When the lack of a "death tax" becomes a death incentive

From Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" blog yesterday:

December 16, 2009, 6:36 pm

Throwing Momma from the train

I warned you, back in 2001!

So in the law as now written, heirs to great wealth face the following situation: If your ailing mother passes away on Dec. 30, 2010, you inherit her estate tax-free. But if she makes it to Jan. 1, 2011, half the estate will be taxed away. That creates some interesting incentives. Maybe they should have called it the Throw Momma From the Train Act of 2001.

And it’s happening:

At the beginning of 2010, the Bush estate tax plan is scheduled to change such that all estates, up to any value, are excluded. Because the tax bill was passed through reconciliation, however, it has a ten-year time frame, meaning that the law expires at the end of 2010. And that means that the heirs of fortunes received in 2010 will pay no tax, while heirs getting theirs in 2011 will pay 50% of the value of the estate to the Internal Revenue Service.

Perhaps you notice the uncomfortable incentive structure here.

Just for the record, the December 16 Economist blogpost Paul K is quoting from above continues:

The House of Representatives voted at the beginning of December to continue the current year policy into 2010; instead of an exclusion for all estates, only those greater than $3.5 million in value would be taxed. That would still leave some bad incentives in place, but it would be better than the current policy path. That left the Senate, graveyard of sensible policy ideas. And the Senate has now abandoned its effort to pass the House extension of the estate tax measure.

Democratic senators are saying that they'll address this early next year and will likely impose the tax retroactively. We'll see. If they do not, there may be a few nervous older people tottering around next year, checking the brake lines on their Cadillacs and generally eyeing their heirs with suspicion.

JUST THIS ONCE, IF CONGRESS DOES
NOTHING, WE REAP A "POLICY" WINDFALL

My FDL News colleague David Dayen has noted: "If the estate tax stays under current law, repealed for one year but back to the pre-Bush levels thereafter, that will recoup, according to the CBO, $235 billion dollars more over 10 years than if the House version, which restores 2009 levels for next year and makes it permanent. Nobody seems to be talking about that, amidst the one-year repeal and the hazards thereto."

He's written about this at greater length: Deficit-Conscious White House Approves Of Estate Tax Cut Costing Gov’t $230 Billion?

#

Says The Economist: To vote for McCranky, you have to assume "that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying"

"Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by
speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of
artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a
word of what he has been saying."

-- from The Economist's endorsement of Obama for president today

by Ken

Bear in mind that The Economist is editorially seriously conservative -- only not in the sense that, say, Mitch McConnell or Grover Norquist or Sean Hannity or Princess Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber is "conservative."

Oh, there's a deal of nonsense in the editorial, like the glib declaration that "[Senator McCranky's] gut reaction over Georgia -- to warn Russia off immediately -- was the right one," or the notion that Douglas "Young Johnny Made the Blackberry" Holtz-Eakin is "the impressive exception" to Senator McCranky's poor effort to enlist competent economic advisers (the hapless Dougie would be old-line Tories' kind of guy), or the weird assumption that Senator Obama is in thrall to labor unions, or the usual right-wing lumping together of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid into a single looming crisis.

And around DWT, we're a long way from sharing The Economist's fear "that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole." We don't want to see him moving toward any damned center. (I guess we're the kind of people the posh folk at The Economist worry that Obama may listen to. There doesn't really seem much danger of that.)

Still, in its thoughtful and specific discussion, the editorial does appreciate both the scariness of the campaign waged by "the Candidate McCain of the past six months" ("his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated") and the promise of the Obama candidacy:

"Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well."

Certainly the editorial gets the basic point right:

"In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."

#