ADVERTISEMENT

Who’d Gain From an Estate Tax Rollback: The 0.2 Percenters

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,418
58,905
113
17estate1-master768.jpg


Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin with his wife, Louise Linton, and new dollar bills bearing his signature on Wednesday. Last month, Mr. Mnuchin said, “Obviously, the estate tax, I will concede, disproportionately helps rich people.” Credit Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
Supporters and critics of the Republican tax bills argue over their effect on middle-class Americans, but there is one group that everyone agrees would come out ahead: the millionaires and billionaires who have to reckon with the estate tax.

As Steven Mnuchin, President Trump’s Treasury secretary, bluntly declared last month, “Obviously, the estate tax, I will concede, disproportionately helps rich people.”

As it is now, the estate tax affects a small set of wealthy Americans, applying only when someone leaves assets worth more than $5.49 million to heirs. Together, parents can leave $11 million to their children without paying a penny in estate taxes.

Last year, for example, more than 2.6 million people died in the United States. Of the estates filed with the Internal Revenue Service, 5,219 — or 0.2 percent of the total — were large enough to qualify for the tax.

The kind of households that could potentially owe money, however, include Mr. Trump’s, Mr. Mnuchin’s, and those of several cabinet members and advisers, including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Housing Secretary Ben Carson and Gary Cohn, chief of the National Economic Council.

(An analysis by the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund concluded that the estate tax repeal could save Mr. Trump’s estate more than $1 billion, and those of his cabinet members $3.5 billion.)

Mr. Trump has stated, incorrectly, that the tax is crushing “millions of small businesses and the American farmer.” In reality, only about 80 small businesses and farms would fall under the estate-tax tent this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Republicans want to shrink the numbers further. In the Senate’s proposed tax bill, exempted income would temporarily double to $11 million per person — $22 million for a couple — during the next decade.

If those rules had been imposed last year, the number of estates owing money under the tax would have been no more than 2,204 — fewer than 0.1 percent of the total.

The House bill approved Thursday goes a step further, doubling the exemption through the 2024 tax year (and indexing for inflation), but then eliminating the tax. The result is that other taxpayers would have to make up the $151 billion cost over the next decade.

Opponents of the tax say fairness is at stake. No one — including billionaires — should have their assets taxed twice, once in life and once in death, the argument goes. But the issue is less about double taxation than no taxation.

Photo
17estate2-master675.jpg


President Trump with members of his family, who could benefit from a repeal of the estate tax, at the opening ceremony for Trump International Hotel in Washington last year. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Many of the assets held by the ultrawealthy are investments that are not taxed until they are sold. Pass along these investments after you die, and your family can pretty much avoid ever paying capital gains tax on them. That’s where the estate tax comes in.

“It was a kind of imperfect substitute or surrogate for the capital-gains tax,” Wojciech Kopczuk, an economist at Columbia University, explained. “It’s a roundabout way of getting some revenue that escapes some other type of a tax.”

In the past, a reduction in the estate tax was always coupled with a plan to end the protective shell that encases inherited capital gains and keeps them from being taxed.


“What’s unusual about the current bill is that when there’s been previous efforts to cut back or repeal the estate tax, there was also an effort to change the tax on capital gains,” said Michael J. Graetz, a Treasury official in the elder President George Bush’s administration and a co-author of a book on the estate tax.

The Republicans’ repeated success in whittling away at the number of people subject to the tax is both a marvel of marketing — with its relabeling as a “death tax” — and a testament to the outsize influence of wealthy donors on policy.

The modern version has been around for more than 90 years. One of its primary advocates was not a soapbox socialist but a Republican. Theodore Roosevelt, the first 20th-century president to endorse a tax on luxe inheritances, was the son of a wealthy socialite and an industrial baron. He warned that passing vast fortunes from one generation to the next not only undermines the recipients but “is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.”

Over the past couple of decades, Republican efforts to shield more prosperous Americans from the estate tax have been increasingly successful. In 2001, estates worth more than $675,000 (nearly $1 million in today’s dollars) could be taxed at a top rate of 55 percent.

Now, the top tax rate is 40 percent of the amount exceeding $5.49 million. The effective average rate turns out to be much lower, — less than 17 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center — because of that multimillion-dollar exemption up front.

(Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have their own estate taxes, while six others have an inheritance tax, which falls on the beneficiary rather than the estate. Maryland and New Jersey have both, though New Jersey’s estate tax is scheduled for repeal on Jan. 1.)

Opponents of the tax have put a lot of money into fighting it over the years, without encountering much pushback, Mr. Graetz said, even from sectors that could be hurt by the change, like charitable organizations (since tax-deductible contributions are rendered less beneficial to rich donors) and insurance companies (whose policies become less essential to provide heirs with immediate liquidity or cash).

