Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 21, 2013
Media / Olympia I'm Sure It Was Just an Oversight
Posted by Goldy on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:20 AM
The Seattle Times has this nifty little interactive feature where you can balance the state budget by selecting various revenue increases and spending cuts. It reminded me that I forgot about Medicaid expansion when I wrote about the low-hanging fruit yesterday. That's another $259 million in cost savings right there.
But you know what's missing from their list of revenue options? The $160 million that would be generated by fixing state law to reimpose the estate tax on married couples (the Supreme Court recently invalidated it on a technicality).
Oops. I'm sure that was just an innocent mistake, right? I mean, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen is one of the nation's most outspoken advocates for repealing the estate tax. No, I'm confident that didn't influence the editors at all, if only on an unconscious level.
1
There's also no income tax! I am impressed that there's a capital-gains tax (that, along with the extracted fuel use exemption, balances the budget without cuts).
2
100% of the reason I wouldn't even consider buying that paper. If you want to feed me your propaganda, I'm certainly never going to pay for it.
3
..always thought that every municipal political activist should be directed to play an honest game of SimCity™ (ok, before they ruined it) ...at least until they're as good at it as Herman Cain -sigh-
5
It's awesome how the owners of the Seattle Times are multi-millionaires who nakedly use their own paper to protect their wealth at great cost to the public interest.
7
What @1 and Goldy said.
The Legislature could, by simple majority vote, impose a flat 1 percent income tax with one exemption (e.g. the deduction line on your federal income tax return, or maybe just a base $50,000 income exemption).
That's in the State Constitution. No matter what lies Komrade Eyman says.
The Legislature could, by simple majority vote, impose a flat 1 percent income tax with one exemption (e.g. the deduction line on your federal income tax return, or maybe just a base $50,000 income exemption).
That's in the State Constitution. No matter what lies Komrade Eyman says.
8
Can somebody please explain what the issue is regarding the married estate tax? My husband and I are establishing residency here, and while neither of us intends to die soon, I'd like to understand the law. I thought in most places distributions to a spouse were untaxed. Does WA being a community property state make a difference?
9
@8 No estate tax on, I believe, estates valued below $650K. It may be higher, I think the value adjusts up a tick every year.
10
@ 8 & 9: No WA estate tax on estates under $2 million, and there is an unlimited marital deduction, just as with the federal tax. I believe Goldy is referring to the Bracken decision, handed down last fall, which rejected the Dept of Revenue's claim that assets put in a "QTIP" trust prior to 2005 for the benefit of the surviving spouse are subject to estate tax. (It is clear that assets in QTIP trusts created after 2005 are not subject to estate tax). The decision is well over 50 pages long but summarized on my blog at http://palmerlegal.com/blog/2013/2/qtip-….
11
Right, like The Stranger doesn't omit relevant items from stories when they are counter to the paper's agenda?
The pot calls the kettle black.
The pot calls the kettle black.
12
My response @10 misstates something: assets remaining in a QTIP trust created after a law change in 2005 are subject to estate tax on the death of the second spouse. (The trusts allow the deferral of tax until the death of the second spouse). The Bracken decision said that assets in a QTIP Trust created before the law change are no longer subject to estate tax.
13
It shouldn't be long before the Seattle Times isn't worth Jack Shit and he can transition to being a douche without a cause.
14
@9 Thanks. Does that mean I would be on the hook for the estate tax if my husband died and left me a $1 mil life insurance policy? What if I'm sick, and that money was supposed to support me if he died? When two people are an economic unit, a la marriage, I think it makes sense to defer taxes until both have died.
15
I guess my point is that a married couple's estate ought to include all their combined assets, except maybe inheritances which aren't a joint asset in any sense of the word. If for all intents and purposes if two people act as a single economic unit for most of their adult lives, it is kind of weird to slap a new widow or widower, often elderly, with a big tax bill because he or she had the bad fortune not to die first. It makes more sense, and is kinder, to collect the taxes after both have died. The big issue with estate taxes (and a very very valid issue) is intergenerational wealth transfers.You don't want Romney's children and grandchildren to accumulate wealth in an aristocratic kind of way. But how is it a threat to society if a widow or widower is able to keep their standard of living, pay medical bills, etc, until they die? Then tax the fuck out of whatever is left.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS