An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

How is the estate tax in your state?

The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting look at estate taxes (or “death tax” if you prefer) across the nation this weekend. With the federal tax almost entirely going away this year, more and more people are turning to tax and estate planners for help with similar taxes levied by the individual states. (To be clear, the federal estate tax hasn’t disappeared entirely, but the minimum threshold has risen to $3.5M for individuals and $7M for married couples.)

There are a 17 states which impose an estate tax, and another eight which have an inheritance tax. (Imposed on the recipient, not on the estate.) You lucky, lucky taxpayers in New Jersey and Maryland get to pay both. But the rules across these various areas are, as the article describes it, a “crazy quilt” of exemption levels and residency requirements. One aspect of it which I had been unaware of was the instance of states laying claim to the “domicile” of the dead person. If you live and spend most of your time in one state but, for instance, have a vacation home in another, the second state can sometimes challenge the estate and try to lay claim to the tax.

There’s a very useful chart and map included which will show you what the current status is in your state, and if you have any reasonable amount of wealth, you may want to take a look at it. And that amount may be less than you think in some cases. Nebraska imposes an 18% tax on all estates valued at more than ten thousand dollars.(That makes you rich?)

If you click a tab at the top of the page, you should also take a look at the lively battle erupting in comments left regarding this article. Several self styled accountants, lawyers and historians provide a variety of interesting angles on estate taxes. Among these you will find this wild-eyed account:

Calling Estate Taxes a “Death Tax” is just a trick to sucker people into thinking that the tax is immoral when in fact, the tax history of estate taxes is rooted in the founding of our country and the tax laws were designed to prevent huge concentrations of wealth that can be perpetually tranfered from generation to generation.

Wow! That certainly would be some eye-opening information and provide a while new view of the redistributionist and quasi-socialist tendencies of the founding fathers, wouldn’t it? Well, it would if it were true, anyway. Of course, the reality is that the first estate tax was enacted in 1797 specifically to pay for the reconstruction and expansion of our navy and was repealed in 1802 after the work was paid for.

(Try for a moment, here in 21st century America, to imagine a Congress that told the public that it needed a new tax to pay for a pressing, specific need and then removed the tax once the need was met. Man, those guys really were revolutionary, weren’t they?) The tax showed up again for eight years during the civil war to pay for all that carnage and then disappeared pretty much entirely until the 20th century.

Anyway, take a look at the whole article and associated discussion. Some useful information there.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Funny I think income taxes amount to slavery and inheritance or estate taxes to be the ultimate in sanity. After all the person that earned it is well...dead.
  • (Try for a moment, here in 21st century America, to imagine a Congress that told the public that it needed a new tax to pay for a pressing, specific need and then removed the tax once the need was met. Man, those guys really were revolutionary, weren’t they?)

    That was Thomas Jefferson.

    A major difference between Jefferson and modern "conservatives" was that Jefferson actually believed in paying his debts, rather than enslaving future generations to pay for our inability to either raise taxes or cut spending. Or, as he put it:
    If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Hey Jazz....

    Educated me on something. I've heard the argument against the Death Tax. At one time I agreed with most of those arguments. I realize that liberals don't care about fairness of estates - they just want the tax money to fund government growth. With that said......

    I have been thinking that perhaps your estate should not freely go to your children. All that does is prevent them from making their own way in the world with an unfair advantage over their competition. Now I'm against the government getting their hands on it because, like your children, they did not earn it either.

    What would be the fair "middle ground" for this? Would it be that, unless you give it all to charity (which I support); then the government gets it all minus funeral expenses?

    I don't know. Like I said.... Educate me.
  • JeffersonDavis
    We have to remember. Jefferson (and most other founders) were libertarian, not "conservative", and believed in very little authoritarian rule from government. But we went against there warnings and placed party above Constitution, corporation above individual, and government over freedom. I just pray we do something about it.
  • JD, since we're getting into purely speculative and hypothetical territory here, I'm sure I can't educate you, but I can offer my own questions and opinions. First, what about a spouse? Couples are considered to have worked together to build their fortune, no matter which one actually "earned" the money, so shouldn't it transfer unmolested to the surviving spouse? (And it usually does, by the way, but I'm just saying...) Now, as to the children, there's a certain appeal in the idea of making sure the children learn to be responsible and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." But is that a choice we want the government to make or the individual? Some parents will (and do) choose to leave a large bulk of their estate to charity, while others may choose to give a much larger "leg up" to the kids. I think I'd rather have the individual making that choice rather than having the federal government making it for them.

    The baseline question of whether or not there should be a death tax, estate tax, etc in the first place is a separate one. Is it, as I've often thought, a case of the govt. taxing money which has already been taxed right down the line just because it changed hands inside the family? If you look at it from that point of view, then the tax itself is an insult. I suppose others feel, though, that the children have no legal claim on the wealth amassed by their parents, so it comes to them as some sort of "gift" or "windfall profit" and the govt. should be able to tax it again. I can't say that opinion is entirely wrong. I just don't happen to agree with it.

    But either way, saying that the govt. should get everything that doesn't go to charity is, in my view, insane.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I think spouses should not get any taxes on inheritance as that is part of their partnership, just the children. It would cut down on multi generational wealth consolidation which would allow us to stick to a gold standard or something similar and avoid creating wheel barrows of new money to pay for things jacking up inflation while keeping money circulating throughout the economy.
  • shannonlee
    A death tax is basically a double tax. You tax a person when they make the wealth and then you tax them again when they die. I see nothing wrong with passing down wealth from generation to generation. If a family can generate enough wealth to take care of their children's children, more power to them.

    We shouldn't use a death tax to make right the other wrongs in our system. I'd rather see taxes double on the wealthy than hide it in a death tax. At least we are being honest about it.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Thanks Jazz. I'm still very much torn on the matter.

    The basic premise of my split on this issue is class building. You are totally right about spousal survivorship (I forgot to mention that earlier). However, when you have generation after generation building up wealth through little work on their own part, you grow an aristocracy. I just can't help feeling way down in my gut that people should all have the same opportunities. I sound very much like a Democrat when I say that (cause I am one), but I truly believe that Donald Trump's kids should have the same opportunities that mine do. His kids can go to a better college than mine already. Why should they also have the benefit of their dad's wealth that they didn't earn?

    Maybe the "everything that doesn't go to charity" is a bit much; but our nation as a whole would benefit from something to level the playing field somehow.

    I guess for now I'll sit the fence a bit longer until either side convinces me; or until someone comes up with a better plan.
  • JeffersonDavis
    Hey shannon.

    Wouldn't that inspire the wealthy to spend up the money prior to dying? If it can't go to your kids, then they'd be forced to put it back into the economy, wouldn't they? I may be with MSF on this one. Zero taxes on an estate passed to a spouse - a cool buttload for the kids.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC