4 Senate "Democrats" prove they absolutely hate the poor

[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.

[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.

This is quite correct, actually.

Interestingly, I could support an estate tax of some sort, but at a higher exemption than now ($10 million, probably), indexed to inflation, and tightening up the loopholes.  That would get the ultra-rich, without hitting most of the small businesses and eliminating regional bias (which would screw people the strongest along the coasts).

You see, at present there are plenty of loopholes around, so most family businesses who the present estate tax hits, including mine, who have any financial sense, use these loopholes to get around the estate tax.  So do the ultra-rich.  Of course, some people like paying taxes.  Those people are stupid, frankly.

What happens when the exemption is too low, and there are loopholes, is that the truly rich can employ highly skilled lawyers and accountants to find a way around paying the tax (trusts being one of the biggest ones), while those who are less wealthy and don't have the means for those types schemes, or who aren't wealthy enough to risk the irrevocable transfer of a substantial portion of their assets while they are still alive, end up paying the tax.

So I agree with you Sam -- a higher exemption with much fewer loopholes.  Kind of the same approach I have to the speed limit.   Seriously though, across the board, I tend to favor fewer laws, but making them meaningful and serve their intended purpose.  It makes no sense to have a law intended for the very rich that snares upper middle class working people, while allowing those with greater wealth to escape it.

[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.

[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......??

[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.

[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....

[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.

[dazzleman]

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.

That could be a perfect solution, in a sense, because no tax would be owed unless the business was sold.  Therefore, nobody would have to break up a business to pay their inheritance tax.

In the case of cash inherited, perhaps the tax could be spread over several years, in order to lower the effective rate somewhat.

[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.

Haha, we're niot the working man's friend because we support taxing Paris Hilton and other extremely rich people's estate, instead of letting them get all the assetts without paying a dime. Hilarious.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about Paris Hilton.  Nice dodge.

[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.

Except that most Democrats don't support those things today, so it doesn't really make any more sense than if I argued that Republicans were racist or sexist simply because the few people who support forced segregation or whatnot tend to be Republican. Obviously both sides have their extremists, and both sets of extremists have many repulsive views, but the vast majority of both parties are comprised of good reasonable people.

I feel that overall Democratic policies (at least moderate Democratic policies) benefit the poor and middle class and small business more, and benefit the wealthy more in the long run too by strengthening the economy, though they usually hurt the wealthy and big business in the short term.

Yeah, I know you don't agree, I just have this compulsion to not let things like this stand unrefuted.

What do you mean they don't support these things?  Do you read the newspapers?  Seriously.  Do you mean to tell me the Democrats don't support racial preferences or higher taxes?  And that the liberal wing is not highly sympathetic to criminals?  They even still support forced busing in theory; it's just that now there's no practical way to do it since the white middle class has been driven out of the areas where they successfully implemented this policy.

You should only know how the liberal Democrats in the New York State assembly block any bill that is intended to crack down on crime.  There must be a very different Democratic party out in Michigan than there is around here.

[dazzleman]

It is possible that some of these things may be supported by a majority of liberals, although even that is debateable. Obviously Connecticut and New York Democrats are more liberal than those in Michigan, that's true, and there are local differences.

But even if a majority of liberals did support them, liberals are still only about half or less of the Democratic party as a whole, so I think my statement that a majority of Democrats don't support these things still holds true.

Most Democrats certainly don't support a middle class tax increase, I certainly don't think the majority would support busing, the majority wouldn't support going soft on criminals (I guess it depends on how you define "soft" of course, but I'm not seeing any major push to decrease criminal sentences or anything like that..most Democrats don't even support complete elimination of the death penalty even if you consider that position as being soft on crime, which is of course itself debateable given the moral implications and other considerations involved).

Affirmative action is a policy which has strong support within a small part of the Democratic party, and certainly is not actively supported by most within the party; it's certainly not something that I've heard anyone seriously propose increasing.

Obviously some poll numbers on these things would be nice to see as I'm not aware of any recent such polls, but I think the things I've said are reasonable.

Connecticut Democrats are not as bad as New York Democrats, except for the inner city ones.  New York City Democrats are the worst around here, like the most virulent strain of a deadly disease.

Eric, you may or may not be right that most nominal Democrats don't support the destructive policies that I outlined.  But that seems to be irrelevant, since support for these policies is the official position of the party.  Affirmative action is a great example; it seems that the small segment that you talk about has a total grip on the party on this issue, and quite a few others.

In Connecticut, the Democrats are talking about watering down prison sentences for certain offenders.  They fail to realize of course that stiffer sentences for these offenders, which were pushed through by the first Republican governor in 20 years back in the mid 1990s, are what helped bring the crime rate down substantially.  Now that it's down, they want to push it right back up.  Democrats here also refused to enact a Republican-supported ban on school busing in response to a "landmark" (read: liberal) court ruling that the schools in the state were 'unconstitutionally' segregated by race (whatever that means:  apparently, it means that the racial balance isn't what the liberals want it to be, even though they themselves don't put their kids into multiracial schools).