rate of taxation on inheritance

Dave

[dazzleman]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

Paris Hilton would almost be enough to make me support a 100% inheritance tax....

[ATFFL]

I support calling it income and taxing it at the appropriate rate.

[??????????]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

Good. If her parents want to leave her that money that is their absolute right to do so. Who are you to tell them what they can leave her? And what does it matter whether she works or doesn't work? That doesn't justify legalized theft. Should a person with a junker car be able to steal the neighbors cadillac just because the poor guy thinks the neighbor didn't "earn" the caddy? Hell No! Theft is theft.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

Good. If her parents want to leave her that money that is their absolute right to do so. Who are you to tell them what they can leave her? And what does it matter whether she works or doesn't work? That doesn't justify legalized theft. Should a person with a junker car be able to steal the neighbors cadillac just because the poor guy thinks the neighbor didn't "earn" the caddy? Hell No! Theft is theft.

Well, we'll see if Paris Hilton's fans in Congress pass the Paris Hilton tax cut.

[??????????]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

Good. If her parents want to leave her that money that is their absolute right to do so. Who are you to tell them what they can leave her? And what does it matter whether she works or doesn't work? That doesn't justify legalized theft. Should a person with a junker car be able to steal the neighbors cadillac just because the poor guy thinks the neighbor didn't "earn" the caddy? Hell No! Theft is theft.

Well, we'll see if Paris Hilton's fans in Congress pass the Paris Hilton tax cut.

Do you have some strange obsession with Paris? Are you stalking her or something? Why is it any business of yours how much money she stands to recieve in an inheritance?

[Nym90]

I support calling it income and taxing it at the appropriate rate.

^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, that's the best overall way to look at it. I'd support eliminating the estate tax if it was simply rolled into the regular tax structure.

[J. J.]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

The local middle aged couple that owns the dry cleaning store on Broad might very well be one of those with $4 million in assets.  Maybe they have a nice house in the suburbs that they've saved up for 20 years to pay, but they's been showing up to work six days a week for the last 20 years to get it, or more likely sent their kids to college.

These are not exactly hereditary peers.

Do you have any idea how much net worth is tied up even in a small business?  If you are talking about something like a single owner small (10-15 employee) construction company, you are easily talking about more than $4 Million in equipment and supplies.  One statistic I saw was that the average is $13 million in assets for a small company.

Take something like a mini-mart.  The physical plant, and inventory, is more than $4 million.  Same with a mechanic that owns a repair shop.  That is all counted.

Same with farmers; they might be sitting on top of $10 million dollars worth of land, but they have huge costs in maintaining it.

These people are not the idle rich.  These are hard working, oven not particularly well educated, not high living, people.

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

The local middle aged couple that owns the dry cleaning store on Broad might very well be one of those with $4 million in assets.  Maybe they have a nice house in the suburbs that they've saved up for 20 years to pay, but they's been showing up to work six days a week for the last 20 years to get it, or more likely sent their kids to college.

These are not exactly hereditary peers.

Do you have any idea how much net worth is tied up even in a small business?  If you are talking about something like a single owner small (10-15 employee) construction company, you are easily talking about more than $4 Million in equipment and supplies.  One statistic I saw was that the average is $13 million in assets for a small company.

Take something like a mini-mart.  The physical plant, and inventory, is more than $4 million.  Same with a mechanic that owns a repair shop.  That is all counted.

Same with farmers; they might be sitting on top of $10 million dollars worth of land, but they have huge costs in maintaining it.

These people are not the idle rich.  These are hard working, oven not particularly well educated, not high living, people.

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

Nice try, but

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, provide a real example, or stop spreading your propaganda.

[J. J.]

I support calling it income and taxing it at the appropriate rate.

^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, that's the best overall way to look at it. I'd support eliminating the estate tax if it was simply rolled into the regular tax structure.

I have no problem treating it as income if the heir sells it.  He takes it over he's technically going to "inherit" several million dollars.  He runs the business, he doesn't see a penny of it; it is all tied up in the equipment and assets of the business.

The current inheritance tax says, in effect, sell the business to pay taxes.

[dazzleman]

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time.  They stopped being the working man's friend around the time they started advocating high taxes on the middle class, racial preferences, forced busing, and soft treatment of criminals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support calling it income and taxing it at the appropriate rate.

^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, that's the best overall way to look at it. I'd support eliminating the estate tax if it was simply rolled into the regular tax structure.

I have no problem treating it as income if the heir sells it.  He takes it over he's technically going to "inherit" several million dollars.  He runs the business, he doesn't see a penny of it; it is all tied up in the equipment and assets of the business.

The current inheritance tax says, in effect, sell the business to pay taxes.

The numbers don't back up your propaganda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm