Adopting GOP-promoted term, Fox News repeatedly refers to estate tax as "death tax"
SUMMARY: In a report about the estate tax on America's Newsroom, Alisyn Camerota and Molly Henneberg repeatedly referred to the tax as the "death tax," a term popularized by supporters of the repeal of the tax.
In an April 1 report on Fox News' America's Newsroom, anchor Alisyn Camerota and correspondent Molly Henneberg repeatedly referred to the estate tax as the "death tax," a term popularized by supporters of the repeal of the tax and which GOP pollster Frank Luntz reportedly found polls better than the terms "estate tax" and "inheritance tax." While Henneberg noted that President Obama's budget uses the term "estate tax" and Camerota used the term "inheritance tax" at one point, neither Henneberg nor Camerota noted that the official name of the tax in the U.S. Code is the "estate tax."
Additionally, Camerota and Henneberg each at one point used language that falsely suggested that under Obama's proposed budget, the estate tax would apply to all Americans. Introducing the segment, Camerota stated that if Obama's budget passes, "Uncle Sam will take nearly half your estate when you die." Henneberg asserted that "if you're going to die, I guess next year's not the year to do it." In fact, as Henneberg later noted, estates that total less than $3.5 million will not have to pay any taxes if the estate tax is pegged at its 2009 levels, as Obama's budget proposes.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News host Neil Cavuto also repeatedly used the term "death tax" in a July 2006 interview with then-President Bush. Additionally, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly referred to the "death tax" on a June 2005 edition of his radio program. Media Matters has also noted that Fox News has used other terms favored by Republicans in its reporting, such as referring to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program as a "terrorist surveillance program" (echoing a January 2006 backgrounder on the program released by the White House's press office) and referring to suicide bombers as "homicide bombers," a term initially adopted by the White House in 2002.
Camerota introduced the segment by describing the Obama administration as "breathing new life into the death tax. Looking live right now onto Capitol Hill. Uncle Sam will take nearly half of your estate when you die if President Obama's budget passes as is. The 45 percent inheritance tax was supposed to be erased in the year 2010, but fine print in the president's budget says it's not going anywhere. ... What's supposed to happen with the death tax?" Henneberg responded: "Yeah, if you're going to die, I guess next year's not the year to do it, as some people were thinking. You know, the death tax was supposed to go away next year. The death tax had been 55 percent last year, but then President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts had decreased it -- or had planned for it to decrease -- and it will decrease to 45 percent this year, and then eliminate it altogether next year. But it appears that will not happen now."
During the segment, on-screen text repeatedly used the phrase "Death Tax" in quotation marks.
Camerota and Henneberg used the term "death tax" throughout the segment, though both Henneberg and an on-screen graphic noted that that the Obama budget refers to the tax as the estate tax. As Henneberg said:
It's a line in a footnote on Page 127 of the president's budget that says -- we can show it to you -- it says, quote, "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters."
From the April 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
ALISYN CAMEROTA (host): A breaking new -- sorry, I should say, breathing new life into the death tax. Looking live right now onto Capitol Hill. Uncle Sam will take nearly half of your estate when you die if President Obama's budget passes as is. The 45 percent inheritance tax was supposed to be erased in the year 2010, but fine print in the president's budget says it's not going anywhere. Fox's Molly Henneberg is live in Washington. What's supposed to happen with the death tax? Good morning, Molly.
HENNEBERG: Hey, Alisyn. Yeah, if you're going to die, I guess next year's not the year to do it, as some people were thinking. You know, the death tax was supposed to go away next year. The death tax had been 55 percent last year, but then President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts had decreased it -- or had planned for it to decrease -- and it will decrease to 45 percent this year, and then eliminate it altogether next year. But it appears that will not happen now -- Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: What does it say in President Obama's budget about this?
HENNEBERG: Right. It's a line in a footnote on Page 127 of the president's budget that says -- we can show it to you -- it says, quote, "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters" -- which means that 45 percent. And this is for people who have estates over 3.5 million, or 7 million per couple, and that's money that some economists believe won't be invested in small businesses. One former Congressional Budget Office director says getting rid of the death tax would have increased investment in small businesses by $1.6 trillion and would have created 1.5 million new jobs -- Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: Now, it's curious, Molly, is it not, that the president's own top economic adviser once seemed to be against this very kind of death tax?
HENNEBERG: Or at least he acknowledged that it kind of prevents or stymies economic growth. Larry Summers, as you said, the president's top economic adviser, co-authored a study in 1980 looking at how capital -- how money and wealth were accumulated and grown. He writes in the report, quote: "The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of the aggregate U.S. capital formation." Meaning that it's the passing on of wealth from one generation to another that helps grow the U.S. economy, something the death tax would seem to impede -- Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: Molly Henneberg, live for us from Washington. Thank you for that update.
Don't these two know that strip clubs are hiring?
Here's their chance to get more respectable jobs than working at Fox.
Working as an exotic dancer is a LOT more respectable than working at Fox. The dancers I know have a code of conduct.
$3.5 Million in found money. Amazing that you can complain about any taxes at all on anything above that. (Though admittedly 45% is a bit high - why not just use the normal income tax rate, assuming that was counted as income?) But I just can't see how some can get 4+ Million handed to them and then whine about taxes. (And I say that as someone who will likel pay some of those taxes myself someday, assuming I don;t myself disowned. It's still a TON of found money from my POV. I just can't see it as that big a deal.)
The fact is the estate tax affects very, very few americans
it's because that is exactly what it is, read it. " A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States" decedent is a deceased, or a dead person, death tax. Of course estate tax polls better, but so what, say what it is for crying out loud. who authored this tax anyway, most likely a liberal, hence the name? If I am wrong, I apologize but fluffing up, softening the impact, and putting in a little class warfare kick to boot (oh those damn rich people, who cares if their "estate" gets taxed) but the wink and nod name of a double dip tax such as this is what liberals do best.
The estate tax is simply not a tax on the decedent at all. It's a tax on the person recieving the transfer of wealth.
In the same way that a payroll tax is cost effective because the accounting is done while the employer holds the funds, the estate tax is cost effective because the accounting is done while the funds are in the estate.
btw: The jab at the end of you're 'argument' is unecessary.
if liberals could tax the decedent they probably would. of course it is not a tax on the dead person, point is what is being taxed has already been taxed, sales tax, property tax, etc. and why does the government have any right to dip their greedy hands in anything that a person leaves to another after they die? they have no right.
"if liberals could tax the decedent they probably would."
Mind reading, much?
it was a joke
Is it not new income for the heirs?
has it has it not already been taxed when it was obtained by the decedent?
No, it hasn't, and will NEVER be taxed without the estate tax. Here's the deal: you inherit property at what it's worth when the decedent passed, not what they paid for it. So if Dad's stock portfolio is worth, say, $100,000,000 when he died, that's what it's worth to YOU for tax purposes, meaning if you sold every share for $100,000,000, you'd pay ZERO taxes. And guess what? Dad didn't pay any taxes on it either. He bought and HELD it. Now consider that Dad's basis (what he paid) was only $10,000,000. That means without estate taxes, $90,000,000 would NEVER GET TAXED.
That's the whole purpose of the estate tax: to recoup some of the taxes lost through inheritance, and only on estates past a certain amount. Presently, that amount is $3,500,000 in 2009, thus affecting a small percentage of decedents' estates, and unless Congress changes things, in 2010, the estate tax will be ZERO, but resumes pre-Bush rates and brackets in 2011 (the sunset law).
Randy
All of that property and stock was paid for with AFTERTAX money. So yes, it was indeed already taxed.
This is a really ignorant argument, about as ignorant as they come.
Every penny that is legally transferred from one person to another person or corporation gets taxed.
Except for $3.5 million in estate taxes.
Income and gains are taxed. If you get $100,000 after tax income and turn that into $5 million in property after 30 years of good investing, that $4,900,000 gain was never taxed.
and what is the problem with such wealth being taxed.......if it was inherited then the person recieving it didn't EARN the money
recoup some of the taxes lost through inheritance. That, by far is the dumbest statement in support for the death tax that I have ever heard in my life. It does not belong to the government and is not taxable income, it is taxed just because certain government officials say it can be taxed. There is no valid excuse for taxing the estate of a deceast person.
