PDA

View Full Version : Myths about the estate tax



Qtec
12-17-2010, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Wall Street Journal Bemoans $150 Million, 600 Employee ‘Small Business’ Facing The Estate Tax

Our guest blogger is Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform for the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Doing What Works project.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">One of the enduring myths of American politics is that the estate tax falls hardest on small businesses and family farms, forcing them to sell their farms and businesses to pay the tax.</span></span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>It’s not true, and has never been true.</u></span> <u>Nonetheless, newspaper reporters have scoured the land for many years, searching in vain for families forced to sell small businesses or family farms due to the estate tax.</u>

Now that Congress seems poised to eviscerate the estate tax, the task of finding these mythical estate tax victims is going to be even harder. The tax cut compromise moving through Congress would exempt all estates with assets valued at under $5 million and $10 million for couples.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> With the exemption raised to these levels, only the largest 3,600 estates in the country will pay any estate tax; the other 99.86 percent of estates will be entirely exempt.</span>

Yet it appears that no matter how much Congress slashes the estate tax, the Wall Street Journal will continue to send its reporters in search of the “small businesses” that are going to be devastated by the tax. A Journal story today carries the headline, “For Family-Run Small Businesses, Estate-Tax Uncertainty Adds Cost.”

Has the Journal actually found a small business that will suffer under the weight of the estate tax? Not quite. The story profiles a wealthy Arkansas man who owns a lumber business, forest land, and five mills that are currently valued “between $30 million and $50 million apiece.” This is the Journal’s only example of the “small businesses” faced with uncertainty under the new estate tax regime.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Does a business with 600 employees that is worth more than $150 million fit within the definition of “small business</span>”? Only if you’re the Wall Street Journal publishing a story about who pays the estate tax, and you need a sympathy-inducing headline.

Estimates by the Tax Policy Center show that only fifty small farm and business owners in the entire country will pay any estate tax next year under the new framework, and they would pay an average rate of just 7.4 percent. If they actually exist, these fifty farms and businesses can probably avoid the tax altogether with only a little bit of estate planning — and so can many estates well in excess of $5 million.

According to the Journal, the $5 million exemption “won’t apply” to the lumber mill owner “because the value of the mills is so high.” Actually, the $5 million or $10 million exemption applies to all estates, and only the value above that level will be taxed.

With the tax legislation nearing passage in Congress, the estate tax is all but dead. It appears, however, that on the pages of the Wall Street Journal the small business myth is as alive as ever</div></div>

ie, GOP takes the country hostage for the top 0.14% (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/wsj-estate-tax/)

Q

LWW
12-17-2010, 05:18 AM
What's amazing is that the left can implement tax policy which forces the family farm and the family small business to be sold off to megafarms and transcontinental corporations in order to pay the death tax ... and then turn around and start pointing fingers in every direction trying to blame capitalism for forcing the family farm and the family small business to be sold off to megafarms and transcontinental corporations.

LWW

Qtec
12-17-2010, 05:28 AM
What's amazing is is your ability to ignore the truth.

another link (http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>more than 99.7 percent of estates owe no estate tax at all, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center.</span> Among the few estates that owe any
tax, the "effective" tax rate — that is, the percentage of the estate’s value that is paid in taxes — is less than 20 percent on average. That is far below the top estate tax rate of 45 percent </div></div>


Q

Qtec
12-17-2010, 05:29 AM
Give us a few examples.

Q

LWW
12-17-2010, 05:48 AM
Ask POLITIFACT. (http://www.cleveland.com/)

LWW

Qtec
12-17-2010, 06:29 AM
Your link was to cleveland.com!

I checked Politifact, so read it for yourself.

i just did (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/14/bernie-s/sen-bernie-sanders-says-997-american-families-woul/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, sent out a message via Twitter on Dec. 13, 2010, saying that under the estate tax plan, "99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich."

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Sanders is correct.</span>

<span style="color: #990000">The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 99.7 percent of estates were exempt from the estate tax in 2009 when the first $3.5 million of an estate was exempt. Even fewer people would be subject to the tax if the threshold is increased to $5 million, as proposed in the compromise tax plan.</span>

Under the compromise plan, less than 2/10 of 1 percent of estates would be subject to the estate tax next year, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>That means more than 99.8 percent would be completely exempt.</span>

The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 3,600 estates would be subject to the tax under the $5 million threshold. Those 3,600 estates would have to pay an estimated $11.4 billion in estate taxes under the compromise tax plan.

Estate tax rates have fluctuated through modern history. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a plan to gradually reduce the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent, while at the same time increasing the exemption value from $1 million in 2002 to $3.5 million in 2009. The estate tax disappeared altogether in 2010.

But the Bush plan only had a 10-year window because Republicans didn't have the votes at the time to permanently abolish the estate tax. It passed the Senate under budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes but which also limited it to a 10-year shelf life. Barring a new tax agreement, the rate was set to revert next year to a 55 percent rate with an effective exemption of $1 million.



<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Sanders was correct that in 2009, when the effective exemption was $3.5 million, about 99.7 percent of all estates were exempt and didn't pay anything. The compromise plan -- which would set effective exemption at $5 million -- would push the number of exempted estates even higher, so that more than 99.8 percent of estates would not pay anything. We rate Sanders' comment True.</span> </div></div>

Q

Qtec
12-17-2010, 06:30 AM
I asked you.

Q

LWW
12-17-2010, 07:02 AM
HERE YOU GO. (http://politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/dec/09/jim-zehringer/rep-jim-zehringer-point-comment-loss-family-farms-/)

I pasted the wrong link, I was reading up on the death of Injuns great Bob Feller.

LWW

eg8r
12-17-2010, 09:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It’s not true, and has never been true. </div></div>Just because your author says so makes it true for you? It would happen a lot more if these wealthy people were dumb with their money. The funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of the wealthy (we are not including Paris Hilton here) are not dumb and start giving away their fortune to their family long before they pass away.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-17-2010, 09:27 AM
What is really telling, is the kind and extent of legal maneuvering that is required to protect one's assets from being seized by the US government!

We pay lawyers to go to Washington and they write these insane laws, and then we pay lawyers in the private sector to protect us from those same laws.

I should have gone to law school!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve

eg8r
12-17-2010, 09:42 AM
Law school and Medical school are the two highest paying careers of the wealthy in the US that are not small business owners. What is very interesting about this is that of all the overwhelming under accumulators of wealth, doctors and lawyers rank at the top. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Their careers drives some significant lifestyle choices that do not allow them to generate much wealth. They end up spending as much or more than they make each year.

eg8r

llotter
12-17-2010, 10:23 AM
The ONLY reason for an estate tax is for redistribution purposes and that is simply not a constitutional function of our federal government. Redistribution is a commie concept and should not be part of the American way of life.

Deeman3
12-17-2010, 04:42 PM
It is still theft of assets that have already had taxes paid on them!

Why is it more noble to steal from the wealthy?

llotter
12-17-2010, 04:47 PM
simply ask Marx; From each according to his ability.

Qtec
12-18-2010, 02:15 AM
Exactly! They can give each other $10,000,000 tax free.

The idea behind the estate tax is that its good for the economy, and the country as a whole when money circulates. Without an estate tax, the super rich would accumulate massive amounts of cash they can never spend.

Like I have said before, over the last 30 yrs there has been a wealth distribution and its all one way.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income <span style='font-size: 17pt'>since 1928 and 1929.</span> </div></div>


...but......but....the rich pay the most taxes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, <u>but only slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes</u> because of the tax rate cuts. The top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, up from 22.9 percent in 2003, <u>while the share paid by the middle fifth of taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 10 percent in 2003.</u> </div></div>

You know why it declined?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On average, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent </span>after adjusting for inflation. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.</span> </div></div>

Q

eg8r
12-18-2010, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Without an estate tax, the super rich would accumulate massive amounts of cash they can never spend.

</div></div>What gives you the right to make this decision? It is blatant theft.

eg8r

LWW
12-18-2010, 03:45 PM
That's why the left supports it.

Theft is a basic pillar of leftist politics.

LWW

Qtec
12-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Its called taxation. If you believe all taxation is theft, which most of you seem to, there is no point in discussing it.

Q,

Qtec
12-19-2010, 12:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What gives you the right to make this decision? It is blatant theft.

eg8r </div></div>

I didn't make the decision, you Govt did, years before you were born. Its not a new thing.

Q

Qtec
12-19-2010, 01:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It’s not true, and has never been true. </div></div>Just because your author says so makes it true for you? It would happen a lot more if these wealthy people were dumb with their money. The funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of the wealthy (we are not including Paris Hilton here) are not dumb and start giving away their fortune to their family long before they pass away.

eg8r </div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Talk of Lost Farms Reflects Muddle of Estate Tax Debate
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: April 8, 2001

* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Single-Page

Correction Appended

WELLSBURG, Iowa— Harlyn Riekena worried that his success would cost him when he died. Thirty-seven years ago he quit teaching to farm and over the years bought more and more of the rich black soil here in central Iowa. Now he and his wife, Karen, own 950 gently rolling acres planted in soybeans and corn.

The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.

