iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Huge Would-Be Gift To The Scions Of The Super-Rich

First Posted: 12/09/10 03:05 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

Obama

WASHINGTON -- Millionaires and billionaires would reap big rewards if President Obama's tax cut deal becomes law, but thanks to the agreement's estate-tax provisions it's their heirs who will make a real killing.

The Obama concession that's getting most of the attention in the media is the one that would extend the Bush income tax cuts even for households making over $250,000 a year. That's a gift to your average millionaire of $139,000 a year for the next two years.

But it's the estate tax cut which, despite its relatively lower public profile, has proven even harder for congressional Democrats to swallow. Obama's deal would free an estimated 40,000 of the biggest estates in the country each year that would otherwise have been subject to the tax from paying a single penny.

And the approximately 3,500 estates that would remain subject to the tax at all -- consisting of the top 0.14 percent of all U.S. estates each year -- would pay at a much lower rate.

Compared to current law, that would amount to a gift in 2011 averaging about $3.5 million for each of the thousand or so estates worth $20 million or more.

The total cost to the taxpayers would be about $23 billion a year.

Those estimates are based on an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group.

Estate tax rates have been all over the map in recent years. As one of George W. Bush's last gifts to the incredibly wealthy, the estate tax is actually zero in 2010, meaning even the estates of such billionaires as New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner paid nothing. (Cost to U.S. taxpayers for Steinbrenner alone: Something like $500 million.)

Under the current law, however, the 2011 estate tax was set to return to the 2009 level of 55 percent for estates over $1 million. That's still considerably less than the 77 percent rate that applied from 1942 to 1976 on estates over $60,000.

Obama had previously proposed lowering the rate to 45 percent for estates over $3.5 million in 2011. The deal he struck with Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, reduces the rate yet further, to 35 percent, and only for estates over $5 million. (All the minimums are for individual estates; the limits double for couples.)

The estate tax cut may end up being the biggest obstacle to winning Democratic support for the package. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday called the lower estate tax "a bridge too far." Rep. Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told MSNBC on Wednesday: "This provision makes it "very, very difficult for me to support in its current form." The House Democratic caucus on Thursday non-bindingly rejected the overall deal, with the estate tax cut a key factor.

The estate tax is a particularly hot-button issue with progressives who see the increase of income inequality and loss of social mobility as being the main underlying problems with modern American society.

And the nation's more benevolent billionaires are not just vowing to give away at least half their fortunes, they're asking to have their estates taxed. (Among other things, high estate tax rates encourage charitable giving, which is of course tax free.)

Omaha investor Warren Buffett told the New York Times in 2001 that the estate tax plays a critical role in promoting economic growth by helping create a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance.

Repealing the estate tax, Buffett said at the time, ''would be a terrible mistake,'' the equivalent of ''choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

He continued: "Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.''

Or, as Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, put it in her Huffington Post blog on Thursday: "Merry Christmas, Paris Hilton."

*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Millionaires and billionaires would reap big rewards if President Obama's tax cut deal becomes law, but thanks to the agreement's estate-tax provisions it's their heirs who will make a r...
WASHINGTON -- Millionaires and billionaires would reap big rewards if President Obama's tax cut deal becomes law, but thanks to the agreement's estate-tax provisions it's their heirs who will make a r...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,074
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
05:19 AM on 01/30/2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/obamas-huge-gift-to-the-s_n_794560.html

WASHINGTON -- Millionaires and billionaires would reap big rewards if President Obama's tax cut deal becomes law, but thanks to the agreement's estate-tax provisions it's their heirs who will make a real killing.

The Obama concession that's getting most of the attention in the media is the one that would extend the Bush income tax cuts even for households making over $250,000 a year. That's a gift to your average millionaire of $139,000 a year for the next two years.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/white-house-watched.html

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100453

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/03/31/BL2006033100695.html
02:00 PM on 12/13/2010
Progressive Democrats have portrayed it as a “gift” to the very wealthy. It is decried for benefiting “only one-in-one-hundred of the wealthiest families”. My local county has some 20,000 households. Theoretically, that means 200 families are impacted by an Estate Tax. Those families are vital to local economic development, our tax base, our schools, churches and charities

Folks with a total net-worth of $5 million don’t have mansions in Palm Beach or private jets; they are comfortable for sure, but most you would not recognize: they shop at Wal-Mart and eat at Red Lobster.

Without modification, the 2011 Estate Tax would go to 55% on any amount over $1 million. The primary beneficiary of the modification to $5million and the reduction in rate from 55% to 35% are families with multi-generation small (but successful) businesses and farms. Obviously, without gimmicky avoidance schemes, the government would “take” $2.2 million of a $5 million estate. Often that means that assets have to be sold to pay the tax or $2.2 million, of otherwise productive risk capital, must be set aside in reserve.

That $2.2 million, if left with the family, likely would go to continued capital investment and hopefully job creation - likely generating far more in future tax revenues than the one-time $2.2million government windfall. If it is taken by the government does anyone really think it will be used wisely or make any appreciable difference in our nation’s fiscal condition?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimpager
11:19 AM on 12/13/2010
$700 billion for the rich and two more wars for the Pentagon...We can't afford it???

Sure we can, we'll steal social security. After all, the rich never had to pay social security to begin with, the elderly won't know what hit them, and Republicans will gloat in the notion of a new Maserati for their clients over the loss of family, home, and food for the elderly. America truly is "exceptional."
09:15 PM on 12/12/2010
If Pres. Obama rejects the tax cut for the wealthy he will be rejected as killing job growth. if he allows it permanently he will be rejected as filling the pockets of the wealthy, raising the deficit on the backs of the middle class. and when he strikes a compromise he is rejected as being too weak to stand his ground for the middle class. oh...and the Republican idea of tax cut for wealthy becomes...ohh yess"Obama's would-be gift". Because sure...Pres. Obama secretly wanted the wealthy to have all the money in the world anyway right? You Betcha!...but wait...isnt he still the socialist on a wealth redistribution agenda? Mannn who is this guy? ohhh he's Obama...we can't trust him. noooooo. we can't even agree on what we can accuse him of being. lets pile on some more provocative stuff and rile up ourselves around a fire and burn a cross and say he did it too. He must have done it...he went to school with the guy whose father's cousin's brother in law kept a box of matches.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:59 PM on 12/11/2010
Does some members of our government feel this way ? : "Always remember sons and daughters that it is our sole purpose to get the very rich exactly what they say they want, when they say they want it. It is our purpose in life."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cleverboots
09:43 PM on 12/11/2010
Obama just can't stop pandering to big money whether personal or Corporate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Fattonecat
whoops !!
07:25 PM on 12/11/2010
Well I hope you and yours hold your head up high this Sunday while the preacher waxes poetic about the prosperity gospel.
05:56 PM on 12/11/2010
Buffet's comments make sense. Unfortunately, Obama does not want to fight. Just cave and be happy to show a meaningless win. "Yes we can" has become "Nah, too much heavy lifting is needed"
05:25 PM on 12/10/2010
I will never consider voting for Obama again.

He is no friend of the center-left.

This horrible deal is the beginning of the end for social security. It is a betrayal of every element of left-leaning politics. The dude is black-Clinton, only LESS liberal. Clinton was horrible for the left leaning democrat, and this President is even less progressive.
02:12 PM on 12/10/2010
Does anyone have the suspicion that all those Democrats in the House who are "angry" at Obama are just putting on a good show for their constituents and that all we're seeing is theatre. When it comes time to vote, the Democrats from progressive districts will be allowed to vote against it because the blue dog Democrats (DINOs) and the Rethugs will put it over the top. The same will happen in the Senate. You will notice that the so-called progressive Senators won't exercise their power to filibuster, but they'll also vote NO on the agreement to look good to their constituents. The Obama/McConnell agreement giving rich millionaires another 6 figure bonus for 2 years will result in a lot of sad Democratic faces (just before they pop the champaign cork and start making a Christmas list for their families with their new tax cuts). Doesn't all this opposition by Democrats in the Congress where they have massive majorities right now seem KIND OF PHONY???
02:41 PM on 12/10/2010
Not me, I will not vote for Obama again, I vote Democrat not Republican.
01:44 PM on 12/10/2010
Why are you blaming Obama? Blame those stupid American factory workers and file clerks who keep voting Republican, against their own economic self interest.
02:12 PM on 12/10/2010
Why blame them? They've been lobotomized by the baggers!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ran6110
Mac, iPhone & iPad developer.
03:25 PM on 12/10/2010
Where were you the past 2 years when the Democrats controlled everything?

This was allowed to get to this point because most of Congress and the administration are millionaires and they want the tax cuts left in place or at least extended...

They tied the UI and Bush tax cuts so we would be forced to support keep the tax cuts in place. Now we must support them so this now becomes our fault!

Sure, the Republicans are the a$$es right now but why wasn't this dealt with before the elections? Because the Democrats wanted the tax cuts extended but didn't want to take the hit for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
manicore
01:30 PM on 12/10/2010
I Hope Obama receives a gift in 2012! Hopefully a primary challenge.
10:10 AM on 12/10/2010
Dear POTUS please stop this Harvard University / Goldman Sachs madness against America.

Your "Huge Would-Be Gift To The Scions Of The Super-Rich" is abhorrent in these times when million of American families have no food on their table for their children and hundreds of thousands if not millions of American present and future retirees are in danger of becoming poor and homeless.

Dear President Obama please be sensible, wise and prudent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ApolloniaCreed
10:04 AM on 12/10/2010
You forgot to add the sky is falling...
10:43 AM on 12/10/2010
Well, the debt is rising, by $900B in this legislation alone. Our brave, patriotic fellow Americans in the Republican Party were ready to leap to the barricades over the $787B cost of the economic stimulus package last year, which they said would condemn "our children and grandchildren" to a lifetime of servitude. But as of 9 o'clock this morning, apparently, adding nearly a trillion in long-term debt is no longer a big deal to them as long as they get their new Mercedes in January.
11:34 PM on 12/11/2010
To paraphrase the quote attributed to Sen. Everett Dirksen: “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money”
09:19 AM on 12/10/2010
The estate tax rates 1942-1976 are important in showing once again that Republican claims about the effect of high marginal tax rates are nonsense historically. This period was among the most prosperous in US history. The maximum rate of 77% did not come in until an estate value of $10M was reached, but the rate at $60K was 3%, which is still significant. Why do Democratic politicians never mention tax rates for this period which even Republicans would probably consider a golden age economically?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf
10:44 AM on 12/10/2010
F & F, well stated.