A: Obama is NOT For Eliminating The Inheritance Tax

[ihavenobias]

I just read this from an *unreliable* source. I'm hoping someone has a reliable source to confirm or deny this.

If it IS true, I'll be incredibly disheartened. I mean, the cap on the tax is already set to increase to something like $3.9 million or so if I remember correctly. We are NOT talking about people losing their farms. But we are talking about *a lot* of lost tax revenue and the only benefit of such a tax elimination would be for rich kids.

But again, hopefully someone can credibly deny this.

[geek tragedy]

1. No. Not true.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/

"Estate tax

"The estate tax applies when people leave an inheritance of more than a $2 million per individual and $4 million per couple." In 2009, that becomes $3.5 million for individual and $7 million for couples.

Essentially, that makes death tax-free for 95.5 (sic) percent of the population, he said.

"Repealing the tax would cost "one trillion dollars, with a T, one trillion dollars," he said. "The only way you can eliminate the estate tax is to make up for the trillion dollars."

Obama said there are only three options to make up the money: Borrow the money, raise taxes on 99.5 percent who don't pay the estate tax, or cut a trillion dollars of services."

[papau]

5. Obama needs to learn why there's an estate tax - the rich requested it in lieu of capital gains on

death.

Death is the only change of ownership that does not kick off a capital gains tax.

A bit surprise the lawyer Obama did not know that or if he knew chose to not mention it - indeed the estate tax repeal debate has dozens of speeches in Congress discussing this over the last 2 years.

[ihavenobias]

18. Thanks. I changed the title of the post to reflect that

and then tried to edit my original post but the editing period expired. Hopefully no one reads the original post and thinks that *I* want to eliminate the tax!

[LiberalFighter]

21. Consider this

People who receive an inheritance nominally do nothing to earn the income.

And few are subject to any inheritance tax.

[cloudythescribbler]

22. This is confusing -- WHY is this news, or does it need to be?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

2. 3.9 million is peanuts compared to hundreds of millions and billions

that the real movers and shakers have. That's not the kind of inherited wealth that leads to much power these days, but it is the kind of wealth that people work for and invest in the hopes of leaving it to their kids.

The problem with vast inherited wealth is the concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands; this isn't that kind of wealth, fortunately, but campaigning against it will have a negative effect on the democratic party. People want to believe that they can work hard, live the American dream, and get that pot of gold. It's pretty much a fantasy, but it's still their fantasy. :(

[Cant trust em]

7. I'm tired of this argument

This whole "I'm not rich, the people who make more than I do are rich" thing. True, 3.9 million dollars isn't what it used to be, but it's still a hefty chunk of change. Enough for me to buy a home in San Francisco, pay for my children's children's children to go to expensive private schools and live a very comfortable existence. It won't make us the next Rockefellers, but to talk about this like it's a pittance is wrong. 3.9 million is more than just Mom and Pop's left over nestegg that they earned their pension working at the factory.

[cali]

11. You're deceiving yourself, if you think that $4 million will

buy you a home in SF and allow you to send your children's children to expensive schools and allow you to live a comfortable life style.

And farmers and small business people do need a higher cap.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

12. Members of my family have a business worth about two million

ON PAPER. However, "the business" is supporting two siblings in an upper middle class lifestyle (and I do NOT mean rich), and a handful of employees. The business just doesn't have a lot of debt, so it looks a lot better on paper than you would think.

Doubling that? That's not as much as some here seem to think.

(And hubby and I aren't in on that business. :) )

[boston bean]

13. Yes, you know best.

It's the cali knows best forum.

:crazy:

[cali]

14. gee, it's the little petty piping petulant

MassDemm forum. Don't like my opinions? Tough shit, dear.

[boston bean]

16. Honey bunch,

I love you. You know that.

When you love someone you have to let them know when they are wrong.

That's all I'm doing. I don't think it's nice to tell another poster what 3-4 million dollars would mean to them, they happen to know for themselves.

[Cant trust em]

17. No I'm not.

Median home in San Francisco = $810,000. Let's even said that I bought a home in Noe Valley for double that amount, 1.6 million dollars. That still leaves me 2.4 million dollars.

1 year tuition ($34,800) + Room & Board ($10,808) at Stanford X 4 years = $182,432.

Each of my two kids education = $364,864
Assuming that each of those two kids have two kids (4 grandchildren) there's another $729,728.

By those estimations that would leave $1,305,408.

Admittedly, these are rough figures. Education costs will go up, property taxes, etc. It's not enough money to retire before I'm 40. I'll still have to work and maintain income, but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that $4 million dollars is going to make our lives a lot easier and provide for our families a great lifestyle.

[ihavenobias]

19. Yes, thank you

$4 million "isn't as much at it seems"? Give me a break. After taxes 4 million is still MORE THAN ENOUGH money to give your kids/grandkids a nice, HUGE jump start in the world, *if* the money is spent, saved and invested wisely.

But fine, if someone wants to make the cap $8 million (or $10 million or whatever) it's not *that* big of a deal from a tax revenue perspective and it might shut up the BS talk about people losing their farms (BTW, the exception proves the rule).

[Cant trust em]

20. Every now and then I won't wear headphones on the bus...

and I'll hear some people talking about some crazy stuff. I overheard this woman talking the other day on the way to work how you just can't live on anything under $200K anymore. Let's get some perspective people!

[onehandle]

3. Google says no.

# Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
# Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)

[sniffa]

4. Please call it by its proper name: The Death Tax.

[papau]

6. LOL - no - I rather call it what it is - the capital gains tax loophole

[ihavenobias]

8. That's what greedy conservatives call it. No thanks! (I'm sure you're joking though)

They call it that to make average people think it will somehow effect them despite the fact that it will NOT effect them.

Actually no, it *would* effect them (indirectly) if it were eliminated due to the lost tax revenue.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. That Would Be So Out of Character As To Be Mind Blowing

Obama has fought for poor people his whole life, helping to build local communities when he could have been sitting high on the horse working at the Supreme Court.

[Occam Bandage]

10. No. Please don't spread bullshit.

[ihavenobias]

15. I'm not "spreading bullshit", I'm asking an honest question

I said "unreliable source" for a reason. I LIKE Obama.

PS---I appreciate the people who have me a *respectful* response.