Well, yeah, sorta kinda. But didn’t they sell that project so we could move our ballistic missiles around more efficiently?
Who pays the most in taxes? The people with the most money. They certainly did pay for it, unlike the roughly 47% who don’t pay any federal income tax at all.
Wrong. See #374.
You could come up with some way so that those people make enough money to pay income tax. Actually, you probably can’t. So, there’s the other option, figure how to get more money from poor folks. And hippies. Proving you can squeeze blood from the stoned.
I’m trying to understand the value of this post. Assuming that the working poor are allowed to drive on the roads that the Kochs and Waltons built, should they be bound to pay respectful homage?
Or is your contribution just: “Newsflash: Taxes are paid by taxpayers. Whudda thunk it! Details at Eleven.”
Newspapers are reporting tables like that shown here by WSJ, likely paywalled, sorry.
Tax Bill to Have Uneven Effect on Households, Study Says - WSJ?
They say it’s from a JCT report but I didn’t see a similar table when I skimmed their latest here: https://www.jct.gov/
The gist of the article for those who can’t access is that most people see at least some small benefit early on, but that changes over time. What I haven’t seen is a good description of what is phasing in and out, such that people might see a tax decrease in 2021 and 2027 but not in 2023 and 2025.
I understand the desire to reduce deductions and to maybe not use tax policy as a social policy instrument. But from a perspective of 1) raising revenue to at least mostly match expenditures and 2) understanding marginal utility and 3) knowing you can’t tax what someone doesn’t have, I really can’t justify the elimination of medical deductions. If we had some sort of universal healthcare and people could pay above and beyond for “optional” care, sure. But we don’t have that. If you spent all your money this year on chemo, the stone is dry. So whereas I see expensive housing as largely discretionary, healthcare is much less so.
You’ll have to be more clear. In post #374 you claim:
You didn’t cite this figure and as far as I can tell you’re incorrect. Even if you were right, this seems to be an objection to the combination of the elimination of the estate tax and the ability to step up in basis. Eliminating either one (preserve estate tax or eliminate step up basis) would address your objection I think.
When there’s a proposal on the table to “eliminate the step up in basis” come back and argue. The GOP kleptocrats want to eliminate the estate tax WITHOUT this obvious counter-measure. BTW, some very old basis costs are almost unknowable; this is one reason for the estate tax in lieu of capital gains tax.
And if you don’t think 90% of rich estates are unrealized gains, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page and Brin of Google, the Walton kids … how much of their estates do you think have the form of “unrealized” gains? Take your time. 
And of course, these are not exceptional cases. Over a lifetime, many assets increase enormously in value; only a fool would sell them before death if the tax laws make tax evaporate on death.
But more importantly, your posts suggest some visceral objection to any taxation at all. How do you think government should pay for its services? (Yes, I know you want to abolish almost all government, but how do you propose to pay for whatever’s left?)
I don’t need to take my time since I already had the cite that contradicted your claim. You made the claim of 90% of the super rich. I’m sure you think “super rich” has some kind of objective definition, but now you’re declining to support the claim - do I have that right? Here, I’ll help you:
I found this figure in a few different places, but this was the cite that had the easiest sound bite to quote. Voxdiscusses the issue here.
I don’t often agree with Vox, but they do present information in a concise way generally. The underlying data that supports the quoted figures ispulled from here it seems. Table 9 is directly on point and contradicts your claim.
I’ve never understood the criticism of “double taxation.” My income is subject to tax, and then I have to use some of my income to pay other taxes (property, sales, etc). Why does this bother anyone?
How would that example be different if you bought the painting for $200 with after tax money, sold the painting and paid capital gains tax on it, then used the proceeds to buy car, on which you had to pay tax? If you don’t want to mix federal and state taxes, assume you bought some stocks with the proceeds form the painting, then sold that stock later, at a profit. Triple taxed. No?
The estate tax is not a tax on the guy who died. It’s a tax on income gained by the heir. You’d have to pay tax on the estate if your parents gave it to you while they were alive (once you clear the limits, of course). Where I have a problem with the estate tax is if it’s a thing of value, and you have to sell that thing in order to pay the tax, then the government is essentially saying “we won’t let you keep the family jewels”. I don’t know how ofter that occurs, though. Probably not often.
But you get to deduct property taxes from your taxable income, and back in the day you used to be able to deduct sales tax, too. I can remember doing that. So, in some sense, people are and were bother by that. I think there are better examples. Like the one I just gave. 
This isn’t a great example because your income is subject to federal income tax, but some of that income is used to pay state and local taxes. Currently you can deduct those from your federal taxable income just as you describe. Sure you are receiving distinct services from distinct sovereigns so payment to each seems reasonable, but the current rules recognize this as undesirable.
If the federal tax were 91% and the state tax were 10%, without this deduction you could run into the scenario where your income is taxed greater than 100%.
I’ve never understood the objection to “double taxation”. Where on Earth can you find anything that’s only taxed once? Most things have been taxed about fifty times. I earn some money doing my job: That’s taxed. I buy something with it at the store: That’s taxed. The store makes a profit on it: That’s taxed. The profits are distributed to the store’s shareholders: That’s taxed. The store owner hires a housekeeper or nanny: That’s taxed, and so on down the line. Every single time money changes hands, it’s taxed, even though it’s been taxed many times before, and will be taxed many times again. Why is or should this particular transfer be any different?
I’m not sure I understand your question in the first paragraph. What you seem to be describing is taxes on realized gains rather than unrealized gains and all by an individual rather than other family members.
In the second paragraph, I think the argument would be strengthened if the tax code operated consistently in this area of taxing income gained by the heir. But it doesn’t. We carve out things that are exempt from taxes when received as income gained by the heir. Life insurance proceeds are not taxed. And most on point, there is the unified gift and estate lifetime credit that recognizes that some amount should be able to be passed without being subject to tax. Why is that? We recognize that passing wealth is something that society views as a generally positive thing and in general people are in favor of repealing it, even though the vast majority of people will not pay it. I think a more principled argument in favor of the estate tax would be to eliminate the lifetime gift and estate tax credit entirely and make all estates subject to it. But we don’t do that - we recognize there should be a carve out. For all of those reasons I adopt and apply to the entire scheme.
I was referencing your quote from Vox:
It’s easy to create an endless chain of taxing monies that have been taxed, when those monies have been taxed, etc. The estate tax is not unique in that aspect, so complaining about double or triple taxation isn’t much of a complaint. We do it all the time.
I don’t thing we’re in disagreement on this. With the caveat I already mentioned: I’m bothered by the idea of someone having to sell a valuable piece of the family’s history just to pay the inheritance tax on it. Maybe there is no other way around it, but all I’m saying is that I find it troublesome. I don’t know what the answer is.
If you take a walk, walk
I’ll tax your feet.
I don’t know what the percent is for estates worth more than $1 billion, or estates worth more than $10 billion, and it sounds like your source doesn’t either.
But even if we go with the Top 0.1% instead of Top 0.01% - or whatever - and the 90% figure demotes to 55% … is it your claim that 55% is a small number? That each of these $100 million estates should pass through, on average $55 million of untaxed gains? I noticed you didn’t answer my other question, but many would prefer taxes on super-rich estates at least to supplement regressive sales taxes.
And remember that the first $11 million of estate is typically exempt, not to mention several $millions in gift and trust loopholes. The $100 million estate would only be taxed on about $80 million, and a $20 million estate not at all.
My paycheck is subject to state (well, DC) income taxes, which I then use to pay other local taxes. So what? No “rules” “recognize” local income taxes and local sales taxes as “undesirable.” Why should “rules” “recognize” Federal income taxes and Federal estate taxes as “undesirable?”
This scandalous way of talking about “double taxation” is just totally fabricated, made up nonsense.
Uhhhhhhh, sure. And if the Federal income tax were changed to being a sharp stick in the eye, I could only pay twice; but what the hell does that have to do with anything?
No. My claim is that the figure you claimed was true was in fact false. Are we in agreement? The 90% figure you claimed was wrong.
I’m not familiar with DC taxation rules so take that part with a grain of salt. I didn’t write the previous as clearly as I could. Local income and sales taxes are not what is recognized as undesirable. State and local taxes paid locally then taxed at the federal level is what is currently recognized as undesireable. I base this conclusion on the fact that state and local taxes are currently deductible at the federal level.
On my phine so ill have to pull the link later, but the SALT deduction was crafted originally in part based on the concern that federal taxes could grow so great as to crowd out state taxes and the state’s ability to generate revenue. This would have been the case in the mid 20th century if SALT were not deductible at the federal level. The point is to illustrate the recognition of this type of dual sovereign taxation as an undesirable thing.