So predictable: Democrats run on punishing the rich with new taxes to pay for more obscene spending, the rich run scared to transfer wealth under current rules to escape them

 

  Under current law, individuals can transfer up to $13.61 million (and couples can send up to $27.22 million) to family members or beneficiaries without owing estate or gift taxes.

The benefit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025 along with the other individual provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If it expires, the estate and gift tax exemption will fall by about half. Individuals will only be able to gift about $6 million to $7 million, and that rises to $12 million to $14 million for couples. Any assets transferred above those amounts will be subject to the 40% transfer tax. ...

With Harris and Trump essentially tied in the polls, the odds have increased that the estate tax benefits will expire — either through gridlock or tax hikes. ...

More than $84 trillion is expected to be transferred to younger generations in the coming decades, and the estate tax “cliff” is set to accelerate many of those gifts this year and next. ...

While giving the maximum of $27.22 million may make sense today from a tax perspective, it may not always make sense from a family perspective. ...

For families that plan to take advantage of the estate tax window, however, the time is now. It can take months to draft and file transfers. During a similar tax cliff in 2010, so many families rushed to process gifts and set up trusts that attorneys became overwhelmed and many clients were left stranded. Advisors say today’s gifters face the same risk if they wait until after the election.

More.

Once again in the dead of night Senate Republicans pass tax reform for multinational corporations

The New York Times, here:

The Senate approved the bill early Wednesday morning.

The Senate voted 51 to 48, with no Republican defections and no Democratic support.

Under the final tax bill, the corporate tax rate would fall to 21 percent, from the current 35 percent, a move that Republicans are betting will increase economic growth, create jobs and raise wages. Individuals would also see tax cuts, including a top rate of 37 percent, down from 39.6 percent. The size of inheritances shielded from estate taxation would double, to $22 million for married couples, and owners of pass-through businesses, whose profits are taxed through the individual code, would be able to deduct 20 percent of their business income.

But the individual tax cuts would expire after 2025, a step that Republicans took to comply with budget rules, which do not allow the package to add to the deficit after a decade.

Robert Tracinski skewers some libertarians for the socialism in their heads, but still misses why it's there

Here, chalking it all up to "unexamined collectivist assumptions" and mistakenly allowing "a little dominion of socialism over their thinking" and the left "trying to preserve that territory they own in your head" through various schemes like the estate tax.

In other words, they're insufficiently indoctrinated. You know, like all those intractable Russians who were sent to the Gulag for nothing more than mistakenly expressing incorrect thoughts.

It never dawns on Tracinski that ideology is a coin with socialism on the one side and libertarianism on the other.

The article is amusing because the "conservatives" he skewers for being insufficiently libertarian are or were aligned with the left and leftism: Charles Murray (former labor unionist, six years in the Peace Corps, "rebel"), Ronald Reagan ("I didn't leave the Democratic Party . . ."), Stuart Butler of health mandate infamy (Brookings), Milton Friedman (FDR functionary) and Megan McArdle (self-described former "ultraliberal").

With the example of McArdle on the estate tax before him, one might have hoped that Tracinski had stumbled into the origin of the socialism in our heads, but no, "there is no such collective entity as 'society.'"

The man wishing to leave his estate to that little society called his family might have begged to differ.

High Taxes On Imports A Chief Cause Of The Civil War

So says Michael Sivy for Time, here:

The income tax has always been hated – but so were the taxes it replaced. In Colonial America and the early U.S., taxes were typically on goods like sugar, tea, or whiskey (which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791). Other taxes were on land or were poll taxes (which was a flat amount per person and had nothing to do with voting). Later on, there were high custom duties on imports, which were one of the chief causes of the Civil War because they pushed up the prices of manufactured goods, helping the North but hurting the agrarian South. Real estate taxes were always extremely unpopular and still are.

It wasn't until 1863 when The War of Northern Aggression was going badly for Lincoln that it became officially about slavery.

Businessman Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI, Votes For Fiscal Compromise

The Washington Post reports here:

Five Senate Republicans also rejected the measure, including tea party favorites Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), a potential contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. But 40 others voted for it, including such GOP leaders on tax-and-spending policy as Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) and Ronald H. Johnson (Wis.), a tea party star who frequently consults with conservatives in the House.

Key features of the legislation are attractive to conservatives, as noted in the story:

• The payroll tax cut expires, a recklessly irresponsible diminution of Social Security to welfare.
• Obama's pay raise for federal workers is eliminated.
• Estate tax exemption limits remain as they were and get indexed to inflation.
• The Bush tax rates, except for the top 0.3%, are made permanent for everyone.
• It's a Pyrrhic victory for Obama because instead of $4.5 trillion in new revenue, he gets $0.6 trillion.

Before The Income Tax, Federal Tariffs and Real Estate Taxes Punished Farmers

From a helpful history of the estate tax from the IRS, here (emphases added), which is unaware of the significant federal revenue contributed by alcohol taxes (between 30 and 40 percent):

The War Revenue Act of 1898

Throughout the last half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution brought about profound changes in the U.S. economy. Industry replaced agriculture as the primary source of wealth and political power in the United States. Tariffs and real estate taxes had traditionally been the primary sources of Federal revenue, both of which fell disproportionately on farmers, leaving the wealth of industrialists relatively untouched. Many social reformers advocated taxes on the wealthy as a way of forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share, while opponents argued that such taxes would destroy incentives to accumulate wealth and stunt the growth of capital markets.

Against this backdrop, a Federal legacy tax was proposed in 1898 as a means to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War. Unlike the two previous Federal death taxes levied in times of war, the 1898 tax proposal provoked heated debate. Despite strong opposition, the legacy tax was made law. Although called a legacy tax, it was a duty on the estate itself, not on its beneficiaries, and served as a precursor to the present Federal estate tax. Tax rates ranged from 0.75 percent to 15 percent, depending both on the size of the estate and on the relationship of a legatee to the decedent. Only personal property was subject to taxation. A $10,000 exemption was provided to exclude small estates from the tax; bequests to the surviving spouse also were excluded. In 1901, certain gifts were exempted from tax, including gifts to charitable, religious, literary, and educational organizations and gifts to organizations dedicated to the encouragement of the arts and the prevention of cruelty to children. The end of the Spanish-American War came in 1902, and the tax was repealed later that year. Although short-lived, the tax raised about $14.1 million. [About 2.5 percent of the federal budget].

BUSH SUBSIDIZED THE POOREST AMERICANS AND CUT THEIR TAXES 33%

Because George Bush was a flaming socialist. The left hated him as they did not because of the Iraq war but because he out-performed them as a liberal. And if Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire, the poorest Americans will lose their subsidies and their taxes will go up 50%, and Obama will become a conservative and all will be well with the world!

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes.

The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes.

Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)

First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero.

As a result, the US Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid.

All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.

The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to minus 4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS.

By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent.

Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.


Read the rest from Brian Riedl, here.