<u>That might seem a reasonable assumption, what with all the talk in Washington about the need to repeal the estate tax to save the family farm.</u> ''To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax,'' President Bush vowed a month ago; <u>he and many others have made the point repeatedly.</u>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>But in fact the Riekenas <u>will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do,</u> according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a case in which a farm was lost because of estate taxes. ''It's a myth,'' Mr. Harl said.</span>

Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said <span style='font-size: 26pt'>it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes</span> </div></div>

link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0D8103EF93BA35757C0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=2001%20%22Almost%20no%20working%20farmers%22&st=cse)

Q

pooltchr
12-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Q.
The big difference is whether the government is imposing taxes to fundd the actual operation of the government, or if the purpose of the tax is to give it to someone else.

One is a reasonable expectation of taxes...the other is theft.

When you understand the difference, you might start to get it.

Steve

eg8r
12-19-2010, 10:43 AM
Again, simple common sense blows right over your head.

eg8r

LWW
12-19-2010, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its called taxation. If you believe all taxation is theft, which most of you seem to, there is no point in discussing it.

Q, </div></div>

Clueless as usual.

Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

We are a republic founded on the belief that every citizen is equal before the law, however the far left obviously doesn't see it that way.

If someone earns money and has paid the proper taxation on it then by any rational definition of fairness it is their money to do with as they see fit. Applying a secondary tax burden simply because someone reaches a certain plateau of wealth is discriminatory and unfair.

If their is to be an inheritance tax then let there be one on all estates.

LWW

Qtec
12-20-2010, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are a republic founded on the belief that every citizen is equal before the law </div></div>


LOL...but is it true?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tulia's witch trials
A drug sting case in a small Texas town shows how drug war paranoia can feed the fires of injustice.
By Arianna Huffington

*

As Salem was to witch-hunt hysteria, so is the little town of Tulia, Texas, to our modern version of the witch hunt, the drug war. In his classic play "The Crucible," Arthur Miller captured the way a mixture of fear, paranoia and bad laws led to a horrific miscarriage of justice in 17th century America. To explore the 21st century equivalent of this madness, someone -- David Mamet? Anna Deavere Smith? -- should dramatize what is going on in this rural community of 5,000, best known until now for its livestock auctions.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In July 1999, following an 18-month undercover sting operation, <u>43 residents of Tulia were arrested in an early-morning drug raid. Forty of them were black -- an astounding 17 percent of the town's entire African-American population of 232.</u></span>

Almost all were charged with selling small of amounts of cocaine -- worth less than $200. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But as the cases went to trial -- most without a single black on the jury -- and the convictions mounted, the sentences looked like something out of the Gulag-era Soviet Union.</span> <u>First-time offenders with no prior convictions -- a status which could have made them eligible for probation -- were locked away for more than 20 years.</u> One man with a previous drug conviction was given 435 years in prison; another got 99 years.

By the end, Tulia had become a crucible for the drug war. These were clearly not big-time drug dealers. In fact, when they were arrested, no drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns or caches of money were found. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Only a few could afford to make bail; none was able to hire a lawyer.</span> </div></div> link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/11/tulia)

Equality............rrrrrrrrrright.

LWW
12-20-2010, 05:30 AM
Why did you cut out the part that they sold to an undercover cop?

Why do you leave out that the court will provide anyone with legal counsel?

What, if anything, do you think this case has with the topic at hand?

Again ... after suffering a factual beat down you try to act as if the point was something else entirely.

LWW

Qtec
12-20-2010, 05:33 AM
You brainless moron. The whole point is that they DIDN'T sell anything to to the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>lying thieving cop.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>He made it all up!</span>

Q...do some research and get back to me when you know what you are talking about.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (CBS) Tulia, Texas is the site of what's been called one of the worst miscarriages of justice in recent memory.

It's where an undercover narcotics officer named Tom Coleman arrested 46 people - nearly all of them black - on charges of being cocaine dealers, sending many of them to prison for a total of 750 years.

As Correspondent Ed Bradley first reported last September, they were pardoned by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>after a judge accused Coleman of being a liar, thief and racist.</span></div></div>



It was the good ole boy in the Stetson and cowboy boots word [ no real evidence ] against 47 blacks and who did the white jury believe?

Chopstick
12-20-2010, 06:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are a republic founded on the belief that every citizen is equal before the law </div></div>


LOL...but is it true?

</div></div>

It was until the progressive liberals got in power shortly after the Civil War. They have been steadily tearing down the Republic ever since. You complain about the results of their successes and support them at the same time.

LWW
12-20-2010, 06:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are a republic founded on the belief that every citizen is equal before the law </div></div>


LOL...but is it true?

</div></div>

It was until the progressive liberals got in power shortly after the Civil War. They have been steadily tearing down the Republic ever since. You complain about the results of their successes and support them at the same time. </div></div>

You nailed that.

LWW