The people who realized it had zero chance if they didn't.

Why would you think there should be a step up in basis when ownership moves because of death? Unless you are saying that when the estate tax is repealed, all capital gains taxes should be repealed, in which case the whole basis issue is moot. Uh, except I think basis has to do with depreciation, but I don't think that's relevant here.

There's a decent argument for stepped up basis of administrative simplicity. Establishing the cost basis of your own holdings (i'm talking stocks, houses, etc., not companies) is difficult enough when they're your assets. Much more challenging when they're your parents, who probably kept shitty records.

That said, there's no good reason to allow assets transferred at death to escape taxation altogether.

Well, yes I agree that would make sense to do it that way, if one were a corporation. But I get solicitations all the time and I'm no corporation, and mostly I hand out cold hard ducats. It feels like you're correct, but I was curious about a source to confirm it.

then why the fuck not pay your debt to the board?

Because they'd never get it through Congress without eliminating the basis step-up. Nor should they.

Why wouldn't that go thru congress? Indulge me here. I'm baffled as to why repeal wouldn't pass without eliminating the basis step up.

What would happen if we just eliminated the estate tax. No caveats, no extra provisions - just a repeal.

Who does the step up elimination placate? Is it a way to create tax revenue to make up for that lost as a result of the repeal?

You're not old enough. My university hits up the geezers for gifts of stock pretty hard, because the university won't have to pay the tax that an individual will. My grand uncle (rest in peace) gave a sizable amount of stock in a large car manufacturer that he had accumulated via a profit sharing plan to his alma mater instead of cash for that reason.

It placates me for one. I can't believe you're even suggesting that there is even one iota of equity in imposing a full tax burden of wage-earners while giving those fortunate enough to inherit wealth a free ride.

I'm baffled that you can't grasp this.

you're really pushing this "Max moratorium" shit.

I hate everyone
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/...age/index.html

Gay marriage ban-

• "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."

How can anyone other than the most extreme not be repulsed by this type statement? I understand that 60% or so of the voters are anti-gay on marriage, but the most important issue?

What is most absurd is that if there was a chance it could pass i bet the Rs wouldn't push it- that would prevent them from running a state ban in any battleground states in the future

I hate everyone
 

2.

The most important issue facing the country today is not gay marriage, but flag-burning. Thankfully, the Bush Administration and its Wahhabi Republican supporters are going to tackle that crucial issue next.

Runaway deficits, immigration, and the growing pile of bodies in Iraq come, respectively, in 15th, 27th, and 45th place, in order of importance. (The Iraq thing is just behind tax cuts for pest control companies, aka the Trent Lott Memorial Patriotic Pest Control Act.)

What, like you lasted more than one day, anyway?

Sorry, Spanky
 

It seems that Spanky is to politics what str8 is to sports betting.

Sorry, Spanky
 

Not true. He did win in CA-50.

Now all he has to do is find a nice home for the Bilbray family in the district, and he can move on.