We aren't taxing the estate. We're taxing the heirs who get the distributions from the estate. And we tax them because we tax all large incomes and gains.
liberals never met a tax they didn't like, this is just another example of that.
And right-wing dumba$$3s like you never met a debunked right-wing talking point they didn't like.
talking point? look at all the liberals jumping through hoops to defend a douple dip tax on the deceased, sorry if my candor offends you.
And look at you conservatives jumping through hoops to defend single-dip tax on the Paris Hiltons of the world, who inherited a bunch of money that they didn't even lift a finger to earn.
I thought you guys were all about rewarding success and productivity. Why would you want to reward heirs and heiresses who haven't learned to produce for themselves?
because they make campaign contributions
It's not your candor that offends me, it's your willful ignorance that offends me.
point is what is being taxed has already been taxed, sales tax, property tax, etc. JAMESB
So you contend that money passed on to the loved ones of the deceased has been taxed through sales tax, property tax etc. You sure about that? I mean isn't sales tax added on to the purchase price of goods or services? That would mean that money is gone and not subject to the estate tax, no? And property tax is paid on property usually yearly as I understand it, so that money is gone as well and not subject to the estate tax either. So your comment doesn't make much sense.
so your argument is the sales or property tax is already out of the equation because it's gone? that is absurd. talk about not making sense. the point is it is double dipping the taxes, the govt. has already taxed the goods and the property when it was exchanged the first time. Doing it again is double dipping, and repulsive.
Why is it that people whose jobs are outsourced should just pull themselves by their bootstraps, but people inheriting three and a half million dollars are somehow victims because that money is taxed?
You just proved to me, to everyone, that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Nobody is taxed on the increased value of assets (like stocks, bonds and property) UNTIL THEY ARE SOLD. But inheritance rules wipe out the possibility of taxing ANY paper-based increases in value, thus the need for an estate tax (see a few post up).
Randy
You don't actually pay sales tax until you buy sometime. You're absurd.
sometime=something.
Your comment is simply not true ... It's not a double tax. Each time money is transferred from one person to another, that's income to the tranferee, and thus ligitimately taxable.
According to your logic ... Why should the government have any right to dip their greedy hands in anything my employer gives me?
The person inheriting has NOT been charged; whether the previous owner was taxed is absolutely irrelevant. The government is absolutely within its rights to levy such a tax. Claiming otherwise is ludicrous.
You're so right James. Because we all know that class warfare can only be waged by those on the bottom against the wealthy.
If we're going to rename it, I prefer the Paris Hilton tax.
while you're at it, why don't you just name all people who have money Paris Hilton. liberals can't get enough of milking her dippy blonde heiress act as that of every person with money. makes for an easy target.
Makes for an easy target. I agree. As does the death tax.
What is it with your sweeping statements about liberals? Can you prove that ANY one of your sweeping statements is true?
I'm patiently waiting, but not holding my breath.
sweeping? look around, how many introduce Paris Hilton when there is a discussion on the rich? It's a ridiculous example, but always good for a liberal jab or two. It's bad enough to engage in class warfare, a staple of liberalism, but when it's reduced to petty envy and jealousy, it's not attractive.
why is it ridiculous? she is a perfect example of recieving inherited wealth. does she have a job? has she ever held one?
If I'm not mistaken, you're the one bringing Paris Hilton into this conversation...
read around the thread, you are very much mistaken. Worrierking first brought it up, then Kyle. It's what liberals do when they want to put a face to rich people.
Again with the blanket statement.
For your blanket statement to be true, all liberals would have to do it. Last time I checked, Kyle and Worrierking were not the spokesmen for liberals.
But if you want to say that two people are the actual spokesmen for liberals, we can also say that someone as stupid as Rush Limbaugh is the spokesman for ALL conservatives.
See how blanket statements aren't your friend?
