The death tax

April 25, 2006 3:41 PM

From estate tax to 'death tax' Public Citizen released a report [PDF link] today that "reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the [U.S.] estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion." The rich get richer...
posted by tippiedog (73 comments total)

From the press release (whose language is much more inflammatory than the report itself):

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.

posted by tippiedog at 3:44 PM on April 25, 2006

...a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion." The rich get richer...

Well... actually, they already have the money. They'd get neither a windfall nor richer. They'd just get to stay as rich as they already are.
posted by ewagoner at 3:50 PM on April 25, 2006

Why is it that the more money that people have, the more rabid they are about making even more? If we just gave these 18 aristocratic families $100 trillion, would they demand even more?
posted by rolypolyman at 3:52 PM on April 25, 2006

Why is it that the more money that people have, the more rabid they are about making even more?

Once again, to reiterate what ewagoner just said, they aren't trying to get richer.
They're trying to prevent the redistribution of wealth via the government.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:55 PM on April 25, 2006

Correction:

They're trying to prevent the redistribution of wealth away from them by the government. If you don't think they, and their businesses, are already the beneficiaries of obscene government largesse, better look again.
posted by trigonometry at 4:01 PM on April 25, 2006

"It doesn't matter if most voters don't benefit. They all believe that someday they will. That's the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they're going to be rich."

So sayeth Jed Bartlett.

/wealth distribution bad
//slashy
/// oh god, this isn't Fark is it?
posted by CCK at 4:06 PM on April 25, 2006

they aren't trying to get richer.

Um, excuse me. If your parents have $100 billion, you have nothing. If they die and you get the $100 billion, you just got $100 billion richer. If your parents gave you the $100 billion before they died, they'd have to pay a gift tax. If they paid it to you as a salary, you'd have to pay income tax. But, for some reason, if they die you should get it tax-free?
posted by jlub at 4:12 PM on April 25, 2006

Point well taken, but this whole mess is so absurd it's like a Monty Python sketch.

Mr. Smegloaf: "Let us begin the monthly meeting of the Society of Very, Very, Very, Very, Very, Very Wealthy Families. Now, we..."

Mrs. Bunkscottle: "Don't mind me, but how many 'verys' is that?"

Mr. Smegloaf: "That's actually six, but we're hoping to see seven by next quarter."
posted by rolypolyman at 4:14 PM on April 25, 2006

ewagoner:
Well... actually, they already have the money. They'd get neither a windfall nor richer. They'd just get to stay as rich as they already are..

This begs the question a little - by many accountings, money in the hand isn't really counted as your wealth if it's already owed for services you've already used, but haven't fully paid for yet. (Though everyday analogies with unpaid bills are less direct with something like estate tax, which only happens once).
posted by -harlequin- at 4:15 PM on April 25, 2006

Well... actually, they already have the money. They'd get neither a windfall nor richer. They'd just get to stay as rich as they already are.

Actually, with the estate tax in place, people who make vast gobs of money wouldn't be taxed at all -- their beneficiaries (who did absolutely nothing, aside from being born, to earn the money in the first place) would.
posted by stemlot at 4:17 PM on April 25, 2006

In other words, the estate tax makes passing on an estate after you're dead just like giving somebody a bunch of money when you're alive -- in the latter case, the recipient has to pay taxes on the gift even though the person giving him/her the money already paid taxes on that money before (I think there's an exception for the first gift under a certain dollar amount that you receive from someone, but whatever).
posted by stemlot at 4:21 PM on April 25, 2006

Thank you jlub.
posted by lucasks at 4:21 PM on April 25, 2006

.
posted by russilwvong at 4:25 PM on April 25, 2006

oh, sorry, i just realized my points were exactly the same ones jlub made ten minutes earlier than me...
posted by stemlot at 4:36 PM on April 25, 2006

They need to follow this up with hereditary government offices and a state religion. Then we'll be back to the good ol' days.
posted by mullingitover at 4:39 PM on April 25, 2006

jlub, stemlot: What Baby_Balrog and ewagoner are saying is that people don't "make money" through tax cuts, estate tax or otherwise, but instead keep more of what they already have. I don't think anyone is defending these greedy bastards... just making the semantic point.
posted by brundlefly at 4:44 PM on April 25, 2006

Syntactic or semantic, it's still wrong. If you don't "make money" from tax cuts, then I guess you don't "lose money" through tax increases? Great! Let's put all taxes at 100% and then the government can afford all the social programs, and no one loses any money!

