Politics Estate Tax

[xdancer]

so, the house has voted to repeal the estate tax, and now the bill goes to the senate. any thoughts?

from a NY Times article:

April 14, 2005
House Votes to End Estate Taxes
By REUTERS

Filed at 8:49 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to permanently end the estate tax as part of a Republican push to extend President Bush's tax cuts beyond the end of the decade.

The House voted 272-162 to repeal the estate tax with 42 Democrats joining the Republican majority in support of the bill.

The bill goes to the Senate where its fate is unclear in the face of mounting worries over the nation's rising debt and concern it could curb charitable donations.

Permanent repeal of the estate tax is a high priority for many business groups, and Republican backers called it a tax on death that thwarts savings and investment. They argue permanent repeal now will help family businesses plan for the future.

``As a matter of basic fairness we must permanently repeal the death tax,'' said Rep. Kenny Hulshof, a Missouri Republican. ``The death of a family member quite simply should not be a taxable event.''

The 2001 tax cut package phased out the estate tax with total repeal in 2010. But after 2010, the estate tax along with income tax rates are scheduled to revert to levels in effect before the tax cut. Bush vowed during his re-election campaign last year to extend those tax cuts and Wednesday's vote in the House was the first effort to make good on that promise.

Democrats argued that the estate tax affects only the richest Americans and that huge budget deficits are forcing spending cuts on health care for poor children, education and other programs. Democrats said repeal will cost the federal treasury $290 billion in the first four years and more than $700 billion over the decade.

``While we may help a few very rich children with an inheritance, we'll cut hundreds of thousands of children's Medicaid benefits,'' argued Rep. Pete Stark, a California Democrat.

The House rejected a Democratic substitute offered by Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota that would have exempted estates valued at less than $3.5 million, $7 million for couples, from estate taxes. He argued that would end the tax for more than 99 percent of estates.

The 2001 package gradually raised the estate tax exemption from $1 million in 2002 to $1.5 million currently, and $3.5 million in 2009 for individuals and double that amount for couples. Rates that topped 50 percent are gradually being reduced to 45 percent in 2009 before total repeal for one year.

Support in the Senate for eliminating the estate tax is strong. But record budget deficits are weighing on lawmakers and it is unclear whether backers would win the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the 100-member body.

Also charitable groups are worried that repeal will hurt contributions that are often made as a way to avoid the tax.

Discussions are underway for a possible compromise that could increase the level of exemption from the tax and lower the rate, according to Senate aides and industry representatives. But they said the outcome of those talks is unclear.

 

[AliasHombre]

Its about time we start to scale back the death tax. Its not the exemption that pisses me off, its the rate thats taxed and god help you if you own land to be willed on the family

 

[noggi16]

Is this the same as inhertiance tax? That you pay when some one dies.

In England this is set at 40% of everything over £261000. That used to be fine and only really well off people used to pay it. Now average house price is about £200,000 so nearly everyone does.

That is really unfair.

 

[AliasHombre]

Yeah its the same thing. Lots of times, people are forced to sell the desceased's land and sometimes can't even pay the tax.

 

[xdancer]

Yeah its the same thing.  Lots of times, people are forced to sell the desceased's land and sometimes can't even pay the tax.

[post="1303488"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

uh, not it's not the same thing. it only effects people who have inherited at least 3 million dollars, if i'm not mistaken - a very tiny percent of the population (like 19,000 a year maybe).

 

[AliasHombre]

The exemption is not that high. Its only 1.5mil for this year, and besides, why do the rich and their families get punished for a death? Furthermore, inherentance is not strictly cash, meaning that land often has to be split, or houses, or other assests.

 

[xdancer]

i thought i heard $3M on NPR, but maybe i got the numbers confused, but that still doesn't change the fact that it affects only a tiny portion of people. it's not punishing the rich, but the fact is that if you want to have a functioning government, then you have to have money. with a skyrocketing deficit and a war going on, we can't affort to cut taxes that bring in $290 billion a year.

 

[AliasHombre]

It doesnt matter who it affects, a law shouldn't affect one class of people. The exemption is scheduled to rise to 3mil in 2009. Mabye instead of taxing more, the gov't shuold cut spending.

 

[mexico city]

another gift to the filthy rich...

 

[noggi16]

This is quite different to what we have because our inheritance tax affects a lot of people,

It doesnt matter who it affects, a law shouldn't affect one class of people. The exemption is scheduled to rise to 3mil in 2009. Mabye instead of taxing more, the gov't shuold cut spending.

So people with no property, no cash reserves and no pensions should pay to.

And you said that you can't trust law enforcement maybe then you should put your hand in your pocket pay tax and you wouldn't need a gun.

I'm all for low taxes what I don't like is people moaning when they hardly pay any tax and then moan about rubbish public services.

 

[xdancer]

It doesnt matter who it affects, a law shouldn't affect one class of people.  The exemption is scheduled to rise to 3mil in 2009.  Mabye instead of taxing more, the gov't shuold cut spending.

[post="1304869"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

cutting spending is easier said then done. most of it is already tied up, and only a minority of the budget is discretionary spending. plus, the president you supported decided to go to war, and whether you agree with it or not, that costs money, and as it is, soldiers don't have adequate equipment. and can you really say that you're ok with having 45 million people in this country without healthcare, including millions of children? that number would only go up if the government cut spending. now, i agree that some money is tied up in bureaucratic felgercarb and should be cleaned up, but i don't think this country can afford to cut $290 billion of spending in the next 4 years.

 

[AliasHombre]

I totally understand that there is almost no discresionary money avaliable. Thats becasue we are busy handing all of the other money out to the lazy.

Its now how much money a public service has to work with, its how they use it.

I still don't get how the government can just punish the rich by taking a higher percentage of their money.

 

[noggi16]

Do you live in the 1800's?

I'm so right wing on the economy its almost untrue. But people aren't poor because their lazy or drunk or stupid. People are poor because of low pay, low educational achievement either through special educational needs or lack of access. People are poor because of ill health which stops them working.

Do you think we founded the welfare state for fun??

Try reading about Joseph Rowntree then you'll stop thinking things that went out here in about 1890.

 

[AliasHombre]

People aren't poor from "low pay", they are poor becasue they slacked off in school, and now either dont have a job or have or have a crappy job. No matter how bad the schools are, that doesn't stop you from getting "A's" or "B's" casue its all relative.
People are poor becasue they dont live within their means. America of all countries in the world has the most people not living within their means, making them eventually poor.


Mabye if we didn't let so many Mexicans in we'd have more jobs to go around so people stop depending on gov't handouts. If you think that these handouts aren't enslaving people then you're naive.


No one said we shouldn't care for the mentally ill or physically handicapped.

 

[xdancer]

People aren't poor from "low pay", they are poor becasue they slacked off in school, and now either dont have a job or have or have a crappy job. No matter how bad the schools are, that doesn't stop you from getting "A's" or "B's" casue its all relative.
People are poor becasue they dont live within their means.  America of all countries in the world has the most people not living  within their means, making them eventually poor.
Mabye if we didn't let so many Mexicans in we'd have more jobs to go around so people stop depending on gov't handouts.  If you think that these handouts aren't enslaving people then you're naive. 
No one said we shouldn't care for the mentally ill or physically handicapped.

[post="1310681"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

uh...wow. just, wow. you have no idea what kind of lives the poor lead in this country. you think everyone starts off on a level playing field? of course not. you think its easy to simply overcome your environment and upbringing? absolutely not. its not exactly possible to make a living on minimum wage. you should read "Nickel and Dimed." this journalist took a minimum wage job for three months and attempted to live off that. it really opens your eyes to the plight of the poor. they're not poor because they don't "live within their means."

you know, i just don't understand people like you who simply don't care about the people around you.

and i'm not even going to touch the "Mexicans" comment.

 

[noggi16]

they are poor becasue they slacked off in school, and now either dont have a job or have or have a crappy job. No matter how bad the schools are, that doesn't stop you from getting "A's" or "B's" casue its all relative.

Thats not true. You can only say that when every child has equal educational oppotunites which they don't. Kids that go to bad schools, not matter how hard they try its going to be difficult and they don't get the same chances.

I'm not saying your totally wrong, sure there are some people who didn't take oppotunites but most didn't get them in the first place. You have to give everyone a fair start in life, equal oppotunties then. If they don't take them fine. I'm looking for equality of oppotunity not equality of outcome.

 

[AliasHombre]

I know its cliche, but its cliche for a reason: People don't get every opportunity they have, some people do hard work to open doors for themselves. Some do not.

 

[AliasHombre]

uh...wow.  just, wow.  you have no idea what kind of lives the poor lead in this country.  you think everyone starts off on a level playing field?  of course not.  you think its easy to simply overcome your environment and upbringing?  absolutely not.  its not exactly possible to make a living on minimum wage.  you should read "Nickel and Dimed."  this journalist took a minimum wage job for three months and attempted to live off that.  it really opens your eyes to the plight of the poor.  they're not poor because they don't "live within their means."

you know, i just don't understand people like you who simply don't care about the people around you.

and i'm not even going to touch the "Mexicans" comment.

[post="1310833"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

The minumun wage shouldn't even exist. Its redicilous that the government can set wages for people and they accept them. If there were no minimun wage, no one would work for less than a much higher amount of money, and guess what...employers would have to pay or they would lose their livelyhood.

I simply don't beleive its right for the government to reallocate our money to poor people. I believe that is an individuals choice, its called charity.

 

[noggi16]

No you believe in living your nice cosy life in your nice house with a car and a good job and good chances because you went to a good school.

They say your opinions are shaped by your upbringing so I can't be to far off the mark.

I'm middle class and that doesn't mean everything has dropped into my lap, I've worked bloody hard. But i've also seen people who have no way out of poverty.

My parents helped me with my homework, I'm sure most peoples did. But what if your parents didn't finish school and can't read or write. Who's there to help you then? What if your parents can't work? because of disability or injury. There are hundreds of reasons why people are poor and its not because they're lazy or stupid.

Education and health are universal rights not there for only those that can afford it and every one else can run wild.

As a political ideolgy what your saying is fine. And in a perfect world where everyone had the oppotunties you've probably had it would work, but we live in a world full of explotation and some people have an unfair advantage. You cannot take away the minimum wage unless you want multi-nationals to pay third world wages to their "expendable" employees because they'll pay top notch to their R & D people but what about their people on the shop floor, their cleaners their secretaries. Do these people not deserve a fair wage?

Your idea seems to be, you work hard you do well. But it doesn't work like that.

 

[AliasHombre]

You're right, there is lots of exploitation that enslaves poor people, as does government assistance.

I never, ever had my parents help me with my homework


By eliminating the minimun wage (coupled with cracking down on illegals) we empower the people to essentially set their own wages by forcing employers to hire them by banding together. Yes I said it, unionize. Wages up=prices up=no loss of profit.

No, I believe that what I eventually earn in life is rightfully mine and only I can decide what i do with what I have. No one can use my taxes and redistribute it unevenly. If I want to help someone, I will give to a charity.