The repeal effort is aided by the aspirations of dreamers and strivers who imagine that they, too, might reach the estate tax threshold by the time they die.

There is still hardly any organized opposition, even though the Republican proposal “basically allows you to escape not only estate taxes but also income taxes,” Mr. Graetz said.

For the handful affected, the stakes are enormous, he said, but for everybody else, “it’s just another increase in the deficit, which doesn’t seem to rally the public.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
This proposal would allow a spoiled rich kid to pay no federal taxes for a lifetime and still live in luxury. Inherit millions in capital gains from parents. Cash out those gains. Then live on the proceeds.

You are familiar with shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves. The third gen will piss at all away anyways. This hurts estate attorneys and financial advisors for ilits.
 
This proposal would allow a spoiled rich kid to pay no federal taxes for a lifetime and still live in luxury. Inherit millions in capital gains from parents. Cash out those gains. Then live on the proceeds.

Would cashing out thise millions help the economy more than sending it to washington?
 
You are familiar with shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves. The third gen will piss at all away anyways. This hurts estate attorneys and financial advisors for ilits.

So...you're actually claiming that we should let estates pass down with no tax at all because within a few generations they will blow it all anyway. I guess the next generation of Waltons will be forced to work at Walmart then.
 
You are familiar with shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves. The third gen will piss at all away anyways. This hurts estate attorneys and financial advisors for ilits.

So...you're actually claiming that we should let estates pass down with no tax at all because within a few generations they will blow it all anyway. I guess the next generation of Waltons will be forced to work at Walmart then.

I’m just saying that the majority of wealthy families today more than likely won’t be wealthy in 100 years. They will still pay tax on earnings and will spend more than earnings annually....

I think estate taxes should not exist. Never a fan of double taxation. I know there are idiots on this board that claim it’s not double taxation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bojihawk44
I'm not going to get into a double taxation argument, because it's irrelevant. The people that fight a lower threshold on the estate tax have no sense for history and what happens when a tiny fraction of society amasses wealth and passes it on from generation to generation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
I’m just saying that the majority of wealthy families today more than likely won’t be wealthy in 100 years. They will still pay tax on earnings and will spend more than earnings annually....

I think estate taxes should not exist. Never a fan of double taxation. I know there are idiots on this board that claim it’s not double taxation.

I'm not sure you understand what's happening here. They're doing away with the estate tax AND keeping the step up in basis. That means the kid inherits the goodies at their current value. The parents own stock they bought at $10M that they sell for $40M...they owe capital gains taxes on the $30M appreciated value. They croak and pass it down to Jr...he gets it at $40M and could sell it that day walking away with the full $40M - that's $30M that was never....ever...taxed. Double taxation isn't even a concern here.
 
I'm not sure you understand what's happening here. They're doing away with the estate tax AND keeping the step up in basis. That means the kid inherits the goodies at their current value. The parents own stock they bought at $10M that they sell for $40M...they owe capital gains taxes on the $30M appreciated value. They croak and pass it down to Jr...he gets it at $40M and could sell it that day walking away with the full $40M - that's $30M that was never....ever...taxed. Double taxation isn't even a concern here.

If they sell it as you stated they still have to pay capital gains taxes on it, even if they die the next day
 
This proposal would allow a spoiled rich kid to pay no federal taxes for a lifetime and still live in luxury. Inherit millions in capital gains from parents. Cash out those gains. Then live on the proceeds.

So? His parents earned the money. The paid taxes on those earnings. If their desire is that money be spent on providing their child with a life of leisure, so be it.
 
So? His parents earned the money. The paid taxes on those earnings. If their desire is that money be spent on providing their child with a life of leisure, so be it.
Right. The parents earned the money. Not the kids. So since it's brand new money to them, they should have to pay taxes on it.
 
I'm not sure you understand what's happening here. They're doing away with the estate tax AND keeping the step up in basis. That means the kid inherits the goodies at their current value. The parents own stock they bought at $10M that they sell for $40M...they owe capital gains taxes on the $30M appreciated value. They croak and pass it down to Jr...he gets it at $40M and could sell it that day walking away with the full $40M - that's $30M that was never....ever...taxed. Double taxation isn't even a concern here.

This is the part of the estate tax provision that I hate. I've never been a fan of the estate tax and maybe we can address that in another thread, but the way to get rid of it is to get rid of the tax and get rid of the step-up. If my parents have $X amount of stock that they bought for 1/20th current price a couple decades ago and they die, I should pay the same gains when I cash it out that they would have. All income/gains that are subject to tax should be taxed, but I'd much prefer to do it this way.
 
If they sell it as you stated they still have to pay capital gains taxes on it, even if they die the next day
Umm...what? The parent sells the day before they die, they pay taxes on the capital gain. They die and leave it to their kid, the kid can sell it and pay no taxes at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TunzaHawk
Umm...what? The parent sells the day before they die, they pay taxes on the capital gain. They die and leave it to their kid, the kid can sell it and pay no taxes at all.

People in this country have no idea how these things work. Most people think if they inherit $150k from their parents they will be estate taxes. So you can imagine how few understand the step up.
 
This is the part of the estate tax provision that I hate. I've never been a fan of the estate tax and maybe we can address that in another thread, but the way to get rid of it is to get rid of the tax and get rid of the step-up. If my parents have $X amount of stock that they bought for 1/20th current price a couple decades ago and they die, I should pay the same gains when I cash it out that they would have. All income/gains that are subject to tax should be taxed, but I'd much prefer to do it this way.

Here's the problem. Your solution provides a big gain to the ultra-rich, and a big (massive) lost to the less-than-massive-rich. In my above post, some cubicle-dweller inherits a modest $150k in stocks from daddy and they get the full $150k. Without the step-up they'll have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.

I'd rather just get rid of the estate tax so people stop complaining about it. It doesn't bring in much revenue, and people with that large of an estate can afford to find ways to avoid it any way.
 
Right. The parents earned the money. Not the kids. So since it's brand new money to them, they should have to pay taxes on it.
No they shouldn't. Why do you want to steal that money from the family? We have no right to it.
 
No they shouldn't. Why do you want to steal that money from the family? We have no right to it.

I’ve earned money at my job. Why should I pay taxes on it? Why should I pay sales tax? Why should I pay property tax? In. The end, why should estate taxes be different?

And taxes are not stealing. Another lie by the dishonest right. Your elected representatives chose to allocate a certain amount of funding for services. The way it should work is that an appropriate level of taxes are levied to pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Right. The parents earned the money. Not the kids. So since it's brand new money to them, they should have to pay taxes on it.

That is idiotic. Again, I’d the parents that earned the money want the kids to have it, that is none of the governments business.
 
Here's the problem. Your solution provides a big gain to the ultra-rich, and a big (massive) lost to the less-than-massive-rich. In my above post, some cubicle-dweller inherits a modest $150k in stocks from daddy and they get the full $150k. Without the step-up they'll have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.

I'd rather just get rid of the estate tax so people stop complaining about it. It doesn't bring in much revenue, and people with that large of an estate can afford to find ways to avoid it any way.

I really don't see the big issue here. You only pay tax when you liquidate, so you only pay taxes out of gains. If daddy leaves $150k in stocks, I don't inherit $150k, I inherit $150k in stocks with paper gains/losses. Tax is owed on any gains. It's not really going to "cost" me anything I had before the inheritance.
 
Umm...what? The parent sells the day before they die, they pay taxes on the capital gain. They die and leave it to their kid, the kid can sell it and pay no taxes at all.

That is not what you said you said it was never ever taxed. Now you are saying it is so which is it. Plus if the parents already sold the stock the kids can’t sell it again
 
Here's the problem. Your solution provides a big gain to the ultra-rich, and a big (massive) lost to the less-than-massive-rich. In my above post, some cubicle-dweller inherits a modest $150k in stocks from daddy and they get the full $150k. Without the step-up they'll have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.

I'd rather just get rid of the estate tax so people stop complaining about it. It doesn't bring in much revenue, and people with that large of an estate can afford to find ways to avoid it any way.

I really don't see the big issue here. You only pay tax when you liquidate, so you only pay taxes out of gains. If daddy leaves $150k in stocks, I don't inherit $150k, I inherit $150k in stocks with paper gains/losses. Tax is owed on any gains. It's not really going to "cost" me anything I had before the inheritance.

It's going to cost you vs what you have under existing law.
 
It's going to cost you vs what you have under existing law.

That's not a big problem to me. Things like dividends and what not will be taxed based on my bracket, so it works out just like income tax.
 
That is not what you said you said it was never ever taxed. Now you are saying it is so which is it. Plus if the parents already sold the stock the kids can’t sell it again
JFC...IF the step up is still allowed the kid who inherits it gets it at the market value the day the parent died. All appreciation gets wiped out. They could sell it THAT DAY and the capital gains tax would be zero. This isn’t that hard to understand.
 
It's going to cost you vs what you have under existing law.

That's not a big problem to me. Things like dividends and what not will be taxed based on my bracket, so it works out just like income tax.

