Latta legislation would ban estate tax
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On the first day of the 112th Congress, Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) introduced H.R. 143, a bill that if passed, would permanently repeal the estate tax and ensures that individuals are not taxed on the increased value of an estate by retaining the stepped-up basis at death. A copy of the legislation can be found here.
The estate tax, also known as the death tax, is a federal tax levied against the assets of a person’s estate when they pass away. Historically, the estate tax was levied at fifty-five percent of one’s estate over $1 million, but the exemption level was increased over the past ten years after a series of tax cuts were signed into law in 2001 and 2003. In 2010, individuals were freed from having to pay the estate tax. On January 1, 2011, the estate tax was reinstated for a two year time period at a 35% rate and a $5 million per person exemption.
“The estate tax is archaic and goes against the grain of hard working American families who strongly believe in a founding principle of our country that with hard work, future generations can be better off than the last. Permanently eliminating the estate tax is an important step in ensuring that our small businesses and farmers, an integral part of our nation’s economy, can grow and prosper into future generations. While the federal government may have taxed a portion of hard-earned American family dollars in the past, it doesn’t mean they have the right to do the same to future generations,” Congressman Latta stated after introducing the legislation.
H.R. 143 has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.
Categories: Releases
Ah, this is why I voted for Latta. My family being small farm owners, I want to see our property stay in the family to the next generation (my generation) without the need to pay the such confiscatory taxes of which I would probably be unable to pay.
by Richard Mentor Johnson on Jan 6, 2011 at 11:37 pm
As a small farmer I understand you would pay no inheritance tax. It is only the very large corporate type farmers that would pay this tax. If the bottom for paying this tax is 5 million that is not a small farmer to me.
by Jackie on Jan 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm
No one should have to pay this tax. Taxing the dead is immoral and bad for the economy. Approximately $13 trillion of American money is parked in the Caymen Islands and other tax shelters because of the estate tax and the dividends tax. Both should be eliminated permanently. Having this money invested here would be a huge economic boom
by Patrick W on Jan 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm
If the rich wanted to make an investment, they would. The conservative mentality of “if we give the rich more, they will give us jobs” is getting pretty old.
Since 1976 58% of all income growth has gone to the top 1% in this country. Clearly if the economy could be fixed by giving the rich more money, it would be at an all time high.
A even the higher estate taxes of the past didn’t wipe out the fortunes of the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Kochs, Bushs, Hiltons or all the blue bloods out there.
by SensorG on Jan 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Nor did the 93% income tax which was levied in the early 1950′s wipe out the rich.
I went to work part-time when I turned 16 and had a rude awakening – taxes stolen out of my pay check. I told my parents I didn’t sign up for this and they said oh yes you did. You’re an American.
The old families of this country paid more than their fair share of taxes and also set up many fine foundations for others. Don’t see too much of that today.
by Jackie on Jan 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I was raised on a family farm, it is still in our family and we have taken the necessary steps to avoid the estate tax when my parents pass. It is a great issue for stirring the masses but not a real economic issue. That’s why the Bush estate tax ban despite all the hype was scheduled for only one year, and a year 2010 which they knew would not be during the Bush administration. (someone else’s problem). My father-in-law falls for all these hype issues and was excited when the banned passed but disgusted when he realized that for us to benefit he had to die in 2010. He did not co-operate.
by DaveW on Jan 7, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I doubt that all these tax shelters existed back then. We have to compete. When times are good, of course rich people do better. Everyone else also does better also. Wouldn’t it have been nice for all this money to have been in American finanical institutions during the financial meltdown? There would have been a bigger cushion for them to absorb the foreclosures.
by Patrick W on Jan 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Taxes, Taxes, and more taxes. I don’t think people realize the complete extent to which we pay taxes. Years ago the total tax bite was actually much lower, when the total picture is viewed. Look at your utility bills, look at cell phone bills, look at taxes on gasoline, and this is the tip of the iceberg. When all this is factored in the tax burden is enormous. This level easily becomes 60+% tax rates. And where does this go?
A huge percentage goes to “ENTITLEMENTS” Entitlements?
what a screwed up term. Why are those that refuse to accept responsibility for their lives entitled to my cash earned through hard work? There are many that deserve, those retired and many elderly, but I believe you will find the systen is overwhelmingly scammed by
the majority. It Disgusts Me!
by allenjames on Jan 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm
allenjames
“Nor did the 93% income tax which was levied in the early 1950′s wipe out the rich.” I worked part time as a 16 year old in the payroll department for Reddy Kilowatt and discovered payroll withholding.
As stated before in No. 5 the above was the income tax withheld in the early 1950′s. We still had wealthy people, this was an era where people thrived and this country grew to its greatness.
We have always had taxes and always will. We live in this great country called America.
by Jackie on Jan 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm