$10 million estate tax free?

From the WSJ:

Talks revolve around a proposal from Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) that would exempt $5 million per individual from the estate tax, or $10 million per couple, with the rest taxed at a graduated rate. Estates smaller than $30 million would be taxed at the capital-gains rate, or 15% today. The portion of estates above $30 million would be subject to a 30% tax rate.

What am I missing? Since when are $10 million is a norm?

Given inflation, retirement accounts based on the stock market, and the assumption that property is going to continue to go through the roof, it's not impossible to see that a young family today with two professional people could accumulate $10 million in assets by the time they are stuffed into the recycler.

it's also not impossible to assume that their children could afford to pay taxes on this when they receive it.

so that by the time that young family does leave this world, the $2 million exemption today will be worth $10. But if we start with $10 today what will it be in 30-40 years? $500?

I hear that many middle class families are hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax, mostly those in high tax states like... New York.

So if Congress want to help tax payers, why not index the ATM, as well as the ceiling on estate exemption?

But if the ATM hit more blue staters and the estate tax the red ones..

Right after Congress indexes the minimum wage to the rate of inflation.

Deal? Or no deal?

But I'd like to see if Congress evinces quite as much concern about the most economically distressed 25% of the population as it does for the poor, beleaguered top 1%.

And yes, I already know what the answer to that is. After all, it's the GOP that runs the show right now.

the 99% at the bottom. Cuz when you look at the current wealth distribution, the bottom 99% are dirt poor by comparison.

is giving to the rich about 80% of the cost of total repeal.

The current problems with the tax are (a) it's not indexed for inflation (b) the exemptions are consequently too low and (c) the rates kick in far too fast, too high.

for a lot more that 20 pieces of silver. :The Democratic Party as structured today is dead and will be buried after the next two election cycles. When RFK,jr said that the corporations control 95% of repukes and 75% of dems he was being very honest and candid in dealing with an American public that refuses to listen or accept this sad reality.

10 million seems a bit high, but maybe isn't unreasonable for reasons already cited.

I'd be happier with 5 as a start and then an index to inflation.

No taxes on estates below that size (whatever 'that size' is finally agreed to)

From the minimum to 20 million (25?, whatever), tax it at the rate of ordinary income, not capital gains. Above that, tax it at draconian rates ... like 80%. No sliding scale. Ordinary income rate to a certain number and then straight to the draconian.

This will allow for some retention of wealth while working hard and effectively to reduce the **disparity** of wealth.

I would also be willing to listen to ideas that allow for some consideration of an asset that also provides jobs (a business) but have NO idea what the implications of that might be.

I am far, far, far less concerned with what might seem to be wealth at low levels than I am with the unbearable disparity of wealth. NO one *needs* an estate of a half billion or a billion.

I also disagree strongly with the Marxists who want all estates taxed. Cases can be argued to demonstrate how wonderful that is, but in this country, with our history, it is simply .... well .... Un American. It will never, ever, ever, fly. And a preemptive 'fuck you' to anyone who disagrees with me on this particular concept and this particular part of the debate. Inheritance of small estates is NOT evil. I'm usually more than willing to listen to any and all ideas, but over the last few days I am apalled at the attitude of some on this specific concept. Your attitude is hard on the opposite view, fine. Mine is hard on ths side of the argument. Don't even bother to debate it. I'm happy to talk about the 'how' but not the 'what'. Estates have always been passed down and always will be. To argue against it in as personal a manner as I have seen over the last few days is completely counterproductive and serves no purpose than to show ignorance of or disdain for reality. To say nothing of those with whom you disagree.

Of every 200 people who die in the United States this year, only one will owe any estate tax. That's because Congress has gradually raised the exemption so that estates of less than $2 million ($4 million for a couple) now pass tax-free.

The Congressional Budget Office studied this question (selling the family farm or family business to pay estate taxes) last year and found that, at current rates, only 123 farm families and 135 family businesses would owe any estate tax in a typical year. When the New York Times examined the issue recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation could not name one family that had to sell the farm to pay estate taxes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=215358

That's common knowledge.

My point is that when the current thing expires it goes back to $600K and many seem to think that's just dandy. It isn't. I'm not in any way, sahpe or form in favor of eliminating it and I am very much an advocate of raising the top rate a draconian 80%. My issue is finding a reasonable cap.

The Marxists among us want the cap at zero. And that's simply a non starter, politically.

I don't think that the $2 million tax free inheritance will expire.

And I do agree with you that some wealth should be tax free and I think that $2 million, index for inflation, is plenty.

The estate tax (what the pubbies call the 'death tax') provisions in the tax code are set to expire in a few years and will revert back to what they were, which is, if I am not mistaken, $600,000 tax free and then all above that is taxed at various rates.

My point is that $600,000 is woefully low and unrealistic, while eliminating the tax entirely is a break to the uberrich. There needs to be a reasonable compromise.

The arguments we hear right now seem to start with the tax exempt point as it stands *today*. And that's very short sighted. The whole fucking issue was calculated to be a divisive issue that kicks in ..... when? Why just in the lead-up to the 08 presidential races.

This whole thing is FAR more about Republican divisive politics than about reason and fairness. And it is working ..... oh man, is it working. While the pubbies are out there flailing and braying about the 'death tax', some people on our side are rushing up to be counted among those who hate the 'rich' ...... and seeing as rich anyone who makes or has a dime more than the national averages .... or whatever their worldview sez is 'too wealthy'.

There is FAR more in common between a person with little and a person who has a net worth of a (yes, meager) couple of million than between that same person with a couple of million and Paris Hilton or Bill Gates.

Capping tax free estates at some reasonable number (whatever it is .... $2M .... $5M ..... $10M) is FAR better a solution, economically, than eliminating it. Keeping the cap as reasonable on the *high* side is FAR less divisive than calling for no expemtion.

(I am making up the following numbers just to make a point)

If we cap the tax free estate exemption at, say, $5M, then we include 99% of the American public, but only 30%? 40%? 20%? of American wealth. The majority of the wealth is held by a VERY small group at the top of the scale. My view is that we ought to find that line and apply the tax **heavily** to just that top group and then further divide that group into the ultra rich (from the cap to, say $20M or $30M) and the obscenely rich (from, say $30M to the top, which in far too many cases is in the **billions**). I'd like to see the mid rate (from the tax free cap to ... whatever .... $30M have the estates taxed as ordinary income and have the top group taxed at a VERY draconian 80%.

Who could **possibly** argue credibly against a VERY heavy tax on 0.5% of the population and a tax *elimination* on 98% of the population, with a few people in between the 98% and the top 0.5%?

Instead, what we see is some on our side calling anyone who even wants to pass on their life savings to their kids as rich, selfish, fat cat types. And that plays RIGHT into the pubbie's hands by dividing even hard core dems on this very emotional issue. I would bet a lot that if it came to a choice between one party that wanted to eliminate all estate taxes (R) and another party that wanted to eliminate any *exemptions* for estate taxes (D), the overwhelming majority of ALL citizens would vote to have no taxes. And *that* tells me we're far better served by finding a reasonable solution that includes 98% of the people and contrast that aginst the party that wants to give a tax break to the top 2% who hold 60% of all wealth in the country.

look back on the topic of this thread ...... the estate tax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2331207#2331233

They're playing our side like a fucking fiddle and we're falling right in line.

And I bet theres' some HF interns enjoying the hell out of these threads.

of low post count posters playing the games and fanning the flames.

Can you say 'Itzhak Perlman' and 'Stradivarius'?

if actual DUers believe that multimillionaires like Schwarzenegger have more in common with 100K+ a year earners do with those that make 25K a year, I'm in the wrong damn place, I guess.

Fortunately, I've seen enough intelligent debate on it to know most of us are wiser than that.

I think it was a really good compromise and it's a shame the kneejerkers on both sides killed it.