Death and taxes and both still certain.

[Arrian]

Here it's 50% on estates over $1 million, IIRC.

Thinking about it some more, I would actually much prefer it if the tax was on inheritances over a certain amount. Not the value of the estate, because an estate can be willed to one person, or divvied between 20.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

It's not 50% on the sum over 1 million.

For 2006 the total exclusion amount is 2 million, and the first 2 million over that is taxed at an increasing rate. The full 47% rate only applies to the portion of the extate over 4 million (2 million excluded, 2 million taxed at a progressive marginal rate between 18% and 45%)

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.rowbotham.com/knowledgenet/taxrates.htm

Those are for 2006, for sums over and above the exclusion amount (which is scheduled to increase to 3.5 million in 2009)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not 50% on the sum over 1 million.

For 2006 the total exclusion amount is 2 million, and the first 2 million over that is taxed at an increasing rate. The full 47% rate only applies to the portion of the extate over 4 million (2 million excluded, 2 million taxed at a progressive marginal rate between 18% and 45%)

Ok, so I didn't RC.

In my defense, I think it was recently upped (hmm, who could've done THAT?).

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, it was upped recently.

2001 tax act set a schedule for rate decreases and exemption increases.

[Arrian]

Hurray!

The exclusion rate should be set and then tied to inflation or some cost-of-living index. And the tax should be on inheritances, not estates.

There, sorted.

-Arrian

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Arrian
And the tax should be on inheritances, not estates.

What difference would that make if the tax is tied to the value of the estate? None whatsoever.
If the tax is tied to the value of the inheritance then the government will lose a fortune and so your income tax will go up. Which do you prefer? A one-off tax on those inheriting wealth, or a permanent tax on those making normal money?
Or should public services meet the tax shortfall with job cuts?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by duke o' york
What difference would that make if the tax is tied to the value of the estate? None whatsoever.
If the tax is tied to the value of the inheritance then the government will lose a fortune and so your income tax will go up. Which do you prefer? A one-off tax on those inheriting wealth, or a permanent tax on those making normal money?
Or should public services meet the tax shortfall with job cuts?

George Will once wisely observed that...
If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
If you tax something, you get less of it.

We should minimize taxes on earned income, so people go out an earn more income.
We should tax death more, so people stop doing it.

Besides, dead people can't vote you out of office except in Chicago of course.

[Dis]

tax the rich, feed the poor

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Dis
tax the rich, feed the poor

Dis, it would be very nice if you had more ideological consistently than a Magic 8 Ball...

In any case, poor poor Paris Hilton

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dis
tax the rich, feed the poor

til there are no rich no more

[Dis]

Originally posted by Bosh

Dis, it would be very nice if you had more ideological consistently than a Magic 8 Ball...

In any case, poor poor Paris Hilton

actually I'm just quoting lyrics to a song, I don't actually believe that (although in theory is sounds cool, but we all know how that works)

And loin got the rest of the lyrics to that line.

[Kidlicious]

I'm against the death tax. Why wait until they die?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by duke o' york


What difference would that make if the tax is tied to the value of the estate? None whatsoever.
If the tax is tied to the value of the inheritance then the government will lose a fortune and so your income tax will go up. Which do you prefer? A one-off tax on those inheriting wealth, or a permanent tax on those making normal money?
Or should public services meet the tax shortfall with job cuts?

Because there is a difference between an estate worth $5 million that is divided between 10 people (let's say equal shares) and a $5 million estate given over to 1 person.

You don't see that?

-Arrian

[duke o' york]

No, I meant that if the inheritors are made to pay tax at a rate based on the value of the entire estate then there will be no difference.
If, on the other hand, they pay tax based on the amount they actually receive, then the government lose a fortune (assuming that the rate of tax is not constant no matter how much you inherit).