Any argument about taxes comes down to one thing -- the government needs money. You can argue about how much it needs, and you can argue about where it will come from. In this case, the argument is that rich people should pay less. Fine, go ahead and make that argument. But don't make it with outright lies.
posted by jlub at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2006

The entire Republican tax cut jihad is of this sort: look behind the curtain, and you see a vanishingly small number of very, very, very, very, very rich white men pulling propaganda strings, so that they can go from disgustingly, filthy, amorally wealthy to that, times 10.

That a bunch of chumps making $20K to $500K a year think these people give a monkey fuck about them is the sad part.
posted by teece at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2006

I hate when people like these are on my side.

Seriously, Estate/Death tax is bullshit, utter bullshit. It's the government taxing your money AGAIN after having taken a significant chunk of it years if not decades earlier. What's more irritating is that it's not that hard to hide your money so it doesn't get nailed which means the rich, who can afford better attorneys, avoid most of this in the first place.

It also galls me when people like Warren Buffet are out there saying the tax is a grand idea, when they know bloody well that it won't impact their standard of living one bit. If there was any justice in the world, the law would be changed so that the moment you have more then 25 million (See how generous I am?), the government just takes the rest. All of it. So if you have 50 million, or 50 billion, each kid just gets 25 million. I think that'll do more for this country then this idiotically allocated tax.
posted by Vaska at 4:58 PM on April 25, 2006

Syntactic or semantic, it's still wrong. If you don't "make money" from tax cuts, then I guess you don't "lose money" through tax increases?

Poor analogy. You "lose money" as long as there are taxes. You can lose less or more money as tax rates and policies vacillate¹, but you're losing it nonetheless.

1. I'm being theoretical here, since, in the real world, tax rates don't vacillate; they go up.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:00 PM on April 25, 2006

I am a chump who makes $20K to $500K a year.

I don't think that the super wealthy give a monkey fuck about me, I don't expect to ever be super wealthy, and I oppose the estate tax.

Of course, I do wonder what would happen if the tax code scrapped the stepped-up basis as a part of eliminating the estate tax.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:01 PM on April 25, 2006

I also wonder how many people Joan Claybrook has killed.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:03 PM on April 25, 2006

If you don't "make money" from tax cuts, then I guess you don't "lose money" through tax increases?

That makes no sense at all. From the point of view of the tax-payer, one either loses money if one is taxed or keeps money if one is not.

Any argument about taxes comes down to one thing -- the government needs money. You can argue about how much it needs, and you can argue about where it will come from. In this case, the argument is that rich people should pay less. Fine, go ahead and make that argument. But don't make it with outright lies.

Calm down. Who's making that argument here? Again, I don't support what these people are doing.
posted by brundlefly at 5:03 PM on April 25, 2006

It's the government taxing your money AGAIN after having taken a significant chunk of it years if not decades earlier.

The government is taxing the same pool of money again, but it wasn't "yours" until your rich dad kicked the bucket. Anyway, one could make the exact same argument against taxing gifts.
posted by brundlefly at 5:08 PM on April 25, 2006

It's the government taxing your money AGAIN

Is this actually the case - ie if I get a bunch of money from my parent's estate, do I pay income tax on it in addition to Estate tax? Or do I just pay the estate tax as bascially just a special-case income tax?
posted by -harlequin- at 5:14 PM on April 25, 2006

Seriously, Estate/Death tax is bullshit, utter bullshit. It's the government taxing your money AGAIN after having taken a significant chunk of it years if not decades earlier.

This is only true if you think that the money you earn is always and forever "yours," no matter if you give it to somebody else or not. The fact is, when you die, you have to give your possessions and money to someone or something. If this someone or something is anything other than a charity, then it should pay taxes on what you give to it. I don't really see how the estate tax is any different than the income tax, the gift tax, the capital gains tax, etc.
posted by stemlot at 5:15 PM on April 25, 2006

Is this actually the case - ie if I get a bunch of money from my parent's estate, do I pay income tax on it in addition to Estate tax? Or do I just pay the estate tax as bascially just a special-case income tax?

Yeah, the estate tax is a "special case income tax."
posted by stemlot at 5:16 PM on April 25, 2006

Can't they just take a pound of flesh like they used to in the old days? Most americans could stand to lose it anyways.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:16 PM on April 25, 2006

That makes no sense at all.

Yes, exactly.

Who's making that argument here?

Vaska, Kwanstar, arguably Baby_Balrog, but more importantly the people the FPP is about. We're discussing the FPP, remember? The estate tax is a tax rich people pay. If you eliminate it, then rich people pay less taxes.

Calm down.

Calmer'n you, Dude.
posted by jlub at 5:17 PM on April 25, 2006

Is this actually the case - ie if I get a bunch of money from my parent's estate, do I pay income tax on it in addition to Estate tax? Or do I just pay the estate tax as bascially just a special-case income tax?

You generally don't have to pay income tax on what you inherit. There are exceptions, sort of-- if you inherit a traditional IRA(for example), you still have to pay tax as you pull the money out.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:17 PM on April 25, 2006

Brundlefly: I only wish my dad was rich! It's still a bullshit maneuver however. The money was initially nailed with income tax, so if they're nailing me when it gets to my hands that's a second income tax strike, regardless of how they wish to hide the name. I know the government has the (unpleasant) right to tax money movement in all sorts of ways, but I don't know many people who don't think this is a sleazy way to go about it.

I also take issue with the government not only relying on this money which is insane from a financial planning standpoint, but also because it's a secondary tax. Secondary taxes are a way the system getting more and more out of people, basically nibbling them to death instead hitting them with just one giant bill at one time which would do more to galvanize the public into asking just what the hell the government is using this money for. Besides wars.
posted by Vaska at 5:18 PM on April 25, 2006

it's a secondary tax

Then isn't your income tax a secondary tax also, since your employer had to pay a tax on the profits she then used to give you your paycheck? But, no: I guess it's a tertiary tax, since your employer's profits might have come from the sale of something to a customer who had to pay a sales tax? etc.
posted by stemlot at 5:23 PM on April 25, 2006

Stemlot: Considering how often the IRS screws up with people, I don't think ANYONE knows the answers.
posted by Vaska at 5:25 PM on April 25, 2006

The fact is, when you die, you have to give your possessions and money to someone or something.

Never!

I shall spend a small fraction of my wealth to have constructed a giant solid concrete pyramid (to dwarf the biggest in Egypt) in which to permanently entomb all my wealth forever!

Ok, I need to get some wealth first, but after that...

Oh oh oh! I know, I fund the scheme by selling half the pyramid space as dumping space for high level radioactive waste. And thus my curse is borne - any who try to drill through my reinforced concrete pyramid to plunder the riches within shall sicken and perish!

It's flawless!
Well, other than being a monumental monument to selfishness.

Take that, Mr Estate Taxes!
Stick it to the man!

or maybe I could do something useful instead.,/small>
posted by -harlequin- at 5:25 PM on April 25, 2006

Only people who are inheriting, say, more than 5 million bucks are compelled to pay the estate tax: problem fucking solved.

Of course, it'll never happen.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:29 PM on April 25, 2006

It seems like a legimate tax on income to me. Not secondary or double dipping. If it's poorly written such that it can be evaded by those with resources and is thus incurred inconsistantly, then that's a valid complaint that should be addressed, but the idea of having a tax on income from family estate seems quite logical and socially desirable to me.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:30 PM on April 25, 2006

Yes, exactly.

Huh? You used faulty logic in making your point. How does my pointing that out reinforce your point?*

Oh, well. Whatever. We clearly agree the estate tax should not be dumped. I'll just leave it at that. (Nice Walter reference, btw)

*Too much pointing!
posted by brundlefly at 5:35 PM on April 25, 2006

Reductio ad absurdum
posted by jlub at 5:38 PM on April 25, 2006

Indeed, jlub.

Vaska: I don't exactly get your secondary tax claim. One pool of money may be taxed many, many times as it is spent or given (sales taxes, income taxes, etc). Do you object in the case of the estate tax because there's a familial connection?
posted by brundlefly at 5:47 PM on April 25, 2006

If it's equivalent to taxing the income of the heirs, then include it in the income of the heirs, and tax accordingly, instead of taxing the estate at a higher rate and not taxing the heirs at all.

