A little snip of the estate tax and we're good to go

[bigtree]

. . . right?

All that rhetoric from House Democrats about 'core principles betrayed' . . . the changes they seek make their quibbles look like grandstanding.

Estate tax emerges as key Democratic beef in Obama's compromise
‎
Washington (CNN) -- House Democrats will allow a vote on the tax compromise reached by President Barack Obama and Republicans but will try to change the deal, especially an estate tax provision they believe is beneficial to the wealthy, one of their leaders said Sunday.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters that the package will get a vote in the House despite a threat by House Democrats last week to prevent it from reaching the floor.

Van Hollen said the main concern of House Democrats is the estate tax, which expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.

"It did not have to be part of the overall deal," Van Hollen said of the estate tax provision pushed by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. "The Republicans never said if we don't get the Kyl estate tax that the deal is off the table."

read: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/12/tax.plan/


House Democrats are free to do what they want with the Senate bill, including nothing. It looks like they chose the 'tweak' option where they clip off a few items and declare they've preserved their 'core principles'.

They never had any intention of letting the cuts expire. They just sat around to a month before the deadline and waited for the President to step up and take the heat for something they intended to do all along. All of their grandstanding against the President means nothing if they just tweak his bill and pass it back.

[DJ13]

1. They're misreading some of the anger from the base

Yes the estate tax negotiated by the WH is a sellout, but the raising taxes on the poor while continuing to give the wealthy their tax cuts is the bigger problem for most people.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. "The Republicans never said " That says a lot right there.

So whatever the repugs say they want they get. And people ask why I feel like my teams leaders work for the other side. We are doomed.

[SoCalNative]

3. I don't really understand how anyone can think

an estate of $1 million constitutes an extremely wealthy person.

All it takes is owning a couple of properties, bought long ago, to exceed the $1 million mark. That's the case with my father, and believe me, he is far from wealthy, living on SS and his pension from the post office.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. In most of the country owning two properties would keep the value well below 1M in taxable estate.

I don't anyone thinks 1M is extremely wealthy, but as a measure of wealth having 1M in assets is wealthy on a national basis. In 2007 median family net worth in the U.S. was $120,000. A net worth of 1M would be in one of the top two deciles (that is, at least 80% of households have net worth of less that 1M.)

(the Federal Reserve Board's research is the source for 2007 median data)

Living in a high cost area a million in assets doesn't seem wealthy at all, but it's still substantially higher than the wealth of many households even in that same geography. I don't have metro-level stats but I'd guess that it's still above the median even in high cost metros.

Sobering, isn't it?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. People who have never lived in places like California aren't going to grasp that.

They'll figure since you're living in a "half a million dollar property" you must be eating bon-bons and being waited on by servants. They probably don't realize that you're in a fixer-upper 2 bedroom in the South Bay.

[SoCalNative]

17. Or in my case a 1000 sq foot

craftsman bungalow in an LA suburb

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. No, we figure people in California are living in an artificially inflated

housing market, and it is a bubble which is going to collapse. Prices in CA have been out of whack for decades, and those prices are the source of the national housing bubble. Just because your property is being assessed at a half million dollar, that doesn't mean it is WORTH a half million dollars. What it actually means is somebody, probably several somebodies are scamming the system.

When you take an empty lot worth 40,000, add building materials worth 70,000 and 15,000 dollars of labor, that does NOT add up to a half million dollars - SOMEBODY is getting conned.

Speculators drove up prices, then, to keep those prices up mortgage rates were slashed to keep people buying properties that were not really worth the price. In the end you get 0 down mortgages on overinflated properties and a shit load of suckers getting scammed.

THAT is what we figure when we think of California real estate.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Fact of the matter is, it's never going to be as cheap to live in Silicon Valley or Manhattan

as it is going to be to live in Wyoming or Kansas. It's not.

34 Million People live in California- that's 1/10th of the US Population. Are you suggesting that some form of mass hypnosis has occurred to convince these people that it's worth more to them to live there? :shrug:

We can spend all day going round and round about what things are "really worth", (here's a hint; in real estate, they are 'really worth' what someone pays for them) but the truth of the matter as it pertains to this issue is, when you're talking about an estate tax that starts at 1 Mil, you ARE going to have people in places like California and New York who have to sell the family home to pay the taxes on it. That's a simple fact, and whether or not you can figure out why people pay so much more to live in those places, or whether you think they're all "suckers", is totally irrelevant to the issue.

[Egnever]

24. Wow

well I supose if you can find an empty lot for 40k you are good to go then, you should make a fortune now before anyone else figures it out.

[daleanime]

4. So the payroll tax 'holiday' stays?

and no one is discusses it?:banghead:

[bigtree]

5. I wouldn't give up on that

. . . they are still huddling somewhere, looking at their emails and their teevees.

I haven't heard any republican come out and say that's some sticking point either, so . . .

[obxhead]

6. but reducing taxes on inheriting the family mansion creates jobs!

yeah right. :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

7. The main concern should be the cut in the Social Security tax that opens the door to its destruction

[bigtree]

8. anybody over there on that BBI?

[Better Believe It]

15. You mean in the House making it their main issue?

[bigtree]

16. yeah

hear anything/read anything?

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Honestly, it's a ridiculous point to have a temper tantrum over. There's far more money in taxing

the INCOME of Billionaires at a reasonable rate. Remember, during Eisenhower, the top Marginal rate was 90%.

But that doesn't sound as much fun as imagining you're saying "fuck you" to Paris Hilton, I guess.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. It appears that execept for estate taxes, they see more good than bad...

and feel that it is the best deal they will get, considering the makeup of the House next year.

[bigtree]

14. they should know where the votes are by now

. . . and where they'll be next year.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. They are a contentious group of people...

not a single tyrant.

They have to wheedle and dicker to a choice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. That may be the main concern of the House Democrats -

but has Chris asked any Democrats outside DC what THEIR main consern is?

The estate tax is just the icing on the shit cake that we are expected to eat. Hey, Millionaires! You can HAVE your fucking 5 million exemption and 35% rate, if you cancel the extention of the $250k+ tax cuts. Deal?

[Ozymanithrax]

20. But without that, there is no deal.

Thee lies the problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. So fuck the deal - let them all expire, and tax rates to back to Clinton era

levels, and estate tax goes back to Clinton era levels.

Who says we NEED the deal?

[Pisces]

18. Like I said, posturing for reelection and placebo of the fringe left.

These politicians know the truth, they didn't do anything about this issue until it was put upon them. They better do something in the lame duck or they are lost at reelection time.

Congress is how Obama gets bills on his desk to sign, maybe we should have put the fire to their feet earlier on. DADT, START and DREAM act are hinging on this tax bullshit.