I too work in the life insurance industry, in that I hold an IL life/health/variable contracts license. IMO, anyone dumb enough to encounter the estate tax deserves to pay it. There are so many loopholes [ILITs, or other types of trusts are but one option out of many] that this purported "death tax" doesn't even exist, if you know how to plan for it. What's even more disturbing is the huge numbers of mouthbreathing morons that believe that they will ever encounter estate taxes. This, brought on by the GOP's consistent misdirection in their ads. [The average estate in the US is well below a $500k mark; Well below the threshold for an estate tax.] As an aside, I had always understood that the Founding Fathers put in an estate tax to prevent any one wealthy family from dominating the democracy. That is, to avoid what we see in 3rd World Countries: The Marcoses of the Philippines have untold Billions in ill-gotten wealth. Despite this family's nefarious(sp.) history, their money has swept several of Ferdinand's kids into power. It is this generational wealth that has continued the Marcoses places in power. And it is this type of government-protected corruption that prevents the Philippines from taking its proper place among the nations. Agreed. The "estate" tax should be more appropriately re-named the "lucky sperm" tax. Because only the extremely well-to-do [that lack the financial erudition] will ever pay this.
Some unpleasant facts to chew on for our erstwhile liberal invaders here in Bill Archer land. To wit: --Ned Lamont (you know, the rich capitalist running solely against the war) lost. Lost big. To the guy who the nutroots LOVE to hate. So Uncle Joe is back for another six years. Awww.... --I want you all to read this phrase carefully, moving your lips as you are all wont to do: Blue Dog Democrats. Or DINOS. New guys like Heath Schuler. Or old mainstays like Melissa Bean (take a gander at her website: aside from the fact that its main color is red, the site NEVER uses the phrase "Democratic Party.") This is the crew that is going to wield the influence -- you know gun-totin', tax-cut lovin', anti gay-marriage, voted for the war CONSERVATIVE Democrats. --In 1994, when the Republicans won, they won big in their districts. Peruse the vote totals this time. The margins were small, infinitesimal even. Go here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/House.html and click on the dark blue squares that were Democratic house seat gains. Of the 27 seats the Dems took according to the NYT website, 12 were by margins of 3% or less. More than half had differences that were within the margin of error. I wouldn't be surprised that if you tallied up the vote differences in the most hotly competitive seats, you'd be looking at a mere 50,000 votes ACROSS THE NATION that swung the House to the DEMS. So, enjoy your victory. But keep in mind this one fact: the American public didn't hire the Democrats: it FIRED the Republicans. It appears now that the American public can just as easily FIRE them the next time around.
For us much as y'all accuse us of calling Reeps red-necks and stupid, this is overbearingly "father knows best" and equally condescending. Which has been the Republican attitude -- dare I say platform -- for 5 years. Daddy didn't know best. This attitude is precisely what lost y'all the House und Senate.
Step up basis works like this: Your parents buy their house for $50K in 1975. The house is worth $500K in 2050. If they sell in 2050, they will have $500K-$50K=$450K of capital gains, on which they will be taxed, because their basis in the investment is $50K. If they choose to leave it to you in their will, however, you will inherit it and its basis will be its current value (i.e. it will "step up" in basis to its current market value). Therefore, if you were to sell it in 2051, you would have $0 taxable income, because your realization - basis would be $500K - $500K. The reason for the estate tax, logically, was to correct this loophole. (Or, if you prefer, vice versa.) If we eliminate the estate tax, there is absolutely no reason for step up basis - you should just take the asset with your parents' basis. (Note - because capital assets are only taxed at realization, you would never run into the problem of not having enough money to pay these particular taxes - you'd have to sell the asset first and the tax, by definition, would only be part of that sale.) I hope that made sense.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Its not double taxation. The estate tax catches unrealized gains on assets, which aren't taxed, since we have a realization based capital markets scheme. It depends on the math as to whether or not its double taxation. (Although, you could, of course, have the same assets taxed repeatedly through generations, which would make it double taxation in that sense.)
I'll be damned, it's true - a spoonful of sugar really does help the medicine go down. This is the part on Sprockets when we dance.
Well, yeah, there the ones with the most to lose if democracy takes hold in the Middle East, hence their support of the "Insurgency". Well, them and the DNC...
Step-up basis. So your parents live to be 100? What about the 500k home-sale exemption? http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=105042,00.html
Only a idiot brain dead lib like you can fail to see the difference between sugar and the facts. Then again your stupidity and lack of understanding of reality continue to plumb new depths. = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697_pf.html Emphases mine. In other words, Emmanel and the DLC types are not going to let IQ challenged deranged idiots like....I dunno....lemme see...OH yeah!... like Claybrain ( who brings new meaning to the word "knucklehead") dominate the Democratic Party. And the Kossacks. And they guys that went orgasmic over Lamont. Mental deficients. Like YOU!! Do us all a really big favor, will ya? Go back over to your playpen echo chamber P &CE forum, and leave alone the adults over here who actually think straight. God, you are a complete dunce. Go away. Shoo. Shoo.
You're the only person I've ever met who can be as smug in defeat as he is in victory. Several of the GOP victories were by similar margins. Furthermore, your analysis fails to account for the fact that Democrats won in spite of heavy gerrymandering. Face it: YOU and your ROCK-RIBBED REPUBLICAN moutbreathers are OUT OF TOUCH! This is why you LOST and will KEEP LOSING elections! (I'm kidding. I don't actually believe that . . . unlike a certain poster here who believed that the tide would never again change to favor the other side of the political aisle.)
Partial agreement with the first sentence; complete disagreement with the second... give Pelosi's San Francisan liberalism a two-year spin and by 2008 America itself will be in deperate search for any candidate who even mentions morality... Pelosi is simply an enema we all need from time to time.
My capacity to be smug pales in comparison to others. The point I made, and it is absolutely irrefutable, and YOU know it, is that the Dems who put that party in power are largely Dems who have a number of conservative, Republican-like positions. Right? Do YOU, Mr. Liberal Bo, dispute that? No, you simply can't. Look, the Dems have crossed the Rubicon, and they have serious litmus tests facing them. Is this going to be the Party in Power that anoints the sensible, serious adult yet Bush-critical Jane Harman to the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Commitee? Or taps the corrupt, bribe taking, impeached and convicted Alcee Hastings (or, in other words, Pelosi payback to the Black Caucus?) We'll learn a lot. Fast.
What boggles my mind is Liberman. Sure, he will caucus with the Dems. And on 80% of the issues, he is quite left. But on the 20% that involve national security, he's been well over that "middle" bar. Which means, on certain issues, the Dems don't have control. The tie (if there is a tie) will be broken by Cheney. Joe doesn't owe the Dems anything after what happened with Lamont, and I think he knows where his support came from. Personally....I am just happy that Kilroy went down to Pryce in my district. Kilroy is an ultra-leftist...if she were closer to the center, she probably would have won. (Disclaimer, Kilroy has not admitted defeat due to absentee and provisional ballots, but must make up approx 3400 votes on approx 15000 votes cast). I knew the House was lost but I didn't want the house to lose such a high ranking woman who has done very well for us on local issues. Remember when the house was based on local issues? Credit where credit is due...the Dems made the house vote a national issue referendum rather than local issue based. If it were local, Pryce would have won without a concern.
The Democrats won because they ran the right candidates in the right areas, and they (meaning Dean) took the fight to every part of the country, instead of repeating the 2004 mistake of focusing on swing states and strongholds. Will this work again in 2008? Your guess is as good as mine. However, it worked at least in part this time because Democrats were able to emphasize that their Republicans counterparts served the president first and the constituents second (i.e., they made the "rubber stamp" argument). Look, the Democratic Party has always been a big tent party. They have always accomodated (sometimes more than others) more liberal and more conservative members. According to David Brooks, the Republicans attempted to turn their party into a brand starting around 1994, and now they're suffering the consequences. What annoys me more than anything right now is that your heroes in the right-wing press have spent the last week complaining about Nancy Pelosi's imaginary agenda and neglected to note that she made concrete proposals for the "first 100 hours" of Democrat control--and those proposals adhere to the middle of the street. Pelosi herself may be quite liberal, but the notion that she's going to attempt to force "San Francisco values" on Iowans and Nebraskans is absolutely ridiculous.
Re: Step-up basis. I was using bojendyk's parents and one would hope everyone's do. As for the exemption, it doesn't apply to a step up basis. Its a different concept. There's no sale here, necessarily.