Democrats on how to get raped in midterms

Topspin

Verified User
Major Tax Policy Changes to Affect How Much You Keep
Published: Wednesday, 13 Jan 2010 * 4:09 PM ET Text Size By: Reuters


The next two years will see enormous tax policy changes in the U.S. that are going to have broad implications for how you save and invest — and how much of your money you get to keep.

Right now, most taxpayers are in the lull before the 2010 filing-season storm, and thinking about 1040 forms and tax preparation software.

But it's the 2010 legislative season that will really make its mark. The Senate comes back from recess on Monday, January 18; the House of Representatives is already back.

It's safe to say that every member of each chamber is fully aware this is a Congressional election year, and that the subjects of taxes and deficits and fairness will dominate much of the debate.


There are dozens of tax questions they will have to face between now and then. Here's a rough guide to what's in store.

The estate tax died. So far, there is no estate tax in 2010. That's the result of George W. Bush era tax legislation that phased the estate tax down for eight years and then out in 2010.

Without any legislative action, it will return in 2011 in a much tougher form. It will kick in on any estate worth more than $1 million, and the tax rate will be 45 percent (in contrast to the 35 percent rate on estates over $3.5 million that was in effect last year).

Because both pro- and anti estate-tax advocates want to do something about fixing that (depending on their perspective, they either want to 'fix' 2010 or 2011), expect some legislation this year.

The most likely outcome is a reinstituted estate tax slated to be in effect retroactively to the beginning of this year, and then challenged in court for its retroactivity.
Capital gains complications. When the estate tax died, it took one other provision with it: The tax break heirs got when they inherited investments that had risen in price.

Typically, when an heir inherits a house, or shares of stocks or mutual funds, the value is assessed at the time of the original owner's death, and is included in the estate. But the basis — the acquisition price used to determine whether capital gains taxes are owed — rises to that new assessed level.

So heirs who inherit their parents' home, for example, can sell the home without paying capital gains taxes on it. But that step up in basis is limited in 2010, to $1.3 million for most heirs and an additional $3 million for spouses, unless there is Congressional action.

That may sound like a lot, but $1.3 million isn't really a lot when a family home and lifetime savings are considered. Furthermore, the 15 percent tax rate for long-term capital gains will rise to 20 percent in 2011.
Dividend taxes. Since 2001, dividends earned on stocks and most other securities owned for at least a year have been taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, instead of at taxpayers' top marginal income tax rates.

That expires after 2010, leaving dividends to be taxed as ordinary income in 2011. If that goes into effect, it will be costly and could prompt many investors to dump dividend-paying stocks in favor of growth stocks, or even bonds.
Tax rates will rise. Beginning in 2011, tax rates that were in effect before the 2001 Bush tax cuts will return. The top income tax rate will go up to 39.6 percent from the current 35 percent, and the bottom 10 percent bracket is eliminated, so even the lowest levels of taxable income will be taxed at 15 percent.

In general, Republicans will want to preserve the Bush tax cuts, but Democrats will want to do nothing and leave the higher rates to go into effect so they can use the revenues to help pay down the deficit or pay for other programs and targeted breaks.
A lot of breaks have already disappeared. In addition to the estate tax, the Senate dropped the ball on some 40 provisions that expired at the end of 2009.

They include everything from the extra $250 deduction that teachers get for art supplies to the $1,000 above-the-line deduction for property taxes, as well as a slew of tax breaks for businesses, students, charitable donors and more.

The House has passed an extenders bill, but since it wasn't passed by the Senate and enacted before the end of 2009, anything can happen this year.
More breaks disappear next year. Meanwhile, 2010 is the last year for another large group of cherished tax benefits, like the 4-year college tuition credit (it reverts to two years), the $1,000 child tax credit (it reverts to $500), and expanded uses for 529 college savings plans.
State taxes will go up, too. Most states and municipalities have been hard hit by the recession and the housing slump. They are running out of options for the cash they need to run schools and fix roads. So, watch your local legislature for signs of rising rates and new taxes on everything from plastic shopping bags to colas.
Those health-care taxes. There's still no fixed agreement on which taxes will be included in the health-care reform legislation, but some very strong possibilities include: the new tax on so-called "Cadillac" top-of-the-line policies, a surtax on the wealthy, new limits on health savings accounts and how they can be used, increases in payroll taxes for Medicare.

This decision will be made, most likely over the next few days and weeks, behind closed doors, so anything can emerge in the final bill.
And now for something completely different. Many tax-watchers believe it is inevitable that federal tax rates will rise, and taxes will go up across the board as the economic recovery stabilizes and the government starts wrestling with the deficit.
But there are other possibilities. Some that are mentioned include a national tax on Internet access or shopping (though there's currently a law on the books that prohibits taxing Internet transactions through 2014), or a national sales tax.

