Did you hear your pols shouting these several year to recover the fraud----our did they pretend austerity was needed?
ALL OF CONGRESS WAS SILENT---AND THAT MEANS THEY ARE COMPLICIT===AIDING AND ABETTING CRIME---GET RID OF THESE CLINTON WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS!
Summary of Total Cumulative Fed Commitments
When all individual transactions are summed across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, the Fed committed a total of $29,616.4 billion dollars. This includes direct lending plus asset purchases. Table 1 depicts the cumulative amounts for all facilities; any amount outstanding as of November 10, 2011 is in parentheses below the total in Table 1. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF—overshadow all other facilities, and make up 71.1 percent ($22,826.8 billion) of all assistance.
Table 1: Cumulative facility totals, in billions
Source: Federal Reserve
Facility Total Percent of total Term Auction Facility $3,818.41 12.89% Central Bank Liquidity Swaps 10,057.4(1.96) 33.96 Single Tranche Open Market Operation 855 2.89 Terms Securities Lending Facility and Term Options Program 2,005.7 6.77 Bear Stearns Bridge Loan 12.9 0.04 Maiden Lane I 28.82(12.98) 0.10 Primary Dealer Credit Facility 8,950.99 30.22 Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility 217.45 0.73 Commercial Paper Funding Facility 737.07 2.49 Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility 71.09(.794) 0.24 Agency Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Program 1,850.14(849.26) 6.25 AIG Revolving Credit Facility 140.316 0.47 AIG Securities Borrowing Facility 802.316 2.71 Maiden Lane II 19.5(9.33) 0.07 Maiden Lane III 24.3(18.15) 0.08 AIA/ ALICO 25 0.08
Totals $29,616.4 100.0%
The purpose of the massive subprime mortgage frauds in US and around the world-----THE NEW WORLD ORDER-----CREATING THE LANDED GENTRY. Here in Baltimore global real estate investment firms are being allowed to buy entire tracts of land in communities in the most attractive communities to live. We are seeing rental properties with soaring rents moving people out of neighborhoods and those given the power of voice on development policy are those owning property. Currently in Baltimore the middle-class is being moved into these city center locations but the goal is a Manhattan level of wealth. With the rural areas being owned more and more by BIG AG and large estates---you can see the creation of the Medieval society of peasants with nowhere to go. Remember, the people falling into this landed gentry were few and far between and they were the worst of people -----lying, cheating, and stealing were their qualities----SOUND FAMILIAR?
PLEASE STOP ALLOWING THE RICH CONVINCE YOU THESE ESTATE TAXES ARE BAD-----THEY SIMPLY ARE ALLOWING THESE RATES TO BE TOO HIGH FOR THE AVERAGE PROPERTY OWNER.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the British social class. For other uses, see Landed gentry (disambiguation). Mr and Mrs Andrews (1748-49) is a painting by British artist Thomas Gainsborough depicting members of the landed gentry. National Gallery, London. Landed gentry is a largely historical privileged British social class, consisting of land owners who could live entirely off rental income. Often they worked only in an administrative capacity, in the management of their own lands, or in such professions as politics and the armed forces. The decline of the class largely stemmed from the 1870s agricultural depression.
The term "gentry," some of whom were landed gentry, included four separate groups in England:
- Baronets: a hereditary title originally created by King James in 1611 giving the holder the right to be addressed as "Sir" as if they were knights;
- Knights: originally a military rank, this status was increasingly awarded to civilians as a reward for service to the Crown. Holders have the right to be addressed as "Sir".
- Esquires: originally men aspiring to knighthood, were the principal attendants on a knight. After the Middle Ages the title of Esquire became an honour that could be conferred by the Crown, and by custom the holders of certain offices (such as barristers, justices of the peace, and higher officer ranks in the armed services) were deemed to be Esquires.
- Gentlemen: possessors of a social status recognised as a separate title by the Statute of Additions of 1413. Generally men of high birth or rank, good social standing, and wealth, who did not need to work for a living, were considered gentlemen.
Montgomery County and Baltimore are the largest users of REIT and other corporate property tax breaks causing the state to lose billions of dollars in revenue. They were augmenting those losses by hitting a regional business ----which to these global corporate pols are taking market share from these corporations!
The business climate in Maryland is bad----not because of too many regulations and excessive taxation-----IT IS WHO THESE TAXES HIT. Deregulation allows these global corporations to come and take over our state and local economy which in turn pushes all the revenue generation off on main street.
We must move to progressive tax policy and if a candidate runs as a progressive tax supporter and never mentions all of this---they are a poser. Mizeur supported a combined corporate tax policy that has been debunked decades ago as useless because it requires more tracking then is done at state level. Maryland has absolutely no oversight and accountability to enforce a tax law like that----AS SHE KNEW ERGO, SHE WAS NOT BEING PROGRESSIVE! I'm only picking on Heather because she was the most recent Clinton neo-liberal chosen to pose progressive.
Supreme Court: Maryland has been wrongly double-taxing residents who pay income tax to other states
Correction: Earlier version of this article incorrectly said the ruling applied only to shareholders of certain small businesses. The ruling applies to all Marylanders who pay income tax out of state.
The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington. The court ruled Monday that Maryland’s income tax law is unconstitutional. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images) By Bill Turque May 18 A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that Maryland’s income tax law is unconstitutional because it does not provide a full tax credit to residents for income tax paid outside the state, a ruling likely to cost Maryland counties and localities across the country millions of dollars in revenue.
The court voted 5 to 4 to affirm a 2013 Maryland Court of Appeals ruling that the state’s practice of withholding a credit on the county segment of the state income tax wrongly exposes some residents with out-of-state income to double taxation. Justices said the provision violated the Constitution’s commerce clause because it might discourage individuals from doing business across state lines.
In most states, income from elsewhere is taxed both where the money is made and where taxpayers live. To guard against double taxation, states usually give residents a full credit for income taxes paid on out-of-state earnings.
[5 take-aways from the Supreme Court ruling]
Maryland residents are permitted to deduct income taxes paid to other states from what they pay in Maryland income tax. But the state did not allow the same deduction to be applied to a “piggyback” tax that is collected by the state for counties and the city of Baltimore.
The ruling affects about 55,000 Maryland taxpayers, according to the state comptroller’s office.
Those who tried to claim the credit on their county income tax returns between 2006 and 2014 are likely to be eligible for refunds, which officials estimate could total $200 million with interest.
Going forward, certain small-business owners who pay income taxes to another state on income earned in that state will be able to claim a credit for both the state and county portions of the Maryland tax, costing Maryland an estimated $42 million a year in revenue.
Montgomery County, which has the highest share of residents with out-of-state income, stands to be hardest hit. State officials estimate that the county is on the hook for about $115 million in refunds and interest, plus a loss of $24 million a year in tax revenue.
[Maryland prepares for big hit in tax refunds]
“I was hoping we would avoid this,” said County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), warning that the loss of revenue increases the likelihood of a major property tax increase next year. “This case cannot be overstated in terms of its significance.”
The ruling in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne also potentially affects thousands of other cities, counties and states with similar tax laws, including New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania and New York.
The case was brought by a Howard County couple, Brian and Karen Wynne, who reported $2.7 million in 2006 income, about half from their stake in Maxim Healthcare Services, a Columbia-based home-care and medical staffing company that does business in more than three dozen states.
The Wynnes paid $123,363 in Maryland state income tax and claimed an $84,550 Maryland credit for taxes paid in other states on income from Maxim.
Maryland taxes personal income at up to 5.75 percent. It also collects and distributes a piggyback income tax of up to 3.2 percent for each of the 23 counties and Baltimore City. But Maryland until now has offered no credit for the piggyback tax — in this case, the 3.2 percent the Wynnes owed to Howard County. The Wynnes and their attorneys contended that this represented about $25,000 in illegal double taxation.
The court was sharply divided, although not along the usual ideological lines. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion for a majority that comprised him, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Alito said the court has long recognized that the commerce clause has a “dormant” or underlying meaning. This holds that while the clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, it also was intended to ensure that states would not pass laws to restrict interstate business.
Maryland’s tax law violates that implicit aspect of the commerce clause, Alito said.
State officials argued that under the due process clause of the Constitution, states have a historic right to tax the income of their residents, no matter where it is earned.
The piggyback segment is excluded from the tax credit, officials said, to ensure that all residents pay an equitable share for local government services such as schools and public safety.
But Alito said Maryland’s argument is flawed because states have long offered a similar credit for out-of-state taxes paid by corporations, who “also benefit heavily from state and local services.”
Alito called Maryland’s tax policy “inherently discriminatory,” saying it essentially operates as a tariff, or a tax designed to restrict trade.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas writing separate opinions.
Ginsburg, writing the principal dissent, said there was nothing in the Constitution that compelled Maryland — or any other state — to change its laws because of taxes paid by its residents elsewhere. .
In his dissent, Scalia called the dormant commerce clause “a judge-invented rule under which judges may set aside state laws that they think impose too much of a burden upon interstate commerce.” Scalia said he agreed that such a view of the clause has a long history. “So it does, like many weeds,” he wrote. “But age alone does not make up for brazen invention.”
Brian Wynne, who now lives in Carroll County and no longer works for Maxim, declined to comment Monday.
Michelle Parker, a spokeswoman for Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), said in a statement Monday that the office will “work diligently and in a timely manner to comply with the decision and enforce Maryland law consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court.” Parker added that the office is already reviewing about 8,000 refund claims dating back tjo 2006.
Money for the refunds will come from the state’s income tax reserve fund. The state will recoup that money by reducing state income tax revenue sent to localities each quarter over a period of two years, starting in June 2016.
Maryland’s General Assembly last year lowered the interest rate that applies to refunds from past years in order to cushion the blow in case the Supreme Court ruled against the state. The interest rate was reduced from 13 percent to the average prime rate during fiscal 2015, or about 3 percent.
Fees are taxes -----creating what is the mirror of a bank account annual fee while passing laws that require Maryland citizens to use this account is a step towards ever higher taxes for using our public roads and bridges. We already paid enough into our Maryland Transportation Trust to rebuild our roads and bridges but those Trusts were raided and now they are trying to replace those funds with higher taxes. Now, this is not tax and spend Democrats because these Trusts were raided and handed to corporate profits----not public service.
The American people need to look at this effort by Clinton neo-liberals as with Republicans to return to toll roads and higher bridge fees at the same time they are privatizing them with the danger of excessive taxation on our means of moving around. Tolls were used in early days to keep people from moving outside of one area and into another. We pay tons of taxes with gas tax, car registrations, and income and property taxes to keep our roads and local bridges in repair.
Hogan is not benevolent in the few strikes against this excessive taxation from Erhlich and O'Malley----he is simply catering to his base----
BUSH NEO-CONS ARE PRIVATIZING PUBLIC ROADS AND BRIDGES AS FAST AS CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS!
Maryland Politics After Supreme Court strikes Md. tax law, is E-ZPass fee next?
By Josh Hicks May 18
Maryland’s policy of charging some out-of-state drivers an extra fee for using the E-ZPass system may be vulnerable to a legal challenge similar to the one that succeeded Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court.
State transportation officials voted this month to eliminate an $18-per-year charge for 675,000 Maryland residents who have E-ZPass accounts, but they left the charge in place for out-of-state members who use the system less than three times a month. The fee is described as an “account maintenance charge.”
In March, Maryland General Assembly Kathryn M. Rowe said in an advisory letter to Del. Neil C. Parrott (R-Washington) two months ago that the policy could violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from discouraging business across state lines.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Maryland ran afoul of the same clause by denying tax credits to residents who pay income tax to other states, with the majority finding that the policy might restrict interstate commerce.
Rowe cautioned in her letter that courts might reach the same conclusion about Maryland’s E-ZPass fee for out-of-state drivers, saying that “the proposed amendment raises significant constitutional issues under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and could possible by found invalid.”
The amendment she was referring to came from Parrot, who proposed legislation that would have imposed a fee structure similar to the one that state officials approved.
Rowe said in an e-mail on Monday that she doesn’t know of any lawsuits challenging the state’s account-maintenance fee.
The Daily Record of Maryland first reported the advisory letter in an article last week.
Rowe said in the letter that the courts have upheld differential tolls as legal in several recent cases, but she noted that “none of them, however, have involved systems under which all state residents are favored and all non-residents are disfavored.”