That makes no sense. Let's consider the house. Today, if you inherit a $160,000 house you can sell it and pay zero in taxes. If we eliminate the step up, and you're in the 25% bracket, you'd pay $40k in taxes. That's a $40k hit to Average Joe.
 
That makes no sense. Let's consider the house. Today, if you inherit a $160,000 house you can sell it and pay zero in taxes. If we eliminate the step up, and you're in the 25% bracket, you'd pay $40k in taxes. That's a $40k hit to Average Joe.

What? Average Joe wouldn't pay $40k, that's ridiculous. Joe picks up the original step-up. If parents bought the house in the 90s for $80k, then he'd pay tax on the $80k in gains, not the $160k sale price. The step-up today gives the heir the current market value as the basis, not the original basis price the decedent paid.

I want to get rid of the estate tax and simply keep the original basis rather than the step-up. For things like homes, I'd be ok extending the "primary residence" aspect of a sale to allow a post-death sale to bypass gains taxes on the first $250k/$500k on a house if the heirs sell the house within a set period of time of the estate closing (again, this is what mom &/or dad would have had if they sold the day before death).
 
That is idiotic. Again, I’d the parents that earned the money want the kids to have it, that is none of the governments business.

That same flawed logic could be applied to any government taxation. The parents earned the money, not the kids - and just like any other money that the kids get, they should be paying taxes on it. This idea that money should flow from generation to generation without taxes being paid on it is extraordinarily detrimental to democracy
 
What? Average Joe wouldn't pay $40k, that's ridiculous. Joe picks up the original step-up. If parents bought the house in the 90s for $80k, then he'd pay tax on the $80k in gains, not the $160k sale price. The step-up today gives the heir the current market value as the basis, not the original basis price the decedent paid.

I want to get rid of the estate tax and simply keep the original basis rather than the step-up. For things like homes, I'd be ok extending the "primary residence" aspect of a sale to allow a post-death sale to bypass gains taxes on the first $250k/$500k on a house if the heirs sell the house within a set period of time of the estate closing (again, this is what mom &/or dad would have had if they sold the day before death).

Okay, my bad. So they would only pay $20k. But that's still a massive increase from today. Anyway you look at it, eliminating the step up is a HUGE increase in tax on the middle class. Simultaneously, eliminating the estate tax is a HUGE cut for the wealthy.

Just get rid of the estate tax so the Right can't keep making political hay out of an insignificant amount of money.
 
That same flawed logic could be applied to any government taxation. The parents earned the money, not the kids - and just like any other money that the kids get, they should be paying taxes on it. This idea that money should flow from generation to generation without taxes being paid on it is extraordinarily detrimental to democracy

Detrimental to democracy? How so?
 
Some people don't understand tax...

Current law: parent buys property for $50k and it rises in value to $1M. No taxes owed on $950k of gains as they accrue. Parent dies, leaves asset to kid. Kid has no income on receipt (social policy through Code), AND can sell it without any gains. $950k of value never gets taxed. Ever.
 
Okay, my bad. So they would only pay $20k. But that's still a massive increase from today. Anyway you look at it, eliminating the step up is a HUGE increase in tax on the middle class. Simultaneously, eliminating the estate tax is a HUGE cut for the wealthy.

Just get rid of the estate tax so the Right can't keep making political hay out of an insignificant amount of money.

I see where you're coming from, I'm just one who believes that there is legitimate tax to be had on economic activity.....and, really, for the tax year when you sell the house and take the gains, you're not someone making a middle class income, you're someone making a middle class income plus $80k. The next year, you're right back where you were and the "tax increase" only came out of what basically amounts to found money. I think it's pretty fair.
 
Joe said if the kid sells the stocks the day they inherit it they currently pay no taxes. You said

"If they sell it as you stated they still have to pay capital gains taxes on it"

No, they don't.

I was talking about the parents
 
I was talking about the parents

????

Then why were you disagreeing with Tar? He said that in his post. Which part of this did you disagree with?

"The parents own stock they bought at $10M that they sell for $40M...they owe capital gains taxes on the $30M appreciatedvalue. They croak and pass it down to Jr...he gets it at $40M and could sell it that day walking away with the full $40M - that's $30M that wasnever....ever...taxed. Double taxation isn't even a concern here."
 
????

Then why were you disagreeing with Tar? He said that in his post. Which part of this did you disagree with?

"The parents own stock they bought at $10M that they sell for $40M...they owe capital gains taxes on the $30M appreciatedvalue. They croak and pass it down to Jr...he gets it at $40M and could sell it that day walking away with the full $40M - that's $30M that wasnever....ever...taxed. Double taxation isn't even a concern here."

The part where he said that the 30 million was never taxed, it was.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT