Clinton, Buffett Denounce Income Gap

[stephanie]

By SCOTT LINDLAW
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Email It
Print It
Take Action

Read Article & Comments (0) Trackbacks(0) Post Your Comments
Hillary Rodham Clinton argued Tuesday for keeping the inheritance tax in place, saying it is a key to ensuring the United States remains a meritocracy.

At a joint appearance with billionaire investor Warren Buffett, Clinton said the inheritance tax, due to be temporarily repealed in 2010, was a symbol of "what kind of society we are."

"The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy, that we do not want a system _ where we expect people to make it on their own _ to be, over time, dominated by inherited wealth," she said. "That we do believe that people should have to get out there and make their way, to a great extent."

Buffett, one of America's wealthiest men, told the Senate Finance Committee last month that the tax should remain in place.

Estates worth up to $2 million this year and next will be exempt from the federal estate tax. Portions of estates above that threshold will be taxed at 45 percent. In 2009, the exemption level rises to $3.5 million, and by 2010 the estate tax will be repealed _ but only for a year.

Unless Congress changes the law, the tax returns in 2011 with an exemption threshold of only $1 million and a top tax rate of 55 percent.

Democrats argue that a repeal would amount to a huge windfall for the wealthiest families.

Buffett said Republicans, who have led the effort to repeal the tax, "are going to keep the farmers out in front of the argument" as a public-relations ploy. Proponents of repeal often argue that it will mean families will lose control of farms and small companies.

But, Buffett said, only six-tenths of 1 percent of taxable estates in 2007 were farms.

"It's not as though people will be destitute," Clinton said.

In a subsequent appearance on the Fox Business Network, Clinton repeated her support for keeping the tax.

Asked whether she would let cuts in capital gains taxes expire, Clinton said: "I am more focused on preventing the repeal of the estate tax and returning to what I think are fairer, more effective tax rates for the wealthiest."

"While people like my husband and I have enjoyed a great series of gifts from the Bush administration, that is not what has happened to the vast majority of Americans," she said.

Her remarks drew a rebuke from California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring.

"Hillary Clinton's death tax is just another tax on assets that have already been taxed," Nehring said. "Under Clinton's plan, family-owned businesses and individuals stand to lose half of everything when the business and/or property pass from one generation to another."


read the rest..
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2007/12/11/clinton,_buffett_denounce_income_gap?page=full&comments=true

[manu1959]

death tax....= sell your small business.....guess who buys those at a discount just short of the death tax %.....

buffets investments tend to take advantage of dem policies.....

[JohnDoe]

it is my understanding that in many cases these huge estates have NOT already been taxed, unlike what that repub said in red above. That the monies from the estates over the 3.5 million is usually in tax shelters or miniciples or invested in the stock market or other investments where the gains are not taxed until they sell their shares in the company or investment.

[manu1959]

it is my understanding that in many cases these huge estates have NOT already been taxed, unlike what that repub said in red above. That the monies from the estates over the 3.5 million is usually in tax shelters or invested in the stock market or other investments where the gains are not taxed until they sell their shares in the company.

unless the money was printed it had to be income at some point.....my wife lost half her grandfathers estate as did i.....

[JohnDoe]

unless the money was printed it had to be income at some point.....my wife lost half her grandfathers estate as did i.....
It was OVER 2 MILLION which is exempt from the estate tax?

hmmmmm, come here honey, let's chat for a while :D.....you rich bast^^d.....


hahahahahaha! j/k

[manu1959]

It was OVER 2 MILLION which is exempt from the estate tax?

hmmmmm, come here honey, let's chat for a while :D.....you rich bast^^d.....

hahahahahaha! j/k

i think it is the other way around under 2 is exempt over 2 is not.....which is why we had them gifting everyone 10k per year....

[JohnDoe]

i think it is the other way around under 2 is exempt over 2 is not.....which is why we had them gifting everyone 10k per year....
That's what I meant....!!!!!!!

And yes the intital money invested was most certainly taxed at some point just like the rest of us, it is the GAINS from that money that were not taxed, in my example above....unlike the rest of us peons where every dime that we make is taxed, why should they have it any differently?

Why should Buffet pay 18% in TOTAL taxes on his earnings and his secretary have to pay close to 30% on all of her earnings? This is what Buffet has said...

And changing it to the 3.5 million each, 7 million for grandma and granpa in total, as the amounts exempt from the tax is a pretty good sum and will prevent even less than the 3/4's of 1 % of farmers that might be over that amount....in other words, no farms will be affected and no farms will be lost.

And yes, the 10k's as gifts is one way to do it, which I believe they are are increasing that amount too... I was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of one of those 10k's a couple of years back and am hoping to get another one soon.... :) (hear that mom and dad? :) )

jd

[Yurt]

That's what I meant....!!!!!!!

And yes the intital money invested was most certainly taxed at some point just like the rest of us, it is the GAINS from that money that were not taxed, in my example above....unlike the rest of us peons where every dime that we make is taxed, why should they have it any differently?

Why should Buffet pay 18% in TOTAL taxes on his earnings and his secretary have to pay close to 30% on all of her earnings? This is what Buffet has said...

And changing it to the 3.5 million each, 7 million for grandma and granpa in total, as the amounts exempt from the tax is a pretty good sum and will prevent even less than the 3/4's of 1 % of farmers that might be over that amount....in other words, no farms will be affected and no farms will be lost.

And yes, the 10k's as gifts is one way to do it, which I believe they are are increasing that amount too... I was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of one of those 10k's a couple of years back and am hoping to get another one soon.... :) (hear that mom and dad? :) )

jd

Then what say you regarding GST? The very existence of GST makes the death tax morbid...

[PostmodernProphet]

Why should Buffet pay 18% in TOTAL taxes on his earnings and his secretary have to pay close to 30% on all of her earnings? This is what Buffet has said...

this gets quoted a lot....however, it can't be true.....both would pay taxes at the same rate on the first $20k they earn.....0%....both would pay the same rate on what they earn up to $60k.....and he would pay a higher rate for any income he earned over $60k....the tax rate simply doesn't go DOWN after $60k....

[red states rule]

Then what say you regarding GST? The very existence of GST makes the death tax morbid...

Why are liberals obsesed with retaxing the money people earn?

Why do libs want to give the family of a dead person a tax bill?

[JohnDoe]

this gets quoted a lot....however, it can't be true.....both would pay taxes at the same rate on the first $20k they earn.....0%....both would pay the same rate on what they earn up to $60k.....and he would pay a higher rate for any income he earned over $60k....the tax rate simply doesn't go DOWN after $60k....It IS true, he has IRS filings to show such, and even Heinz-Kerry only paid 19% in total taxes....the wealthiest pay the LEAST in taxes as far as a % of their income.

The reason why is because the most or their earnings are not taxed the SS tax, (only up to about 95k is taxed and ONLY if they get paid a salary of some sort, which many of them DO NOT), and because of Capital gains and dividend taxes that got reduced under the Bush tax cuts to around 15%, which is where the wealthiest make most of their money each year....from investments and not from working, their tax rates are extremely low.

In addition to this they have tax shelters, where they can defer paying taxes that can be set up along with other investments like Municiple Bonds which are tax free.

And, if they own a great deal of stock in their own business ventures, and do not sell their investments, the value and gains that they make by doing such are not taxed AT ALL, untill they sell off their stock....so they can own 100,000 shares in Heinz ketchup as an example and they bought the stock at 10 bucks a share 20 years ago, and now it is worth $100 bucks a share when they pass on and leave those stocks to their kin, their earnings from this stock went up $90 bucks a share, that is $9 MILLION in gains that was never taxed....but passed on to their kin tax free without an estate tax.

While you and I would pay tax on every dime that we earned as a "working" person.

Hope that explains it well enough, if not there are articles out there that can explain it much better than me.

jd

[darin]

Uh? What? I've never known ANYONE in my income group paying THIRTY PERCENT Tax. Stop making shit up. :)

[JohnDoe]

Are you calling warren buffet a liar? :) He was speaking about total taxes that the working class, (his secretary) pays on their income, which includes the social security and medicare tax which is a regressive tax on to the working class up to 95k or so, of their income, whereas the wealthiest avoids this tax altogether or only pays the SS tax for the first 95k they earn if they get paid a salary. Warren Buffet and Gates and Heinz and Hilton etc don't pay themselves a salary so they don't have to pay any SS tax at all, their income/earnings comes from their investments.

jd

[darin]

Buffet. He's full of crap.

FWIW, NOBODY should have to pay SS. :) Let each man/woman be responsible for their own wellfare.

[JohnDoe]

Why are liberals obsesed with retaxing the money people earn?

Why do libs want to give the family of a dead person a tax bill?
Good morning rsr! :)
UP TO $3.5 MILLION that they inherit is tax free, no bill at all in a couple of years....$2.0 million right now is tax free per person in the family unit.

And it is not the family members that inherit it being taxed, it is the estate of the dead person, who AVOIDED paying taxes on their investments most of their entire lives, unless they sold off their stocks per the example I gave above....

most of the wealthiest do not earn a salary and make their money through investments, which are not taxed until the investment is sold, and as mentioned they also invest in things like municiple bonds which are completely tax free, and many other tax shelters that they invest in go decades where the gains of their investments go untaxed, and the ONLY way they ever get taxed on any of their earnings thru their gains is thru the estate tax, over and above the exempt amount, from what I have read on it.

While the working class pays taxes on near every dime they earn, every year of their lives.

I personally think the 45% seems high, but if you calculate in the soon to be 3.5 miilion per person that is exempt from any tax, then the 45% comes out to maybe 10% of the total investment or even less if the estate is only worth as example $4 million, cuz then the 45% is taxed on only the $500,000 which is over and above the $3.5 million, which comes out to only a 5.6% estate tax paid on the total estate. And that is a one time tax, while much of their earnings/gains went their entire lives with no taxes paid at all because of all of their deferred tax investments.

I know I disagree with you on this, but the numbers and the way our tax structure is now arranged, the very wealthiest, like warren buffet and teressa heinz kerry pay the least in taxes, as a percent of their earnings.

Yes, as you have mentioned many times, as far as dollars paid, they pay a great deal of what is collected in income tax, but as far as what percentage of their income is paid in taxes, they pay near the least amount, with the exception of the very poor.

jd

[Pale Rider]

No matter how the liberals slice and dice it, an inheritance tax is bull shit. NO ONE should have to GIVE the government, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DIED, a portion of their family's wealth. It's just more fucking STEALING of your MONEY by LIBERALS that can't keep their MOTHER FUCKING HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS!!!

[manu1959]

steal from the rich and give to the poor.....what happened to evolution and survival of the fittest....

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you calling warren buffet a liar? :) He was speaking about total taxes that the working class, (his secretary) pays on their income, which includes the social security and medicare tax which is a regressive tax on to the working class up to 95k or so, of their income, whereas the wealthiest avoids this tax altogether or only pays the SS tax for the first 95k they earn if they get paid a salary. Warren Buffet and Gates and Heinz and Hilton etc don't pay themselves a salary so they don't have to pay any SS tax at all, their income/earnings comes from their investments.

jd

if the above is how he calculated it, then yes....he is lying.....sorry to break it to you......social security and Medicare withholdings are not, in fact, taxes.......


he has IRS filings to show such

I bet a nickel he doesn't.......


defer paying taxes

a tax deferred is a tax postponed....not a tax avoided.....

[PostmodernProphet]

UP TO $3.5 MILLION that they inherit is tax free, no bill at all in a couple of years....$2.0 million right now is tax free per person in the family unit.

not sure what you are quoting here, but you have it turned on it's head.....the federal government taxes what is given, not what is inherited.....a person may currently leave up to $2.5 million without incurring a tax.....there is no $3.5 million, there is no $2 million per family member, unless that is a state inheritence tax where you live....also the tax doesn't go to no bill at all in a couple of years....in 2011 the sunset provisions of the law will cause the $2.5 million exemption to drop back down to $765k.........

[JohnDoe]

No matter how the liberals slice and dice it, an inheritance tax is bull shit. NO ONE should have to GIVE the government, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DIED, a portion of their family's wealth. It's just more fucking STEALING of your MONEY by LIBERALS that can't keep their MOTHER FUCKING HANDS OUT OF YOUR POCKETS!!!It isn't just because someone died Pale, it is because they never paid taxes on their gains in the first place....from what I have read.

jd

[Immanuel]

It isn't just because someone died Pale, it is because they never paid taxes on their gains in the first place....from what I have read.

jd

If that were true then the taxable amount would be based upon capital gains not the value of the entire estate.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

if the above is how he calculated it, then yes....he is lying.....sorry to break it to you......social security and Medicare withholdings are not, in fact, taxes.......



I bet a nickel he doesn't.......



a tax deferred is a tax postponed....not a tax avoided.....



pleaseeeeeeeeeee! please don't say that social security taxes are not taxes...???????hahahahaha....oh gosh, the distances that you are trying to reach on that one is uncomrehendable!!! Social security is most certainly a tax, and a mandatory one too for the working class and yes you do get something in return for it BUT SO DO YOU GET something in return for your income taxes too, like all of the infrastructure of this great land that we live in....and your property taxes too like schools for your neighborhood, and gas taxes too like bridges and the roads you drive on....there is no difference in social security taxes and getting something back for them....only now they are using social security taxes to even pay for the infra structure and agriculture welfare and oil company welfare that we give out too....by spending the surplusses.

A tax deferred is a tax AVOIDED if they die before the deferment is paid, thus the estate tax captures the deferment.

jd

[JohnDoe]

If that were true then the taxable amount would be based upon capital gains not the value of the entire estate.

Immie
Yes, I can understand that immie, and it seems they should only be taxed 15% or 20% capital gains rate....???

however, that 20% on their entire estate's gains would actually be a higher rate than the way the estate tax is arranged now, because then the entire estate's gains would be taxed at that rate vs, the 2 million now and 3.5 million come in 2009, EXEMPTION from any tax at all....

like the example I gave above for someone dying in 2009, with an estate worth $4 million, they only have to pay the estate tax on $500k of the 4 million because $3.5 million will be exempt from the estate tax altogether, thus netting them out to only paying $5.6% of the entire estate....

also, there is a marriage exemption that any property that the person owned would be exempt from the estate if married and left out of the total estate, but just passed on to the spouse....I was just reading at this link....

http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm

jd

[Pale Rider]

It isn't just because someone died Pale, it is because they never paid taxes on their gains in the first place....from what I have read.

jd

Explain to me how it is one gets away with "not paying taxes on their gains in the first place," and I'll do it! :D

No, seriously, how?

[JohnDoe]

not sure what you are quoting here, but you have it turned on it's head.....the federal government taxes what is given, not what is inherited.....a person may currently leave up to $2.5 million without incurring a tax.....there is no $3.5 million, there is no $2 million per family member, unless that is a state inheritence tax where you live....also the tax doesn't go to no bill at all in a couple of years....in 2011 the sunset provisions of the law will cause the $2.5 million exemption to drop back down to $765k.........


fyi....there will be the $3.5 million exemption:


This paper examines potential estate tax reform options between these two extremes — full repeal and the pre-2001 law — primarily by focusing on the effects of continuing the estate tax laws in place in either 2008 or 2009. In 2008, the exemption level will be $2 million for an individual ($4 million for a married couple); in 2009, it rises to $3.5 million for an individual ($7 million for a couple). In both years, the top estate tax rate will be 45 percent. The major findings of this analysis, which are based on estimates prepared by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, are as follows:

Raising the exemption level by modest amounts significantly reduces the number of estates that would be subject to the estate tax. Compared with the number of estates subject to tax in 2011 under the $1 million exemption level set in current law, raising the exemption level to $2 million would reduce the number of taxable estates by 61 percent. Raising the exemption level to $3.5 million would reduce the number of taxable estates by 84 percent.

At these higher exemption levels, very few small businesses and farms would be subject to the estate tax. With a $1 million exemption, there would be 760 taxable estates nationwide in 2011 in which a small farm or small business comprises a majority of the estate and thus creating the situation where the estate may have too few assets beyond the farm or business to pay the estate tax without selling some or all of the farm or business. With a $2 million exemption, there would be 210 estates in 2011 where a small farm or business represents more than half of the value of the estate. At a $3.5 million exemption level, there would only be 50 such estates in the nation, an average of one per state.


the federal income tax, taxes what is earned and what is gained from what is earned pmp?

[PostmodernProphet]

please don't say that social security taxes are not taxes

I have to.....it's the truth......have you noticed that Social Security and Medicare withholdings are not covered in the Internal Revenue Code?.....it's because they aren't 'revenue'......

[JohnDoe]

Explain to me how it is one gets away with "not paying taxes on their gains in the first place," and I'll do it! :D

No, seriously, how?I gave a couple of examples above.....

but as an example, warren buffet and teressa heinz kerry and bill gates all own majority of stock in the companies they manage....buffet with birkshire hathaway, teresa heinz in heinz ketchup and gates in microsoft....

lets say they got their stock 20 years ago and each own 100,000 shares of their own company's stock and at the time of the investment, their stock was worth $10 a share, and they never sold any of it, but kept their vested interest in their companies untill they die.

Now let's say, that at the time they die, each of their shares of stock is now worth $100 bucks a share, that is $90 bucks a share that they made in capital gains, that they never paid any tax on because they never sold the stock to acquire the gains from it....

that is $9 million in profit that each of them made on this stock but never got taxed for it because they never sold it off, which is where the capital gains tax would have kicked in.... when they die, and just pass over the stock to their kids that is now worth 10 million, but only bought by them for 1 million, was never taxed for the 9 million in gained revenue, thus the estate tax kicks in to capture just some of the taxes that were defered.... at least that is my understanding of it.

And stocks are not the only way to defer taxes that are owed, there are many other methods for them to defer paying taxes till a later date, and if they die before that later date comes through, then once again, that would be taxes AVOIDED not taxes defered, if the estate tax did not come in to play.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

that is $9 million in profit that each of them made on this stock but never got taxed for it because they never sold it off

they haven't been taxed on it because they haven't made that profit yet......all they own is a piece of paper called a stock certificate......if they sell it for $100 and receive that $90 profit, THEN they have a gain and owe the tax.....if they keep the certificate, pass it on to the kids, or in a worse case hold on to it till the company goes under and they have to sell the stock for $5 a share then they NEVER make that profit and never have the income to tax.....if Buffet is calculating gains on his stock toward his 'income' then he is in fact lying about the percentage tax he is paying......

[JohnDoe]

I have to.....it's the truth......have you noticed that Social Security and Medicare withholdings are not covered in the Internal Revenue Code?.....it's because they aren't 'revenue'......they are a FORCED TAX pmp? and they are even called social security taxes pmp? gas taxes are not in the irs code either pmp, nor property taxes, nor sales taxes nor utility taxes nor state income taxes etc....but they are STILL TAXES, and social security and medicare taxes are taxes on ones income earned.

they are part of the total tax burden that each of us peons have on our total income earned. we would all have about 7.5% more take home pay if we did not have to pay these taxes....

And buffet said that she pays 30% in total taxes on the income she EARNS, whereas he only pays 18% on the income he has earned.

jd

[JohnDoe]

they haven't been taxed on it because they haven't made that profit yet......all they own is a piece of paper called a stock certificate......if they sell it for $100 and receive that $90 profit, THEN they have a gain and owe the tax.....if they keep the certificate, pass it on to the kids, or in a worse case hold on to it till the company goes under and they have to sell the stock for $5 a share then they NEVER make that profit and never have the income to tax.....if Buffet is calculating gains on his stock toward his 'income' then he is in fact lying about the percentage tax he is paying......
yes, this is what I said, because they had not sold it yet, they deferred paying the capital gains tax on it and when they give it to their kids, they capture some of that gain's taxes by the inheritence tax. it is a gain, in the example that I gave, if it were a loss at the time of death and passing it on there would be no tax at all to those inheriting the $5 bucks a share in stock, per your example.
***
take it up with buffet if you are so smart to presume he is lying about only paying 18% on all that he earned last year and heinz- kerry only paying 19% in income taxes for what she made in 2003, which was disclosed right before the 2004 election.

[Immanuel]

Yes, I can understand that immie, and it seems they should only be taxed 15% or 20% capital gains rate....???

however, that 20% on their entire estate's gains would actually be a higher rate than the way the estate tax is arranged now, because then the entire estate's gains would be taxed at that rate vs, the 2 million now and 3.5 million come in 2009, EXEMPTION from any tax at all....

like the example I gave above for someone dying in 2009, with an estate worth $4 million, they only have to pay the estate tax on $500k of the 4 million because $3.5 million will be exempt from the estate tax altogether, thus netting them out to only paying $5.6% of the entire estate....

also, there is a marriage exemption that any property that the person owned would be exempt from the estate if married and left out of the total estate, but just passed on to the spouse....I was just reading at this link....

http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm

jd


Here is a link to the convoluted rates and exemptions:

http://www.estate-plan.com/Estate_Tax_Rates.asp

You might notice that 2009 is the year liberal like to brag about because of the extraordinarily high exemption for that one year. Don't ask me what Congress was thinking when they set this crap up. Maybe they are planning a mass suicide or something in 2010 the year when there will be no estate tax? Who knows? Why not pick 2011 when the exemption falls back to $1 million? Why don't you give us the percentage of tax for the normal years?

Let me see, if that person with a $4 million estate died in 2011 instead of 2009 the total tax paid would be $1,654,200 or 41% of the estate. A person with a $10 million estate would pay 43% and it only gets worse from there.

Liberals always like to use 2009 as proof that the tax is not overbearing yet ignore the more appropriate figures for other years.

Immie

[manu1959]

2009....how much does anyone want to bet they will change the rules...

[JohnDoe]

Here is a link to the convoluted rates and exemptions:

http://www.estate-plan.com/Estate_Tax_Rates.asp

You might notice that 2009 is the year liberal like to brag about because of the extraordinarily high exemption for that one year. Don't ask me what Congress was thinking when they set this crap up. Maybe they are planning a mass suicide or something in 2010 the year when there will be no estate tax? Who knows? Why not pick 2011 when the exemption falls back to $1 million? Why don't you give us the percentage of tax for the normal years?

Let me see, if that person with a $4 million estate died in 2011 instead of 2009 the total tax paid would be $1,654,200 or 41% of the estate. A person with a $10 million estate would pay 43% and it only gets worse from there.

Liberals always like to use 2009 as proof that the tax is not overbearing yet ignore the more appropriate figures for other years.

Immie

I agree!!!! it was absolutely NUTS the way the republicans in congress structured this tax break, they did so because they did not have the guts to repeal it and show how much more of a national debt and budget deficit they would be creating by eliminating it completely.

From all that I have read on it, the plans are to extend the tax break at the $3.5 million dollar level for the exemption from it, ($7.0 million exempt as a couple), unless it is repealed altogether.....thus using the $3.5 as the figure.

jd

[Immanuel]

I agree!!!! it was absolutely NUTS the way the republicans in congress structured this tax break, they did so because they did not have the guts to repeal it and show how much more of a national debt and budget deficit they would be creating by eliminating it completely.

From all that I have read on it, the plans are to extend the tax break at the $3.5 million dollar level for the exemption from it, ($7.0 million exempt as a couple), unless it is repealed altogether.....thus using the $3.5 as the figure.

jd

Well, let us all hope that they repeal this UNFAIR tax completely. That would be the appropriate thing to do. But, then since the Democrats have control now we shall really see what they have in mind, right? Anyone have any predictions 70%? 75%? 80% with 0 exemptions?

Immie

[Pale Rider]

I gave a couple of examples above.....

but as an example, warren buffet and teressa heinz kerry and bill gates all own majority of stock in the companies they manage....buffet with birkshire hathaway, teresa heinz in heinz ketchup and gates in microsoft....

lets say they got their stock 20 years ago and each own 100,000 shares of their own company's stock and at the time of the investment, their stock was worth $10 a share, and they never sold any of it, but kept their vested interest in their companies untill they die.

Now let's say, that at the time they die, each of their shares of stock is now worth $100 bucks a share, that is $90 bucks a share that they made in capital gains, that they never paid any tax on because they never sold the stock to acquire the gains from it....

that is $9 million in profit that each of them made on this stock but never got taxed for it because they never sold it off, which is where the capital gains tax would have kicked in.... when they die, and just pass over the stock to their kids that is now worth 10 million, but only bought by them for 1 million, was never taxed for the 9 million in gained revenue, thus the estate tax kicks in to capture just some of the taxes that were defered.... at least that is my understanding of it.

And stocks are not the only way to defer taxes that are owed, there are many other methods for them to defer paying taxes till a later date, and if they die before that later date comes through, then once again, that would be taxes AVOIDED not taxes defered, if the estate tax did not come in to play.

jd

So then when a situation like that arises and those profits are passed on, then they're being taxed twice if they're paying capital gain and death tax. It sounds to me like one way or another the money will get taxed WITHOUT having a death tax on it. Who cares how many hands that profit exchanges, the person that cashes it in is going to have to pay the capital gain on it. That's enough. Tax it once and leave it alone. No death tax.

[JohnDoe]

So then when a situation like that arises and those profits are passed on, then they're being taxed twice if they're paying capital gain and death tax. It sounds to me like one way or another the money will get taxed WITHOUT having a death tax on it. Who cares how many hands that profit exchanges, the person that cashes it in is going to have to pay the capital gain on it. That's enough. Tax it once and leave it alone. No death tax. i hate arguing this side of the equation, because i am not a tax accountant nor a tax lawyer, but it is my understanding that when it is passed on to their kin or whoever it is, it is given a NEW BASIS, so when the stock is passed on to their children or whoever, it is now valued at $100 bucks given my example above, and the NEW basis for the stock would be at $100 bucks for this kin from the point of inheritance on, and if they do not sell it and this kin passes it on to their kin when they die and the stock value is now at $300 bucks a share at the time of their deaths, then their children will get a NEW BASIS of $300 bucks a share for the stock or the investment, and then let's say these grand children of buffet or gates or heinz decide to sell it when the stock reaches $320 a share, then these grand children, that sell the stock will only have to pay a capital gains tax on $20 profit per share and NOT have to pay the capital gains tax on the $310 bucks a share that the stock really increased... from the original investment of $10 bucks a share....that granpa and grandma had paid. This is tax avoidance.

And stocks are not the only means for them to do this, avoid taxes....mega real estate deals and ownership is another one, along with a kazillion tax avoidance schemes created for the wealthiest, but all legal.... the estate tax is suppose to catch them, and keep wealth earned on investments from avoiding taxes.

At least, as I have said, that is my understanding of the whole situation.

jd

[Pale Rider]

i hate arguing this side of the equation, because i am not a tax accountant nor a tax lawyer, but it is my understanding that when it is passed on to their kin or whoever it is, it is given a NEW BASIS,

See, right there, that's what's wrong jd. They should NOT be doing that.

[Yurt]

Then what say you regarding GST? The very existence of GST makes the death tax morbid...

JD, if you can't answer this question, admit defeat. GST null and voids your entire argument and destroys any reason for the death tax.

[red states rule]

Good morning rsr! :)
UP TO $3.5 MILLION that they inherit is tax free, no bill at all in a couple of years....$2.0 million right now is tax free per person in the family unit.

And it is not the family members that inherit it being taxed, it is the estate of the dead person, who AVOIDED paying taxes on their investments most of their entire lives, unless they sold off their stocks per the example I gave above....

most of the wealthiest do not earn a salary and make their money through investments, which are not taxed until the investment is sold, and as mentioned they also invest in things like municiple bonds which are completely tax free, and many other tax shelters that they invest in go decades where the gains of their investments go untaxed, and the ONLY way they ever get taxed on any of their earnings thru their gains is thru the estate tax, over and above the exempt amount, from what I have read on it.

While the working class pays taxes on near every dime they earn, every year of their lives.

I personally think the 45% seems high, but if you calculate in the soon to be 3.5 miilion per person that is exempt from any tax, then the 45% comes out to maybe 10% of the total investment or even less if the estate is only worth as example $4 million, cuz then the 45% is taxed on only the $500,000 which is over and above the $3.5 million, which comes out to only a 5.6% estate tax paid on the total estate. And that is a one time tax, while much of their earnings/gains went their entire lives with no taxes paid at all because of all of their deferred tax investments.

I know I disagree with you on this, but the numbers and the way our tax structure is now arranged, the very wealthiest, like warren buffet and teressa heinz kerry pay the least in taxes, as a percent of their earnings.

Yes, as you have mentioned many times, as far as dollars paid, they pay a great deal of what is collected in income tax, but as far as what percentage of their income is paid in taxes, they pay near the least amount, with the exception of the very poor.

jd

So let me get this straight - you do not care how much in dollars people pay in taxes - it is the percentage?????

JD that is insane. The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after a tax CUT

If Dems get their way, you and your hubby will be paying MORE in taxes. I am sure it will make you feel warm all over as you write that check - knowing you are paying your "fair share"

Also please consider, the "rich" already are paying about 50% of theuir income in taxes. How much more do you demand they pay?

[JohnDoe]

So let me get this straight - you do not care how much in dollars people pay in taxes - it is the percentage?????

JD that is insane. The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after a tax CUT

If Dems get their way, you and your hubby will be paying MORE in taxes. I am sure it will make you feel warm all over as you write that check - knowing you are paying your "fair share"

Also please consider, the "rich" already are paying about 50% of theuir income in taxes. How much more do you demand they pay?


good morning rsr,

yes, I do not care about the amount of money they pay, but the percentage of what they pay of their income compared to the middle class, who have alot less money than the top 1% that would be affected by this tax.

It is the only fair way to look at it imo because i believe the ability to survive after paying one's taxes has to come in to the picture, not just the actual dollars that are paid by a person. The middle class could pay the government their entire salaries with no money at all coming to themselves and it would still not be as much as the wealthiest would pay in actual dollars, so i do NOT see how, the amount they pay in taxes matters but the percentage of their income that they pay would.

Even if The Fair Tax or a flat tax were instituted the wealthiest would still be paying more as far as actual dollars, in income tax.

jd

[JohnDoe]

JD, if you can't answer this question, admit defeat. GST null and voids your entire argument and destroys any reason for the death tax. Good morning Yurt, what is GST? I tried doing a search on it and only found something involving Canada on it?

Why don't you explain how gst would make the death tax null and void and explain what you mean by your statements?

jd

[red states rule]

good morning rsr,

yes, I do not care about the amount of money they pay, but the percentage of what they pay of their income compared to the middle class, who have alot less money than the top 1% that would be affected by this tax.

It is the only fair way to look at it imo because i believe the ability to survive after paying one's taxes has to come in to the picture, not just the actual dollars that are paid by a person. The middle class could pay the government their entire salaries with no money at all coming to themselves and it would still not be as much as the wealthiest would pay in actual dollars, so i do NOT see how, the amount they pay in taxes matters but the percentage of their income that they pay would.

Even if The Fair Tax or a flat tax were instituted the wealthiest would still be paying more as far as actual dollars, in income tax.

jd

Good morning JD

I will never understand the "logic" of the left. The "rich" are paying more in taxes today, revenues have increased every year for 4 years, the deficit had fallen every year for 4 years, and I post how your Dems are pissing through our tax money via pork and perks- and you still insist on screwing the producers with higher taxes

Remember the top 1% are paying 36% of all federal income taxes - how much more are you demanding they pay?

The rich are not a renewable source of money JD

[red states rule]

With spending like this JD - why the hell should anyone have to pay more in taxes?

Pelosi buys $16K worth of flowers
By Mike Soraghan
December 12, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more in her high-profile inaugural year than her low-key predecessor did last year.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than $3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the $1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in 2006.

Republicans are spending more as well. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has increased spending 23 percent above what Pelosi spent when she held the same job. That would be 16 percent if some of Hastert’s closing-out costs were deducted.

The spending patterns indicate Pelosi is seeking to restore the Speaker’s role as a counterweight to the president and reclaim some of the responsibilities Hastert had ceded to his aggressive majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Because of their different roles, Pelosi aides say it is unfair to simply compare Pelosi’s spending to Hastert’s.

“When Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, it was an historic moment. In the days since, the Speaker has hosted leaders from across the country and around the world — opening the People’s House to the people and discussing the work of the 110th Congress,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in response to e-mailed questions. “There are major new costs associated with setting up the new office of the new Speaker of the House.”

Republicans say Pelosi’s office spending undercuts her message that Democrats are restoring fiscal responsibility to the halls of Congress.

“They could have saved the taxpayer $16,000 by sending out an intern to pick flowers from the Capitol lawn, but I guess that would have detracted from the $4 million worth of pork they planted as part of the ‘greening’ project,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for Boehner.

Boehner will be refunding more than $1 million to the treasury from the money he was allocated, Kennedy said.

Most of the $16,058 that Pelosi charged taxpayers for flowers, Elshami said, was for the visits of foreign dignitaries, such as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

“Many of the same dignitaries and international leaders hosted by the White House … are also hosted by Speaker Pelosi,” Elshami said. “This expense is associated largely with these occasions and other Congress-wide, bipartisan events”

While Hastert didn’t appear to spend any money on flowers last year, bouquets are not new to Pelosi’s office. She spent about $5,000 on flowers last year when she was minority leader.

Attempts to find out how much the White House spends on flowers were unsuccessful.

The increase from Hastert to Pelosi was driven largely by a surge in travel and a heavily fortified payroll.

Pelosi has more people working for her. Hastert employed 35 people during the third quarter of last year. Pelosi, by contrast, had 51 people on her payroll during the same time period.

“As the first Democratic Speaker in 12 years, there was a responsibility to the American people and the Democratic Caucus to hit the ground running and to pass the New Direction agenda,” Elshami said. “To achieve this goal, more resources were needed, including the hiring of additional staff in policy and research areas, for example.”

Another factor in the disparity is travel. Hastert didn’t bill much official travel last year, spending only about $1,700, while Pelosi racked up many times that at nearly $60,000 — a figure that does not include her “congressional delegation” journeys to Europe and the Middle East. It does, however, include many visits to congressional districts.

“As the first woman Speaker of the House and first Democratic Speaker in 12 years, there continues to be a demand for her to travel across the country to appear in congressional districts with members, to meet with local press and editorial boards, and to meet with representatives of the private sector,” Elshami said.

Pelosi also has use of a “legislative floor activity” account, while Boehner controls extra money for “minority employees,” which include his employees and those of other Republican leaders.

If those accounts are factored in, Pelosi’s spending increased 52 percent, and Boehner’s spending increased 12 percent.

The spending information is contained in thick books issued quarterly called the Statement of Disbursements of the House. Some call them “brown books” for their beige covers (Senate books are green). Others call them “bitch books,” because congressional staffers look up their counterparts’ salaries, then complain to their bosses if they’re paid less.

The books are often used to check spending of members’ representational allowance, which in 2007 ranged from $1,262,065 to $1,600,539. Each member of leadership has an MRA account for his or her district office, and a separate account to cover the leadership office.

Under a continuing resolution passed in February, House members got $555 million for their MRAs, and leaders were allocated $24 million.

Other expenses in Pelosi’s office include:

• A $10,000 contract to former Clinton White House speechwriter Heather Hurlburt to write the speech Pelosi delivered to the Israeli Knesset.

• Nearly $20,000 to Washington attorney Richard Meltzer to help with Pelosi’s transition. “Just like a presidential transition, Richard Meltzer was hired to oversee the historic changeover of Congress,” Elshami said.

• More than $2,400 to hire a makeup artist for the week of her swearing in. Pelosi later reimbursed the entire cost from her personal funds.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has spent 1 percent more than Boehner spent when he was majority leader. Boehner was elected majority leader in early February 2006. The office is shrinking from the days of DeLay, who had 29 staffers in 2004. Hoyer had 23 employees in September.

As minority leader, Boehner has carried $127,000 to cover the costs of transitioning from Hastert’s tenure and archiving Hastert’s materials. Beyond that, he has spent more from his minority leader accounts than Pelosi did on services and some salaries.

“Mr. Boehner handles the office books the same way he’d like to see the federal budget administered, which is why he returned to the Treasury roughly $1 million from FY06 and is on track to best that number for FY07,” Kennedy said. “Any modest increase in expenditures this year over last reflects the additional responsibilities he assumed as the highest-ranking Republican in the House.”

The biggest swings were in some of the lower-profile offices.

House Minority Conference Chairman Adam Putnam’s (R-Fla.) office spent 58 percent more than Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) when he was the minority caucus chairman.

A spokesman for Putnam said he absorbed many departure costs for the outgoing conference chairwoman, Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio). For example, many departure bonuses were paid to Pryce’s employees this year, counting toward Putnam’s total. The disbursement books show Putnam has spent about $200,000 less than Pryce did last year.

The biggest percentage decrease was for the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, run by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). The committee spent 28 percent less this year.

Putnam’s office said it is fairer to compare the spending of the whole Republican conference, steering and policy operations to the Democratic caucus, steering and policy operations.

Money is distributed evenly between the Republicans and Democrats for those functions, and the party leaders decide how to allocate them.

Under that calculation, Republicans spent 18 percent less than they did last year while Democrats’ spending rose 4 percent over last year. Democrats, however, say that is not a legitimate comparison.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-buys-16k-worth-of-flowers-2007-12-12.html

[Immanuel]

good morning rsr,

yes, I do not care about the amount of money they pay, but the percentage of what they pay of their income compared to the middle class, who have alot less money than the top 1% that would be affected by this tax.

It is the only fair way to look at it imo because i believe the ability to survive after paying one's taxes has to come in to the picture, not just the actual dollars that are paid by a person. The middle class could pay the government their entire salaries with no money at all coming to themselves and it would still not be as much as the wealthiest would pay in actual dollars, so i do NOT see how, the amount they pay in taxes matters but the percentage of their income that they pay would.

Even if The Fair Tax or a flat tax were instituted the wealthiest would still be paying more as far as actual dollars, in income tax.

jd

Okay, then by your 2009 example, what percentage would someone in the "middle class" pay in death taxes? Here is a hint: It is not going to be anywhere near the 5.6% you think is "fair" in order to steal from the rich. I don't believe that you care about fairness at all. Death taxes are not about fairness they are a punitive tax for doing well in one's life.

Immie

[red states rule]

Okay, then by your 2009 example, what percentage would someone in the "middle class" pay in death taxes? Here is a hint: It is not going to be anywhere near the 5.6% you think is "fair" in order to steal from the rich. I don't believe that you care about fairness at all. Death taxes are not about fairness they are a punitive tax for doing well in one's life.

Immie

To the left, the person is dead - so he/she no longer needs the money. The family does not need the "windfall" - so the only logical solution is for the government to step in and take 50% of the estate

After all, to liberals, the government can spend that money better then the people who actually earned it

[JohnDoe]

Okay, then by your 2009 example, what percentage would someone in the "middle class" pay in death taxes? Here is a hint: It is not going to be anywhere near the 5.6% you think is "fair" in order to steal from the rich. I don't believe that you care about fairness at all. Death taxes are not about fairness they are a punitive tax for doing well in one's life.

Immieto answer that question in bold.....

NO ONE in the middle class or upper middle class or upper class will pay anything in the death tax, and they NEVER HAVE been subject to it.... only the upper, upper class, the top 1% earners in the USA are even affected by it, no one else is.... and if all of the modifications come thru then even fewer of the top 1% earners will be affected.

And yes, i can understand how it is an ufair tax to many people, but so are MANY OF OUR TAXES unfair taxes, like the SS taxes are regressive and put on to the middle and the poor as a large chunk out of their earnings but it does not affect the wealthiest, in most cases, AT ALL, or cig taxes that end up paying for health care for others and not themselves....there are many taxes that are UNFAIR taxes.

jd

[JohnDoe]

To the left, the person is dead - so he/she no longer needs the money. The family does not need the "windfall" - so the only logical solution is for the government to step in and take 50% of the estate

After all, to liberals, the government can spend that money better then the people who actually earned itRsr, 3.5 million, $7 million combined for hubby and wife, is NOT TAXED at all, with the estate tax, so it is NOT 50% of what they have left for their kin.

And it is going to 43% over and above the $7 million combined that is EXEMPT from any tax upon death.


WE HAVE A HUGE deficit and debt that has to be paid down and even if 25% of our spending is cut, it won't make a dent in the national debt.... another tax break, and one of this nature, will not help the situation in the least.... we are in BIG TROUBLE with the debt....big, big trouble.

jd

[red states rule]

Rsr, 3.5 million, $7 million combined for hubby and wife, is NOT TAXED at all, with the estate tax, so it is NOT 50% of what they have left for their kin.

And it is going to 43% over and above the $7 million combined that is EXEMPT from any tax upon death.


WE HAVE A HUGE deficit and debt that has to be paid down and even if 25% of our spending is cut, it won't make a dent in the national debt.... another tax break, and one of this nature, will not help the situation in the least.... we are in BIG TROUBLE with the debt....big, big trouble.

jd



Why the hell should any dead persons estate have to pay a tax because he/she is dead

JD your Dems are finaaly coming to their senses and are cutting the pork from their spending bills. (another win for Pres Bush over the Dems)

The government is awash with our money, and there is no reason to take more for the producers

You rant about the national debt, but you do not seem to have a problem with DEMOCRAT pork, and increased spending

Again, Charlie Rangel wants a $1 trillion tax hike - and he coming after YOUR money as well

Be careful what you wish for JD, you just might get it

[actsnoblemartin]

http://www.freedomworks.org/deathtax/death_tax.php

FreedomWorks strongly believes that the death tax should be completely and permanently repealed in order to make the tax code fairer and simpler, and to eliminate the harmful drag this tax has on the economy.

The Death Tax punishes the American values of saving and investment by penalizing individuals for saving, investing, and building successful farms and businesses.

The Death Tax is a Tax on American Values.

It Punishes:

Savings

Families

Investment in capital
The Death Tax is Anti-Job.


The Death Tax is a leading cause of dissolution for most small businesses.

The Death Tax collects little revenue.

Death Tax revenue amounts to only 1.5% of federal revenue.

According to the Cato Institute, compliance with the Death Tax costs the economy of what the Treasury collects.

The Death Tax is unfair.

Americans overwhelmingly agree it is wrong to tax property and earnings that have already been taxed before.

A McLaughlin & Associates poll released on March 9, 2001 revealed that 90 percent of seniors feel it is wrong to tax earnings both when they are earned and again upon death.

[Immanuel]

to answer that question in bold.....

NO ONE in the middle class or upper middle class or upper class will pay anything in the death tax, and they NEVER HAVE been subject to it.... only the upper, upper class, the top 1% earners in the USA are even affected by it, no one else is.... and if all of the modifications come thru then even fewer of the top 1% earners will be affected.

And yes, i can understand how it is an ufair tax to many people, but so are MANY OF OUR TAXES unfair taxes, like the SS taxes are regressive and put on to the middle and the poor as a large chunk out of their earnings but it does not affect the wealthiest, in most cases, AT ALL, or cig taxes that end up paying for health care for others and not themselves....there are many taxes that are UNFAIR taxes.

jd

And who gave us the unfair Social Insecurity Tax?

BTW: Thank you for answering my question. The middle class is not taxed by the death tax. So your 5.6% is an outrageous tax. While we all know that the 5.6% is only an single year anamoly and the actual theft for most people affected by the tax is in the 49% range which is nothing short of highway robbery promoted by liberals.

Immie

[red states rule]

And who gave us the unfair Social Insecurity Tax?

BTW: Thank you for answering my question. The middle class is not taxed by the death tax. So your 5.6% is an outrageous tax. While we all know that the 5.6% is only an single year anamoly and the actual theft for most people affected by the tax is in the 49% range which is nothing short of highway robbery promoted by liberals.

Immie

SS is the biggest rip off Dems ever gave the taxpayers. You pay into it for 40 years and you are lucky if you collect. If you do collect you get about 2% return

The last thing Dems want is for people to finance thier own retirement with their own money. That would reduce the Dems power and take away one of their fear cards how Republicnas want to take away Grandma's SS check

[Yurt]

JD, if you can't answer this question, admit defeat. GST null and voids your entire argument and destroys any reason for the death tax.

JD, why can't you answer anything about GST? If you don't know what it is, then just admit it. By ignoring the issue of GST you tacitly admit that it destroys your argument.

If you posted about GST and I missed ok. But I did not see a direct reply to my post post, yes, two posts about GST.

[JohnDoe]

JD, why can't you answer anything about GST? If you don't know what it is, then just admit it. By ignoring the issue of GST you tacitly admit that it destroys your argument.

If you posted about GST and I missed ok. But I did not see a direct reply to my post post, yes, two posts about GST.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY Yurt, or belated birthday! and yes, i did address you in post #41....

jd

[JohnDoe]

JD, why can't you answer anything about GST? If you don't know what it is, then just admit it. By ignoring the issue of GST you tacitly admit that it destroys your argument.

If you posted about GST and I missed ok. But I did not see a direct reply to my post post, yes, two posts about GST. well? I said i answered you in post 41, are you going to respond as to what a GST is....or not? ;)

I am curious and open to what you were speaking about? Please fill me in!!!

jd

[actsnoblemartin]

there is an income gap, lets start by taking away all of warren buffetts money :laugh2:

[red states rule]

there is an income gap, lets start by taking away all of warren buffetts money :laugh2:

There is not an income gap

A recent Treasury study PROVES folks are making more money and climbing itno higher income brackets

Libs are just ingoring it since it goes aganist their wealth envy rants

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855