E - e - e - e - e - e - xcellent...

[WilliamPitt]

An estate tax deal Montgomery Burns would be proud of
Posted by Jesse Singal
December 7, 2010 01:36 PM

A really awful estate tax compromise sits amid the various proposals that constitute President Obama's deal with the GOP.

This year, you may recall, is estate-tax-free, which could be bad news for Grandpa in certain cases. But assuming everything in the deal currently under discussion is passed, next year the estate tax's exemption levels will be set at $5 million and $10 million for single people and married couples, respectively, with a flat rate of 35 percent. This means that the heirs of a rich married couple will be able to inherit up to $10 million before the estate tax kick in at all, and that an inheritance of $11 million would bring an estate tax of just $350,000 (since only the top $1 million would be taxed).

These are higher exemptions and lower rates than those contained in President Obama's preferred estate tax proposal ($3.5/$7.0 million with graduated rates that max out at 45 percent) — which was itself probably too generous given the nation's dire financial straits.

(snip)

More fundamentally, at a time of such economic difficulty and when everyone claims to be concerned about the long-term deficit, I would love to hear a politician explain why, say, $5 million just isn't enough for an heir to be able to inherit tax-free.

The rest: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2010/12/an_estate_tax_deal.html?p1=News_links

[Major Hogwash]

1. Hating the rich, after they die, is not a family value that Democrats should embrace.

An estate tax is not fair to the families that have worked for generations to make something of their business.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Never has a post so befitted a username. n/t

[donheld]

5. +10000

[Lorien]

6. So true. nt

[elocs]

9. I thought the same when I read it: Major Hogwash. n/t

[Smashcut]

3. Wow...how do you call yourself a Democrat?

Am I in the right party?

[TBF]

17. DLC wing. Vastly different from original party. nt

[tinrobot]

4. Paris Hilton worked sooooooo hard....

[tavalon]

7. Don't particularly hate them,

just don't think they should be so selfish.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Yes, like Paris Hilton. Why should she pay so some old man can eat?

[neverforget]

12. Their dependents worked so hard for their parents money.

:eyes:

[patrice]

13. and how do we go about separating that money for which they worked from the money that sucks up more

money by its shear critical mass and no or little work commensurate with it's rate of growth?

[WilliamPitt]

14. Derp.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Why should I hate them less after they're dead? n/t

[zeos3]

16. It's not a matter of hate and it IS fair.

The generations that earned the wealth enjoyed it and put it to use. Because there is a transaction involved, (the transfer of assets from one person to another) the tax is fair. If a parent buys and holds an asset for $1 and it is valued at $100 at the time of transfer, shouldn't that gain be taxed? It would if the parent cashed in the asset.

We're talking about millions of dollars here. You'll find there's little sympathy for those who shout "UNFAIR" at a tax rate of 35% on MILLIONS. Hell, you'd pay more taxes if you won the lottery. Why should winning the birth canal lottery be different?

[Dawson Leery]

19. Steve Forbes earned his fortune alright.

:eyes:

[midnight]

10. K&R...

[Reacher]

11. I would love to hear a politician justify any inheritance at all

My experience with the 2nd and 3rd generations and trust fund babies is that they are mostly dilettantes and couldn't create anything on their own if you gave them a pile of money and pointed the way.

Un-concentrate the worlds wealth and allow individuals to succeed or fail on their own.

[MiniMe]

18. It's bad news for Grandpa because he would be dead

No good news for Grandpa at all in that case.