I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax (it is 35% on inheritances only over 5 million dollars) and it is a significant decrease compared to every year except 2010. I think between 2003-2009 it was 45% on more than 3 million dollars, and before 2001 it was 55% on more than one million, which is much higher than the compromise rate for 2011
2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.
If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.
“I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax...”
—Why does the number of people paying the tax matter? If you have an estate tax that only applies to a few family businesses/farms who hire thousands of people (who will be let go because of this), is this somehow better??
“2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.”
—How can you measure what would have happened in the alternative? (Besides, because of the tax rules, the negative effects of estate taxes often carry forward to the following year after the individual dies.)
“If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.”
—No. The GOP makes it clear now it will fight to make this retroactive when it takes up the issue with much stronger numbers in January.
I believe this is the study referenced (even a modest 15% estate tax will kill over 350,00 jobs in that timeframe):
http://www.nodeathtax.org/uploads/view/2028/economic_impacts_of_estate_tax_reform_9-13-10.pdf