She also said that there is no added difficulty in collecting charges from nonresident E-ZPass holders, suggesting that courts might find the account-maintenance fee to be unjustified.
“While the current fee can be presumed not to be ‘excessive in comparison to the benefits received,’ it looks less reasonable when residents are not charged at all,” Rowe said.
Maryland Gov. Larry J. Hogan (R) and Transportation Secretary Pete K. Rahn have described the account-maintenance fee for residents as one of the most despised charges for state motorists.
“Instituting those monthly fees was a mistake that caused tens of thousands of people to drop their Maryland E-ZPass or switch to other states and discouraged others from signing up,” Hogan said at a news conference this month.
As a Democrat looking at a Clinton neo-liberal like O'Malley bumping the toll on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge so high at the same time spending his entire terms as Governor sending much of the Transportation Trust to build Montgomery County transit----one sees right away how these taxes can be used in dubious fashion. Those bridge fees would have had negative impact on what is a largely low-income Eastern Shore and its needed for commerce. As I stated----one has to look longer term to see what the goals of the rich and the privatization of public transportation to see these effects of limiting travel.
As this article suggests, it is a Republican policy to send the burden of taxation to the working and middle-class----and to privatize all that is public. So, Hogan is protesting a policy by O'Malley that is squarely Republican. More importantly, looking locally at roads in our communities---if we allow privatization, which is what they are going to tell us is needed because government coffers are empty from corporate fraud and government corruption---we can see the same use of tolls and fees to limit the movement of people in cities and counties.
Johns Hopkins studies movement of the poor and you can bet that is to where these policies lead. This article is great as it asks---
WHERE IS THE LEFT------WHERE ARE THE JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS SHOUTING AGAINST THESE POLICIES? THE SILENCE TELLS YOU ----YOU DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRATIC POLS OR LEADERS OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS WORKING FOR THE MIDDLE/LOWER CLASS!
Toll Roads and Double Taxation: The Left and Libertarians Converge
Rachel Alexander | Apr 01, 2013
- Toll roads are appealing to many on the right, because the fees don't look like taxes; motorists are charged for the voluntary action of driving on a specific road. Toll roads appear to be run by private entities, not the government. Also known as turnpikes, they are becoming an increasingly popular way to raise money to build roads, instead of increasing gas taxes which have traditionally paid for highways. Gas tax revenues only have about one-third the buying power they did a decade ago, insufficient to build new roads or maintain existing ones. There are now 5,244 miles of toll roads in the U.S., operating in 35 states.
It is an illusion that toll roads are a free market way to solve a growing government expense. Toll road contracts are set up as public-private partnerships, which are not the same thing as privatization. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) result in government-sanctioned monopolies granted to one or more favored companies, essentially crony capitalism. It is easy for the government to write specifications for projects so they will only fit select businesses. The PPPs may last from 30 to 100 years, granting an extremely long monopoly without competition. Government continues to oversee the projects, interfering with the private company's ability to fully maximize revenues. Even libertarians who promote toll roads admit the government still owns the toll roads.
The most expensive highway project in the U.S. was paid for by tolls, and so mismanaged that taxpayers filed a lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts over being required to pay tolls for the enormous expense. The Big Dig toll project in Massachusetts resulted in criminal prosecutions, ran 600 percent over cost, and took an extra six years to complete. It will not be fully paid for until the year 2038. Fortunately there were some consequences. The consortium that oversaw the project ended up paying out $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million. This experience should have served as a warning.
Tolls are inherently inefficient. There are reports that 80 percent of the money raised from tolls goes to the company managing the toll roads. Up to one-third of the revenues goes to tollbooth operators. Even many of the toll roads that have electronic pass options still have a costly tollbooth option.
Tolls rarely disappear after enough money has been raised to pay for a project. Proponents admit this, but defend the perpetual tolls by stating that the money goes to ongoing maintenance. Isn't that what gas taxes are for? Tolls aren't just initiated to create new roads; often they are put into place for maintenance only.
Toll road proponents admit the increased revenues will go for additional environmental projects that normally would not be affordable with just a gas tax; projects such as the complete undergrounding of roads in environmentally sensitive areas and light rail.
The traffic diversion that results from toll roads increases congestion on roads in other locations. This leaves too few motorists on the toll roads to make them efficient. Proponents argue that there is always an alternative road that motorists can use instead of the toll road. However, they fail to point out that the alternative road is usually miles away and congested, making it an unrealistic solution for most commuters. There is no realistic practical alternative, otherwise virtually everyone would avoid the toll road.
Those who do not pay the tolls, for whatever reason, are treated practically like criminals and fined incredible amounts of money. Not to mention the state may suspend their driver's license and registration. The state of Texas charges per mile in some areas, such as 15.3 cents per mile in North Texas. The state humiliates toll violators by listing their names and amounts owed on a website. Some owe as much as $153,000. It seems preposterous how one person can be responsible for owing that much simply for the privilege of driving on the public roads for a few years. The toll on the 520 bridge from Bellevue to Seattle costs anywhere from $1.13 to $5.13, but if not paid within 80 days, will likely be assessed a $40 late fee per unpaid toll, plus costs. This averages out to at least 1300 percent more than the original toll! Where is the outrage over a small civil fee increasing this much? Clearly, the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.
The way toll roads were forced on the public in parts of Texas without a real vote sparked a documentary exposing the unfair maneuvering called Truth be Tolled. Since 2004, Texans have been loudly fighting toll roads. Toll roads are administered under regional mobility authorities (RMAs), which are not held directly accountable to the public. The contracts are negotiated in secret, and there is no cap on the spending nor end dates set. A San Antonio Toll Party emerged to fight the toll roads imposed undemocratically upon that area of Texas.
There is a deafening silence from the left about the disparate impact toll roads have on the poor. The left is also noticeably silent regarding the extra wasted fuel that is used and dispersed into the environment as motorists drive extra miles to avoid the toll roads. The poor, who are most likely to drive gas-guzzling, older, polluting cars, will be the ones driving extra miles to avoid toll roads.
There is equally deafening silence from libertarians about the excessive surveillance that is required to track drivers on toll roads. Drivers in Texas are tracked on so many highways now it is possible to tell where Texans are multiple times throughout the day. To rack up $253,000 in fees, how often was Texas's top violator tracked by surveillance?
Toll roads sound good in theory, especially to libertarians sitting in ivory tower think tanks. But practically they don't work. Toll roads wouldn't be quite as bad if government would adopt them in place of gas taxes. But government will never get rid of gas taxes. The right generally dislikes gas taxes, which are poorly correlated to their purpose of funding road maintenance. Gas taxes and tolls only provide a third of state and local road spending.
Bexar County, Tex. Commissioner Lyle Larson, who opposes toll roads, revealed on a radio show a few years ago that the state highway fund lost $10 billion over 20 years, because funds were diverted to non-road related purposes. More than half of the money went to fund the Department of Public Safety, $115 million went into the state's general fund, several million went for a computer system for the state comptroller’s office, and the rest to the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, arts commissions, and various politicians’ pet projects.
Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman said he believes the Texas Department of Transportation sits on road construction that has already been authorized, in order to keep traffic congestion bad in Houston so people will welcome toll roads.
The problem can be fixed by ensuring that revenues go directly to road maintenance, perhaps through a sales tax or mechanism other than gas taxes if necessary, not by adding another level of revenue generation that gives government more money to waste.
David Ellis, a researcher at the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M, came up with a way to fund highways that would not require tolls or raising gas taxes. Index the gasoline tax to inflation and put the incremental revenue in the mobility fund, where it can be used to pay off bonds. Gas taxes may not be a perfect way to fund roads, but they aren't much more of a tax than toll roads. People can avoid gas taxes by choosing not to drive as much, driving electric cars and bicycles, or taking cheaper public transportation.
Toll roads do nothing but enable a new layer of irresponsible spending by the government. The public ends up paying for roads twice, plus additional environmental projects. Libertarians overlap with the left on social issues, not fiscal issues. Libertarians should look long and hard at why they agree with the left on double taxation here.
For some reason Republican voters are the ones shouting out against the estate tax and overwhelmingly Republican voters are low-income. Estate taxes for farms are no longer hitting small farmers because there are fewer and fewer small farmers. BIG AG took care of that. Regardless, these changes to estate laws at both the Federal and State level target the rich as exemptions grow from what was a million dollars to as high as $5-6 million. Now, that much tax exemption is a lot of estate! Remember, the Founding Fathers included this estate tax to keep from having landed gentry own all real estate and keep land available for each generation.
The New World Order people Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons used the subprime mortgage frauds----AND THEY ARE DOING THESE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE FRAUDS TODAY PREPARING FOR THIS COMING BOND MARKET CRASH TO TAKE YET MORE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S REAL ESTATE----to move and consolidate real estate into the hands of a few----the landed gentry. So, if we are going to raise the tax exemption ---we are making way for this unlimited accumulation of land that the Founding Fathers knew would kill egalitarian and democratic rights for all.
The amount of tax paid on a middle-class piece of property should not be high----the amount paid by a wealthy land owner should be high. What has happened as with the double- income tax article above-----it is the small and regional businesses and middle/working class paying higher taxes so the rich and corporations can pay little to NO TAXES.
REMEMBER THE CORPORATE PROPERTY TAX SHELTER REIT? REMEMBER ALL OF THE ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY TAX BREAKS FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS? THIS IS WHAT DRIVES MARYLAND TO TAX MORE HEAVILY ON THE AVERAGE CITIZENS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
These corporate pols try to scare us by saying----if we raise taxes on the rich and corporations jobs will leave! WE CREATE MORE JOBS WITH A LOCAL, DOMESTIC ECONOMY FOLKS! Keep in mind----Democrats do not protect wealth -----they protect the middle/working class. Clinton Wall Street global corporate pols protect wealth just like the Republicans they are!
Overview of Changes to Maryland Estate Tax Laws Beginning in 2015 New Maryland Estate Tax Laws Take Effect on January 1, 2015
By Julie Garber Wills & Estate Planning Expert
Jay Baker/Executive Office of the Governor NOTE: State laws change frequently and the following information may not reflect recent changes. For current tax or legal advice, please consult with an accountant or an attorney since the information contained in this article is not tax or legal advice and is not a substitute for tax or legal advice.
On May 15, 2014, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed H.B. 739, Maryland Estate Tax - Unified Credit, into law.
This new law, which repeals and then re-enacts Maryland's state estate tax, makes several significant changes that will go into effect beginning on January 1, 2015.
Increases in Maryland's Estate Tax Exemption Beginning in 2015
First and foremost, the Maryland estate tax exemption will gradually increase on an annual basis from the current $1,000,000 exemption until it matches the federal estate tax exemption in 2019 as follows:
- Deaths between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015: $1,500,000 exemption
- Deaths between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016: $2,000,000 exemption
- Deaths between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017: $3,000,000 exemption
- Deaths between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018: $4,000,000 exemption
- Deaths on or after January 1, 2019: Maryland exemption will match federal exemption, estimated to be $5,900,000 in 2019 (more on that below)
The federal estate tax exemption increased from $3,500,000 in 2009 to $5,000,000 in 2010; 2010 was also the year that estates could opt out of the federal estate tax rules and into the modified carryover basis rules.
The federal estate tax exemption remained at $5,000,000 in 2011 and then beginning in 2012 the $5,000,000 federal estate tax exemption has been indexed for inflation on an annual basis as follows:
Portability of the Maryland Estate Tax Exemption
In December 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act ("TRUIRJCA" for short) was signed into law. As part of TRUIRJCA, "portability" of the federal estate tax exemption between married couples was introduced for the first time and applied to deaths that occurred in 2011 and 2012. Then, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act ("ATRA" for short) was passed which made portability of the federal estate tax exemption between married couples permanent for 2013 and future years. But what does "portability" of the estate tax exemption mean?
In simple terms, portability of the federal estate tax exemption between married couples means that if the first spouse dies and the value of the estate does not require the use all of the deceased spouse's federal exemption from estate taxes, then the amount of the exemption that was not used for the deceased spouse's estate may be transferred to the surviving spouse's exemption so that he or she can use the deceased spouse's unused exemption plus his or her own exemption when the surviving spouse later dies.
With regard to state estate taxes, however, currently only Hawaii offers portability at the state level, but Maryland will begin offering portability of its state estate tax exemption beginning in 2019.
Additional Information About Maryland Death TaxesThere are a couple of other things that should be noted about Maryland's death tax laws:
- The maximum Maryland estate tax rate will remain at 16%.
- A married decedent's estate will still be able to make a Maryland-only election to treat a trust of which the surviving spouse is the sole beneficiary as "qualified terminable interest property" ("QTIP Trust" for short) for purposes of calculating the Maryland estate tax in years where there is still a gap between the Maryland estate tax exemption and the federal exemption. Thus, married Maryland residents who die between 2014 and 2018 will be able to defer payment of both Maryland and federal death taxes until after the death of the surviving spouse using ABC Trust planning.
- Maryland is one of two states (New Jersey is the other) which collects both a state estate tax and a state inheritance tax. The new law did not make any changes to Maryland's inheritance tax. Refer to Overview of Maryland Inheritance Tax Laws for more information about this Maryland death tax.
Republicans love the phrase----tax and spend Democrats which was true when progressive liberal labor and justice controlled the Democratic Party. From FDR to Johnson the tax base from corporations and the rich brought enough to provide safety net and quality of life services to a strong middle class and low income people. THAT WAS TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS---
Today, we have tax and spend Clinton neo-liberals who are giving away so much money to corporate fraud, subsidy, and tax breaks that spending has super-sized the taxation on main street. The Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank as Clinton neo-liberals sell themselves as progressives.
Below you see one reason Clinton is said to work for the poor as regards taxation. The per-child tax credit needs for people to even earn enough to pay taxes and as Republicans like to say, in America half of Americans are so poor they pay no taxes. Clinton created economic policy he knew would deepen poverty and unemployment across America so to pose progressive with a per-child tax credit while pushing policy that would make safety net programs a way of life with high unemployment caused by global markets----GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS WILL NEVER ACTUALLY INSTALL A PROGRESSIVE ISSUE THAT MOVES MONEY TO MAIN STREET!
'Under Clinton, The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 offered a new tax benefit to families through the Per-Child Tax credit. This credit was refundable for many lower-income families and began a new trend of individual, refundable tax credits'.
Ask a Republican who says taxes belong to the people who pay them how it is that corporate subsidy is soaring; corporate fraud is emptying our government coffers; and corporations are paying almost no taxes? Look below to see that Clinton neo-liberals today---from President Obama, to Maryland Governor O'Malley, to Baltimore City Mayor Rawlings-Blake sending massive amounts of tax revenue to corporations are REPUBLICAN IN THEIR POLICIES. Government spending does help stimulate the economy if there are controls and oversight-----allowing all to be stolen in fraud is not what Keynes had in mind!
Parties For Taxes: Republicans Vs. Democrats
By Stephanie Barton | November 06, 2008
We often boil down the tax policy of our major political parties into its simplest form: Democrats raise taxes to fund social programs, and Republicans lower taxes to benefit big businesses and the wealthy. Both ideas simplify the policy of each party, yet both ideas are essentially true.
Whether you agree with more government spending or tax breaks for corporations, each party's agenda will affect your taxes.
"We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions," the Republicans state their case plainly on the Republican National Convention web site. That is, Republicans believe government should spend money only to enforce contracts, maintain basic infrastructure and national security, and protect citizens against criminals.
The literature of the House Republican Conference goes on to illuminate the role of the government and how tax policies affect individuals: "The money the government spends does not belong to the government; it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. Republicans believe Americans deserve to keep more of their own money to save and invest for the future, and low tax policies help drive a strong and healthy economy."
Tax relief is the Republican route to growing the economy. A Republican government would reduce taxes for businesses to allow businesses to grow and thus hire more employees. Republicans also seek to limit income taxes for individuals so that people can hold on to more disposable income, which they can then spend, save or invest.
Political Ideology: Democrat
The tax policy for the Democratic Party calls for raising certain taxes to provide money for government spending, which in turn generates business. The party platform asserts that government spending provides "good jobs and will help the economy today."
Many Democrats are adherents to Keynesian economics, or aggregate demand, which holds that when the government funds programs, those programs pump new money into the economy. Keynesians believe that prices tend to stay relatively stable and therefore any kind of spending, whether by consumers or the government, will grow the economy. (Check out Giants Of Finance: John Maynard Keynes, to learn more about Keynes' theories.)