Or a national windfall profits tax on banker bonuses. Anything can happen, so watch that space. And enjoy your 2009 deductions while you've got them.

Slideshow: The Wackiest Tax Deductions
 
So heirs who inherit their parents' home, for example, can sell the home without paying capital gains taxes on it. But that step up in basis is limited in 2010, to $1.3 million for most heirs and an additional $3 million for spouses, unless there is Congressional action.

OH THE HORROR!

The landed gentry class has to pay taxes on a $1.3 million to $3 million on a cash windfall profit? I can just imagine poor Paris Hilton crying over her martini! It sounds horrific!

Who the f inherits a three million dollar house? I’m going to wager with extreme confidence that nobody in the history of jpp.com has inherited a three million dollar house. And if they did, fuck ‘em. They can pay tax on that windfall profit.


That may sound like a lot, but $1.3 million isn't really a lot when a family home and lifetime savings are considered.

HaHaHa, that was great. Spoken like a true Bush republican. It must be awesome to have a walk-in cigar humidor and domestic servants at beck and call.
 
Last edited:
Cypress, how much is a smaller family run ranch worth? And if it is passed on, how much in taxes should they be forced to pay? Should it be just enough to make them sell to the large corporations, or should it be more than that?
 
Cypress, how much is a smaller family run ranch worth? And if it is passed on, how much in taxes should they be forced to pay? Should it be just enough to make them sell to the large corporations, or should it be more than that?


The $1.3 million on concerns the stepped up basis on capital gain taxes an heir would owe if property that is inherited is sold. But I do agree that taxing all estates worth $1 million or more is too low and that it ought to be higher. Having said that, the Republicans don't think estates should be taxed at all, which is nonsense.
 
Some of the stuff that is going to expire would constitute a tax increase on Families earning less then 250K.
 
Some of the stuff that is going to expire would constitute a tax increase on Families earning less then 250K.

Obama pledged to not let it expire for those in that range.

If he does, that's a BIG broken promise. Like, probably an election-killing one, a la Bush sr....
 
Obama pledged to not let it expire for those in that range.

If he does, that's a BIG broken promise. Like, probably an election-killing one, a la Bush sr....

Thats my point. He would never have beaten mccain if he didnt make that pledge. It lumped a whole lotta independents and obamicans into his vote tally.
 
Thats my point. He would never have beaten mccain if he didnt make that pledge. It lumped a whole lotta independents and obamicans into his vote tally.

In the Prez election, I can generally be counted on to vote Dem (as in, I have never voted otherwise).

But if he breaks that one, he loses my vote in 2012...
 
The $1.3 million on concerns the stepped up basis on capital gain taxes an heir would owe if property that is inherited is sold. But I do agree that taxing all estates worth $1 million or more is too low and that it ought to be higher. Having said that, the Republicans don't think estates should be taxed at all, which is nonsense.

Just for the point of discussion... WHY do you think it is nonsense?

Personally, I believe you do have to have one or the other.... estate tax with a step up bene or no estate tax and no step up.

If you have the estate tax, it should effect everyone... including the old money trusts. My personal belief is that if we have one it should have a $5mm floor adjusted annually for inflation and the tax on the estate should equal whatever marginal tax rate the excess of $5mm puts you into. If you have the estate tax.... NO ONE should be exempt. All family trusts etc... should be included.

If you remove the estate tax, then the step up should apply to all assets up to that same $5mm adjusted annually for inflation. All capital gains beyond that should again be taxed at the individuals applicable marginal tax rate.
 
I love my turbo-lib brother Cypress but like most clueless on economics turbo-libs he pulls the least relevant point. Tax hikes on the brackets, you want to talk about how many millions are hit by the 36 to 39 % tax. How bout the old couple getting dividends to supplement thier SS doubling the tax on that dividend.

Cypress come back with you juvinile take after the midterms and tell me I'm right.
 
I hope he doesn't allow it. I'm fine with each of those taxes expiring on families making 250,000.

There's a shitload of house democrats who do not see the 250,000 line. They see Bush tax cuts and want them gone even if it cuts their nose off.
 
The only thing that's gonna save the Dems at midterm at this point is a big Bull Market recovery and the way hes administering is causing resistance to that. If i was obama admin I would give corp tax cut to job hiring companies (something to stim hiring), a 1 time tax rebate to tax payers, and drop health-care initiative. AND id do it early 2010. Forget about all this public spend money.. You get way more bang for your buck stimming the private sector over the public cesspools.
 
The only thing that's gonna save the Dems at midterm at this point is a big Bull Market recovery and the way hes administering is causing resistance to that. If i was obama admin I would give corp tax cut to job hiring companies (something to stim hiring), a 1 time tax rebate to tax payers, and drop health-care initiative. AND id do it early 2010. Forget about all this public spend money.. You get way more bang for your buck stimming the private sector over the public cesspools.
He'll never do that, he's too afraid of being charged with "being too much like Bush!"
 
Just for the point of discussion... WHY do you think it is nonsense?

Personally, I believe you do have to have one or the other.... estate tax with a step up bene or no estate tax and no step up.

If you have the estate tax, it should effect everyone... including the old money trusts. My personal belief is that if we have one it should have a $5mm floor adjusted annually for inflation and the tax on the estate should equal whatever marginal tax rate the excess of $5mm puts you into. If you have the estate tax.... NO ONE should be exempt. All family trusts etc... should be included.

If you remove the estate tax, then the step up should apply to all assets up to that same $5mm adjusted annually for inflation. All capital gains beyond that should again be taxed at the individuals applicable marginal tax rate.


I'm not sure what you are asking me or where we disagree. You seem to think that an estate tax is appropriate for estates of more than $5 million, no? I think an estate tax is appropriate for less than $5 million. The $3.5 million seems fine. I agree that it should be indexed to the CPI. And I agree that all estates of that amount or more should be subject to the tax.
 
Cypress, how much is a smaller family run ranch worth?

And if it is passed on, how much in taxes should they be forced to pay? Should it be just enough to make them sell to the large corporations, or should it be more than that?

I'm not surprised that you want to eliminate the estate tax, or defend its beneficiaires. Regardless of what you read on the rightwing blogs, only an infintesimally small percent of very affluent families are subject to it.

But to answer your question, it's simple arithmetic with information widely available on the internet. I think it's also telling for you to couch your position in terms of the "family ranch". Do you really think the estate tax is a burden on the family ranch? No, its not. It's a tax on those properties and families that are in the upper stratosphere of income and wealth.

A cursory review of rural property values from USDA, indicates that rural property in Monatana averages $760 per acre. A thousand acre spread would be considered, around here, to be an awesomely large ranch. Not many "families" are capable of owning and maintaining a thousand acre ranch. But, to be charitable, lets assume your average Joe Blow inherits a thousand acre spread. That's worth 760K according to the USDA numbers. And whatever house is built on it, we can assume is, at best, a modest family ranch house. Because you were talking about "average family ranchers" right? I personally don't know any modest farmers or ranchers that live in mansions on their property. The only people I know with mansions on rural property are ultra wealthy city slickers who want to own a hobby farm. So, to be charitable, lets say their family house on the property is like 300k.

So guess what? 750k plus 300 k isn't even within range of the 1.3 million to 3 million dollar exemption.


So who exactly are the average, modest "family ranchers" you're talking about?

You may not want estate taxes on the ultra wealthy. That's fine. Most republicans don't. But I think it's entirely reasonable and fair to tax a three million dollar windfall profit. Nobody with a normal professional salary is going to make the equivalent of a free-and-clear untaxed income of 3 million dollars unless they work for 20 years. And this nation was founded by radicals who thought a landed gentry class was dangerous to democracy, and fairness.
 
I dont believe todays Democrats will loose any worse than Reagan did in 82'.

If the election were held today, it would be much more like '94.

Lots can happen between now & November. Like Chap said, they need the economy to really pick up steam to reverse their fortunes.

They're also getting killed right now in the marketing/propoganda war. They're not even putting up a proper fight.
 
I'm not sure what you are asking me or where we disagree. You seem to think that an estate tax is appropriate for estates of more than $5 million, no? I think an estate tax is appropriate for less than $5 million. The $3.5 million seems fine. I agree that it should be indexed to the CPI. And I agree that all estates of that amount or more should be subject to the tax.

Personally, I believe it should be the second scenario.... where we eliminate the estate tax as well as the step up, but provide an exclusion on $5mm in assets to protect small business owners heirs.

So the short answer is yes, IF we keep the estate tax, then we agree. I think we can accomplish the same thing with the second method and thus avoid the double taxation problem that the estate tax has, so that is the method I would prefer.

The main thing I want is to make sure everyone is hit with this. No grandfathering or loopholes with family trusts/corps etc... I want the Rockefellers and Rothschild families hit in the same manner that John Doe 'new money' will be hit. I would also look into foundations that are established by the uber wealthy. Those foundations should have set limits on how much money they can pay heirs to 'run' the foundations.
 
If the election were held today, it would be much more like '94.

Lots can happen between now & November. Like Chap said, they need the economy to really pick up steam to reverse their fortunes.

They're also getting killed right now in the marketing/propoganda war. They're not even putting up a proper fight.

Im proud of em for rising above the marketing/propoganda war, but they will get killed if they continue...!
 
Im proud of em for rising above the marketing/propoganda war, but they will get killed if they continue...!

I'm not. It's integral to politics.

And it's not like it's some conscious choice to take the high road. They're just inept at it right now...
 
Back
Top