I understand what I am arguing. But no, it's not taking money from the dead. They're dead. It is taking money from their heirs. When you get money, it is taxed, that is how we pay for our government, regardless of how much you think it should be costing us. "getting money" includes earning money by working, or winning something, or just being given wealth (over a certain amount, to be reasonable for minor gifts). And no matter where that money comes from, there have been taxes on it at some point, but that doesn't make it double taxation, because it was someone else paying the taxes. There is absolutely no reason there should be an exemption on taxes on income becomes it comes from an estate. There is good reason for it to be taxed higher (it isn't earned).

Again. Taxes on income, gifts, and estate are not a tax on wealth, they are a tax incumbent on a person based on wealth gained by that person. That person being an heir shouldn't mean they suddenly don't pay taxes. It's fine that someone is getting unearned income, but they shouldn't getting better treatment than someone earning it.

And no, it is not denying your last will and testament if it is progressive and not ridiculously high. Under our current federal estate tax system, if you leave an estate under 3.5 million dollars, it is not taxed, and at worst that will go down to 1 million in 2011. Even if you have a $5 million estate, at 2011 rates and exemptions (which will likely be changed), you will pay at most $2 million. There are a huge number of deductions, notably for business interests and other less liquid assets, so realistically you will pay much less. Honestly, if you think giving your heir "only" $3 million in cash out of a $5 million fortune is denying your will and testament, you've got issues, let alone the amount you will actually pay. Your heir is still very rich, and maybe someone somewhere will be able to keep money they are actually earning through hard work without putting us all in more debt. And your heir will not have to liquidate your family business or anything like that.

My father died last year. As executor, I just had to write the largest check I'll have to write in my life - probably - and it was made out to the US Treasury. This SHOULD NOT BE! And now the socialist clowns want to renege on the 2010 'promise'. My Dad is now spinning in his grave..about the death tax, the O'bama election and the takeover of our country by the socialists. In a way, I'm glad he didn't have to see this. We must begin to fight back. I cannot wait till the mid-term elections. Then we'll know whether or not the AMerican electorate has completely lost its mind or whether the last election was just an abberation. Pray it was a 'one-off' and we can begin to undo the damage already done! And if this insanity - the insanity of 'mob rule' - is to continue, I'd be for a new American Revolution. Democracy depends on an enlightened, cogent and thoughtful electorate. We'll see.

Has the death tax ever been challenged on a constitutional level? Just curious. I doubt it would hold up to any constitutional standard. And this should be done ASAP before PREZBO fills the high court with hacks.

I knew it wouldn't happen.Mr Obama said 95% of the people would get a tax cut and it would be seen in their April 1 check.Hmm.I got paid,but it is the exact same amount it has always been.
Surprise,surprise,surprise!

The blatent spin and deliberate misinformation in this posting has already been pointed out earlier in the thread -- a hallmark of neocon ideology. I just have to ask how anyone is surprised to see a "lack of a decrease" re-labelled an "increase", and information about a following actual decrease conveniently omitted. Standard playbook folks. This is how you try to turn aristocratic cronyism into populism and sell it to people who do not benefit from it.

we could be heading toward a conflict of interest. On one hand the gov't healthcare would recommend or prohibit a life saving operation based on "factors" and on the other, the very same gov't benefits from the death of the patient. How long before it is realized that for the "good of the people", person X should be allowed to die...

That should have been 55%, not 45%, but the point is the same.

By the way, a temporary cut was all Bush could get through Congress. The Democrats simply would not allow a permanent tax cut.

My concern is not what he is doing in 2010, but what he is doing in 2011. The last I heard, Obama was going insistant that all of the "Bush tax cuts" expire. This means a return to only a $600,000 exemption. That's right, a 45% tax on everything over $600,000. This will make it very difficult to pass on a small business to the owner's heirs. As a result, it will kill an untold number of small businesses and the jobs they create, either because the owners say it is just not worth it, or the business has to be liquidated to pay the taxes.

Already a couple of people have pointed out that the tax change, while abhorent in principle, is actually more generous to the inheritors than the 2001 plan. (Tom from Decatur).

The entire tax is ill-done though. Yes, it was taxed upon the original earnings of the principle, but much of that is building in systems that require no tax unless spent or otherwise manipulated and is, in truth, earnings for the new owner of the funds. So, if that is the case, tax as any other income and be done with it.

These punishing levels of taxation are just plain wrong.

Of course, anyone smart enough to amass it on their own also knows all the ways to get around it like trusts, transfer of property while alive, etc.

Interesting points, gentlemen. I'm curious to hear Neal's response to this, and I'll be reading up on it. I was not aware that the tax was slated in Bush's bill to go back up to 55%, and if you're right, then Obama definitely filed for a long term tax cut. Kinda makes Bush's law look like a political stunt. If TD and Tom are accurate, Obama's plan would put the death tax at less than it was for the first 6 years of Bush's presidency. Isn't that a good thing at least?

totally agree with the security code system... takes me 3 tries each time. lame.

Why am I not surprised that Boortz leaves out the key detail here.

Under the Bush/Republican tax cuts of 2001, the estate tax only phase out for one year (2010), then came back in 2011 at a 55% rate on all estate's over $1 million.

The Obama proposal would freeze the current rate of 45% of estates worth over $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple.)

So, only Boortz could call the Obama proposal a tax increase.

I hate this tax the most of all! I shouldn't have to wish my hard-working and loving grandparents would die this year so that my family can inherit the full amount of their estate. (Kidding...kind of)

Not the death tax... the vulture tax. Keep the emphasis on the scum that feast on the dead.