Like the Republicans, Democrats believe the government should subsidize vital services that keep cities, states and the country running: infrastructure such as road and bridge maintenance and repairs for schools. Democrats also call for tax cuts for the middle class. But who benefits most under each platform? The conventional wisdom is that corporations and the wealthy will benefit more with a Republican tax policy while small businesses and middle-class households will benefit from a Democratic tax policy.
A Misunderstood Concept
Many of the quarrels that flare up when people debate tax policy evolve out of misunderstood concepts. Possibly the most misunderstood concept is the tax rate. We hear that a politician wants to raise taxes on income and we cringe, convinced that higher taxes will whittle away every dollar we earn. But we don't pay a flat tax; we pay income taxes on a marginal rate.
The marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the last dollar of income you earn. For example, if you were single in 2008 and you brought in $50,000, you fell into the 25% tax bracket. But that doesn't mean that every dollar was taxed at 25%. It means that your first $8,025 was taxed at 10%, then everything up to $32,550 was taxed at 15% and everything above $32,551 was taxed at 25%.
Thus, when a Republican administration announces lower taxes, it is lowering the marginal tax rate - and critics grumble that the decrease benefits folks sitting on the higher rungs of the income ladder. Similarly, when Democrats announce an increase to the marginal rate, critics gripe that the increase will burden only high-income earners. (Read The Market And Presidential Promises to see how, no matter who you vote for, announcements like tax changes can affect the markets.)
Of course, filing taxes is never as simple as plugging in your income and calculating your marginal rate. The IRS has bequeathed us a mishmash of regulations, deductions, credits and other magical formulas to thwart our efforts to file a quick federal return. Both political parties agree that the colossal tax code needs to be restructured and simplified. And, of course, each party has its own plan for how to tackle the problem.
The Democrats state that they "will shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens and use the money so that we can provide a … middle-class tax cut that will offer relief to workers and their families."
The Republicans assert that they "support giving all taxpayers the option of filing under current rules or under a two-rate flat tax with generous deductions for families. Religious organizations, charities and fraternal benevolent societies should not be subject to taxation."
A Recent History of Taxes and Spending
Tax policy and the marginal rates we pay have volleyed back and forth, as Republicans and Democrats each took the reins of the White House. Under the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which gave a 25%, across-the-board tax cut to individuals in all tax brackets - an act that became associated with the term supply-side economics. Then Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which, among other changes, lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 50-28%, and reduced the corporate tax rate.
In 1993, the Clinton administration repealed some of the Reagan tax cuts with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which tacked on 36% and 39.6% marginal tax rates for individuals and a 35% rate for corporations. Note, however, that as inflation fell after the 1981 tax cuts, and the economy began to slow, Reagan agreed to repeal some of his own tax cuts, with the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. The Reagan and Clinton tax increases served to reign in a budget deficit, which then allowed Clinton to announce a budget surplus of $230 billion in 2000.
Under Clinton, The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 offered a new tax benefit to families through the Per-Child Tax credit. This credit was refundable for many lower-income families and began a new trend of individual, refundable tax credits.
Under George W. Bush, in 2001, Congress signed into law a $1.35 trillion tax cut, which gave tax relief to individuals and families, with $300 to $600 rebates, doubled the child tax credit and again dropped the top marginal rate from 39.6-35%. The Bush tax cuts also provided major tax incentives for businesses. The Bush administration followed up with more rebates in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. (Not all promises were acted upon in previous years. Read Talk Is Cheap: Campaign Promises And The Economy, to take a look at a couple of past promises, and why they were not implemented.)
Conservative think tanks denounce the Democrat tax policy and its Keynesian ideology as wasteful spending that injects only temporary money into the economy, as they praise Republican tax policy for protecting business, investments and personal income. The liberal establishment condemns the Republican tax approach - and supply-side economists - as funneling money only to the wealthy and big corporations, as they commend Democrats for spreading the wealth, supporting small business and reaching out to lower-income workers.
Both sides have their own experts and statistics lined up to support their economic dogma, but tax policy is complicated and tightly interwoven with many other aspects of government. The benefits of one approach may take years to materialize, which can frustrate our ability to distinguish which tax cuts or which tax increases fuel growth. (To learn more about party differences, read our related article For Higher Stock Returns, Vote Republican Or Democrat?)