The point of the estate tax is to eliminate rich, powerful dynasties (e.g. Kennedy, Bush). But when real estate does what its done in the past few years, and the tax code doesn't keep up by increasing the threshold for the estate tax, that means that a whole lot of people who are really not rich, powerful dynasties get nailed by the estate tax, which really doesn't accomplish the purpose of the tax.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:49 PM on April 25, 2006

vanishingly small number of very, very, very, very, very rich white men

Does it really matter if they are white? If they weren't, would that change your opinion?
posted by Potsy at 5:56 PM on April 25, 2006

"The point of the estate tax is to eliminate rich, powerful dynasties"

Is this an openly stated goal? Or an unwritten social assumption/consensus? I'm assuming the later, but would be interested to know if it was the former.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:57 PM on April 25, 2006

That's a great question, harlequin. If memory serves, it was an openly stated goal, but I don't have the time to provide a legislative history analysis at the moment. It's not in the text of the tax code, as far as I know. A future FPP may be in order re: the history of the estate tax. Of course, that might be incredibly boring.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:05 PM on April 25, 2006

Jek:
"If it's equivalent to taxing the income of the heirs, then include it in the income of the heirs, and tax accordingly, instead of taxing the estate at a higher rate and not taxing the heirs at all."

Actually, I might prefer it the current way - there is enough exotic crap overcomplicating my tax form covering all sorts of options, that I suspect I'm happy to have extremely rare eventualities that will never apply to me, be relegated to a seperate set of forms that I never have to deal with. Even for someone who does get an estate, it's going to be such a rare thing that it might even be easier overall for them too, but then, I haven't seen the estate tax forms :)
posted by -harlequin- at 6:05 PM on April 25, 2006

(yeah I realise that sounds like lame ass apoligism)
posted by -harlequin- at 6:06 PM on April 25, 2006

Um, brundlefly, I think you need to read jlub's original post again. He's not using faulty logic, he's pointing out the faults in someone else's logic.
posted by selfmedicating at 6:07 PM on April 25, 2006

Wow, I had no idea there were so many filthy stinking rich people on Metafilter. Because they're the only people affected by this tax anyway.

At least the 18 families in the FPP have their reasons for doing this: greed. Whereas most of the people I've argued about this with are not even close to ever having to pay it.
posted by fungible at 6:48 PM on April 25, 2006

fungible, if you or those you've argued with own real estate on either coast of the U.S., there's a good chance that you and they will be affected by the estate tax (or your estate will, anyway). But if most of the people you're argued with about this don't own any real property, then you're probably right that they're not even close to ever having to pay it.

Now, IANATaxExpert (obviously), but is inheritance counted as income for tax purposes? Because, as I understand it, the estate tax is paid by the estate, and not by the heirs (the people inheriting money, etc), so if the inheritance is income of the heirs, then that money is taxed at least twice, once by the estate tax when the decedent dies, and again by the income tax when the heir receives it. I could be totally wrong, though.

Anyone tax-savvy enough to explain how it really works? After the estate is taxed and the remaining assets are distributed to the heirs, is the inheritance then included as part of the heirs' taxable income and taxed a second time?
posted by JekPorkins at 7:03 PM on April 25, 2006

Jek:
"but is inheritance counted as income for tax purposes?"

Already asked that above. It sounds like it's only taxed once.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:08 PM on April 25, 2006

if you or those you've argued with own real estate on either coast of the U.S., there's a good chance that you and they will be affected by the estate tax

That's simply not true and an example of the kind of thing the FPP is complaining about. The exemption for couples is $4 million dollars. Even in the most ridiculous market, the vast majority of properties cost far less than that.
posted by jlub at 7:09 PM on April 25, 2006

Now, IANATaxExpert (obviously), but is inheritance counted as income for tax purposes? Because, as I understand it, the estate tax is paid by the estate, and not by the heirs (the people inheriting money, etc), so if the inheritance is income of the heirs, then that money is taxed at least twice, once by the estate tax when the decedent dies, and again by the income tax when the heir receives it. I could be totally wrong, though.

For the second time in this thread, inheritance proceeds are generally not counted as income for the income tax purposes of the beneficiary.

The cost basis of stocks, real estate, whatever is upped to the FMV of the assets on the decedent's date of death.

Annuities and IRAs receive somewhat different (and more complicated) tax treatment and may be counted as income when they are liquidated by the beneficiary.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:10 PM on April 25, 2006

Short answer - no, inherited property is not considered taxable income.

Long answer - get your own goddamn LL.M.
posted by yhbc at 7:11 PM on April 25, 2006

And, jlub, the $4 million per couple thing only works if the couple sets up an A-B Credit Shelter Trust (or similar bypass arrangement), wherein some of the property is given to a nonspousal beneficiary, but preserved for the sue of the spousal beneficiary while s/he remains alive.

To establish such an arrangement in a big city costs anywhere from $2,000-$5,000. The lawyer preparing it tells his secretary how to do the mail merge, and the rest is pure profit.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:16 PM on April 25, 2006

for the use of the spousal beneficiary
posted by Kwantsar at 7:17 PM on April 25, 2006

Net estate tax exclusion amounts:
2006 - 2008 - $2,000,000
2009 - $3,500,000

Maximum estate tax rates:
2006 - 46%
2007-2009 - 45%

The money isn't taxed twice, and the higher than income tax rates start kicking in around $1m.

The estate can give property to a surviving spouse or to a charity, and deduct the value from the estate.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:23 PM on April 25, 2006

Kwantsar: thank you for pointing out that it does take some degree of estate planning to actually avoid imposition of estate tax at a $2M-$4M joint estate level. I was afraid to, lest I appear to only be trying to drum up unnecessary legal work at an overinflated price; thereby leeching off the wealthy for my own profit.

But then, you covered that part as well, so thanks again.
posted by yhbc at 7:34 PM on April 25, 2006

Yes, I do have an LL.M.
posted by yhbc at 7:36 PM on April 25, 2006

I Love Tacos:

Under current law, the estate tax will be repealed in 2010, and then will be reinstated in 2011 as it existed prior to Bush's cuts in 2001.

Net estate tax exclusion amount:
2011 - $1,000,000
Maximum estate tax rates:
2011 - 55%

And one million dollars is certianly low enough to catch a lot of otherwise non-wealthy people with relatively coastal real estate.

I'm actually all for the original intent of the estate tax to cut monied dynasties down a bit and make each generation each their own keep more or less... but the amount should probably be kept around the 2009 level, and indexed against inflation into the future. (Which doesn't seem that unreasonable for any administration other than this one)
posted by zeypher at 7:36 PM on April 25, 2006

Can we somehow make Kwanstar's answers louder in this thread? He's bringing a lot of badly needed tax knowledge.

Just to be clear, the "basis step-up" in question works like this. If Wealthy McRichington buys a house (or hell, a share of stock for that matter) for $1000 back in the day, and holds onto it until death, any capital appreciation (e.g. if the value increases to a million-zillion dollars) is not taxed. Ever. The person who inherits it gets a "basis" -- the starting value for purposes of capital gain -- of fair market value at the time of transfer. So neither the grantor nor the grantee ever pays an income tax for the huge capital gain which they very obviously realized.

I mention the possibility of stock appreciation to show the broad effect of this loophole; the anti-estate tax crowd likes to get all het up about illiquid assets like farms and mansions, but far from all inherited property is in big chunks like this... often it's in the form of stock, other fungible equity, or some cash equivalent. In the vast, vast, vast majority of cases this "they'll have to sell the family farm!" is totally inapposite and so it basically resolves to a huge straw man. JekPorkins, I appreciate that your claim about coastal real estate is largely speculative, but can you name one example of someone who's had to sell the family homestead to pay an estate tax? Just one?

For those claiming "this only helps the rich stay rich, not get richer": please see basis step-up discussion above. But moreover, if you're willing to split hairs that way between "gain" and "avoidance of loss", you've basically already given over the discussion. Think about it like this. Under the present law, those precious few who fall within the statutory range are obligated to pay the estate tax. The government already has a claim to whatever assets fall under its rubric; this is a present duty that the taxpayer has. They are trying to alter the law to remove this duty -- viz., to gain money at some point in the future.
posted by rkent at 7:50 PM on April 25, 2006

And yes, I know I was begging the question a bit in the last paragraph, but that was kind of the point: it's not any more valid to argue that "I shouldn't have to pay a tax because it's my money." Either side's answer can be "obvious" depending on the rhetoric you use so let's not quibble about "gain" vs. "avoidance of loss" and just discuss the substantive policy issues.
posted by rkent at 7:52 PM on April 25, 2006

Re: the $1M exclusion and coastal property.

For the taxites out there: Isn't there some sort of additional homestead exemption that allows one to leave property to a living spouse (or perhaps child)? I thought if you had one property that was listed as a homestead for tax purposes that there would be no tax on that if your spouse (or child?) inherited it, regardless of its value. Additional property would be taxed if it was worth over the exclusion amount.
At least, that's what I think I remember from a business law class I took in '98.
posted by papakwanz at 9:19 PM on April 25, 2006

Spouse, yes. Child, no.

There is an unlimited marital deduction in the estate tax code, if your spouse is a US citizen. This includes most (all?) assets, including stocks, real estate, and partnerships.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:39 PM on April 25, 2006

Vaska I'm afraid I have no frigging clue what you are talking about. Money is taxed at every possible step in its life. To even attempt to talk about secondary taxes seems just a tad, well, silly. You find some money that hasn't been taxed, so you can declare it virgin, and then let's talk.
posted by filchyboy at 9:46 PM on April 25, 2006

Eat the rich.
posted by Goofyy at 11:40 PM on April 25, 2006

Invest in fava bean futures.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:51 PM on April 25, 2006

> Under current law, the estate tax will be repealed in 2010,
> and then will be reinstated in 2011 (in old form)

If you are veryveryveryveryveryveryvery rich, and a bit feeble, and it's the year 2010, that may be your last chance to die and pass every penny to your heirs untaxed. Would you be nervous that year?

Note, by the way, that it's considered to be purely coincidental that these few veryveryveryveryveryveryvery rich families live in the USA. It's their God-given money, God would have given it to them no matter where they lived. It has nothing to do with any benefits they received as US citizens during their families' generations.

They live here by God's love and grace, and only coincidentally are protected by being surrounded by the rest of us and all our military might, facing out.

Their message to us -- don't look around. We are no burden to you. We are not wolf bait here. We are not the low hanging fruit tempting the starving world. We are not the big pin~ata.
We are your umbrella, not your burden.
posted by hank at 2:23 AM on April 26, 2006

the government can afford all the social programs,

Yes, like the social program of brining freedom and democracy to foreign lands via the guns and butter political model.

(Given the health of the leaders, they are now light on the butter, because butter is bad for the heart.)
posted by rough ashlar at 5:41 AM on April 26, 2006

If you are veryveryveryveryveryveryvery rich, and a bit feeble, and it's the year 2010, that may be your last chance to die and pass every penny to your heirs untaxed. Would you be nervous that year?

As Paul Krugman noted, it's the 'Throw Momma From The Train' Act. Anyway, I'd be happy to see the estate tax go, as long as it was accompanied by an end to offshore accounts, tax-shielding trusts and all the other shells in the tax-avoidance game.
posted by holgate at 6:38 AM on April 26, 2006

The problem with the argument in this thread is that it is looking at the estate tax, which effects only estates on a $4,000,000 scale or greater, as income tax. This is incorrect. It should be viewed as a capital gains tax, since at that scale the estate most likely is in capital form, you know, stocks and bonds and the like. Your basis for capital gains when you inherit the property is the value at which you inherited it. Therefore, capital gains between the time when it was bought and the time when you inherit it is never taxed except in the estate tax. If your grandfather paid $10K for stock that is now worth $10M, and leaves it to you, that appreciation would not be taxed at all under capital gains. This is what the anti-estate tax people are trying to sweep under the carpet.
posted by graymouser at 6:55 AM on April 26, 2006

graymouser: This is incorrect. It should be viewed as a capital gains tax

Capital gain is a form of income, and the capital gains tax is a subset of the income tax. Yes the rate is different, but the distinction between the categories is nothing like a bright line.
posted by rkent at 8:22 AM on April 26, 2006

Class warfare.
Plain and simple.
Declared by the wealthy and being won by the wealthy.

It's about shifting the tax burden away from the few very wealthy.

Taxation is about taxing money isn't it?
If the very wealthy have the most money then they should damn well shoulder an equal burden of the taxes.

How much money does it take to live well anyway?
So the rest is just greed.
Not very christian of Dobson and Falwell and Robertson, etc., is it?
posted by nofundy at 8:37 AM on April 26, 2006

How much money does it take to live well anyway?
So the rest is just greed.

Using this reasoning, a South American dude living on $5 a day would call $20 a day living well, and proceed to cap your income at under $10,000 a year. I'm guessing you earn more than that, and can find plenty of valid things to do with it.

And the same is essentially true for someone earning $100m a year.

Sure, some people are just plain greedy, but there are an almost unlimited number of things to do with huge, huge sums of cash that are perfectly reasonable and wealth-creating for all.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:30 AM on April 26, 2006

Would it have been so difficult for Public Citizen to produce an HTML version? Why must so many organizations release information only as a PDF? *sigh*

Yes, I know Google can do a quick and dirty HTML conversion, but that's not my point. Not making an HTML version makes it more difficult for bloggers to comment on and cite specific sections -- which would seem counterproductive to their goal of making people aware of the report.
posted by pmurray63 at 1:01 PM on April 26, 2006