You're such a tool - and you don't even know it.
in all fairness i also brought up paris hilton.....but i also mentioned the entirety of that family, along with the mellons, rockefellers, vaderbuilts, hell i even throw in the kennedy's for good measure.
that first paragraph should have been in quotation marks:
whats the problem with someone who is worth 30 million gets their estate taxed when they die? its not liek the whole estate is being taken away
Why should the government get any of it? They didn't earn it. Then, they'll distribute to other people who didn't earn it.
That's an argument against any taxation. How do you expect the government to pay for anything through that logic?
Brabantio, If he is arguing that point, it is obviously unrealistic. I am for people paying their fair share of taxes, but I just feel this tax should be eliminated. My personal opinion.
I understand the reasoning for the tax. There might be an argument for lowering the rate, but as a basic concept it seems fair.
What I don't buy is either;
A)The mindset that people screwed over by corporate policy should either find another job, or take night classes or whatever else because we shouldn't cultivate some victim mentality, while at the same time people who get 2.2 million instead of 4 million need other people to advocate for their cause
or
B)The idea that the government "didn't earn it", since that's totally irrelevant to the topic (as is the matter of what the government spends the money on).
The government doesn't pay for anything. The people do through taxation which has gotten way outta hand. Of course infrastructure is necessary and I believe government should take that role and also the military but the federal government has overstepped their bounds. This is a republic and individual states have lost too much power in deciding their own destinies to the federal government. Now, we see the fed beginning to nationalize large corporations and we are being told it is to reign in their greed! B.S. The greed belongs to congress and with this administration, the fed will probably double in size making local government less effective. IMO, wer'e going in the wrong direction as far as state government size and federal government control.
that's the way liberals think. They think that government knows best how to spend your money. And then for you to say you were against this death which must somehow mean you want to eliminate all taxes is also one of the dumbest things ever said. What a stupid leap of logic, and dishonest as well. another tactic by liberals, whenever anyone dare question the validity or the worthiness of any tax, that means we want to get rid of police and fire, and drive on dirt roads. it's a typical liberal strawman argument because they have run out of ways to defend taxes that are out and out wrong, like this one.
I didn't say he wanted to eliminate all taxes. I said the logic of saying "they didn't earn it" applies to all taxes. It's pointing out that the statement is no argument against a particular tax. I'm going to assume that you simply misread my post, for your sake.
If you understand that the government takes the role of infrastructure and military, then you understand that they direct money there. Saying the government doesn't pay for anything is a silly semantic argument. My tenants give me the money to pay my bills, but I'm still the one paying my bills.
but those recieving the inheritance didn't earn it either.
you keep saying that. How do you know? What if a father and son worked to build a very successful business for many years and the father dies leaving all benefits of their years of hard work to his son. Are you going to say the son didn't earn it?
under that construct you would be correct i agree in that particular case. or in the case of a successful family farm or something of that nature.
i was thinking more along the lines of say like someone who is from the Vanderbuilt family, or the Hiltons or the Rockefellers or even the Mellons, they have alot of inherited wealth. why shouldn't it be taxed if the money was simply willed to them and they took over their family business in their predecessors place.
I was gonna post but read westla below and couldn't say it better.
as i said above westla has a point in that specific circumstance. but if you read my above i have a good counterpoint.
now let me make a more personal example.
say my father saved his money and his investments and left everything to me. now again say that his estate was a million dollars.
i didn't do anything really to contribute to that money and if it was given to me by inheritance i don't see the problem in having it taxed. because it was money i didn't contribute to. to me its essentially free money that i didn't earn.
thats the point im getting at.
well you have something of a point sure.....i mean if your talking about people who abuse the welfare system, i could agree with you on that.
what about people who rely on Social Security?
how about veterans who need VA benefits?
what about the military?
those groups all recieve benefits from the government funded by tax money. if the government didn't tax things then how would those ive mentioned be paid and or recieve their benefits?
I don't agree with the rest here. This tax is way too intrusive and wrong. It should be eliminated.
a fair opinion. i think there may a be fair point in having it.
because transferring large sums of money between two living breathing human beings can be for all sorts of reasons and financial doings. but if your mother or father want to leave you the bulk of their estate that they worked their whole life to achieve, how dare the government come in and demand a ahare of that, it has already gone through their sifter once, that is enough.
How do you know they worked hard to make the money? Maybe they inherited the money as well. How does Fox News know that the money passed on by the super wealthy gets invested in small business? More than likely it just maintains a spoiled lifestyle.
it has still gone through the tax ringer, that is the point. it isn't the government's business to swoop in and grab what they want from a decendent's last wishes to their heirs. it's vulgar.
God forbid we might do something some one somewhere might deem vulgar.
How do you legislate grabbing what they want?
"Who is they?"
That vulgar bit made me laugh too.
We've seen quite a bit of Marie Antoinette behavior from the right for the last decade or so but now the Paris Hilton tax is vulgar.
Maybe the GOPL could sell the naming rights to the bill.
no, what's vulgar is your clear ignorance of the facts.
the tax only applies to the amounts in excess of 3.5 million dollars, fewer than 1% of all extates in the country. the bulk of the value of those estates has never been subject to any tax previously, as i explained above.
you would do well to actually research the facts, before making a fool of yourself in public, as a multiple offender.
No, your intelligence level concerning this matter is what is vulgar.
Try to argue honestly. We'll get much more accomplished.
its not like the inheritance is going to be taken away. there will be eniough left over im sure that whoever gets it can build it back up again and perhaps make it even larger.
that is not the point. The govt has no right to tax any of it. or they shouldn't. As I said, it's vulgar and repulsive. Swoop in and steal any part of what a deceased person has left their heir, it's shameful. Is there no tax that liberals can't find some justification for? amazing.
if a person's heir did nothing to contribute to wealth accumulation, aside from simply being an heir.....whats the problem with that money the heir is recieving beign taxed.
Regarding "has it not already been taxed when it was obtained by the decedent?", my understanding is that estate tax in fact gets applied mostly to capital gains which have not been taxed before.
How does it make any difference how a person inherits the money? They could be spoiled rich kids, cokeheads, daughters of rockstars..it doesn't matter. It's intellectually dishonest to infer that you have a right to tax people a set amount because they didn't make their money in a way that you deem appropriate.
The point of this whole thing is that this tax (estate/inheritance/"death") was set to go to 0% and President Obama has decided to keep it at 45%. Is there anyone here who truly believes there is a good reason for taxing 45% of someone's rightful assets as an inheritor?
The whole 'it's a small population' tripe is pointless. It could be you, it could be anyone who works their tail off over the course of a lifetime and then must hand almost half of it over to the government. For what purpose? And the 'well, what do you need all that money for anyway?!' defense is dishonest. the 'you can't take it with you' defense is pointless. I won't tell you how to live your life or what you can or can't do with your money, and I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me the same courtesy.
Simply put, you're wrong..in myriad ways.
The bottom line is this: an estate tax is a tax on the estate of someone who has died. It doesn't tax the person (um, hello, the person who owned the estate no longer exists), it doesn't tax the receiver. It taxes the estate. Much of the money in your estate (assuming you have one) is probably made up of pre-tax contributions to your 401(k) or any other pre-tax retirement plan. Once the account is closed or money is pulled out after a certain age, living or dead, a tax must be paid.
If you indeed want to pass on capital gains to your progeny, fine. You more than likely invested a sum of money, to which you probably add over the years. That money was probably post-tax. Let's say your investment earns $100,000 over it's lifetime. YOU didn't pay taxes on what you earned (not yet anyway - until you close the account or die). Then, you pay capital gains on those earnings, JUST AS YOU SHOULD.
The thing is, none of this is even relevant to the majority of us. This estate tax only goes into effect for estate sums over $3.5 MILLION. There aren't too many middle class folks whose estates are even valued at that number, or higher.
Unless your estate is more than $3.5 million, STFU. You have nothing to worry about - nor do your heirs.
You right-wingers must bitch just to hear yourselves bitch.
liberals have the cutest way around explaining taxes. oh, we aren't taxing the dead person, we aren't taxing the receiver, we are taxing the estate. who do you think deserves and is getting the estate? yep, the received to whom it was left to by the deceased. always soften or parse the tax lingo to make it seem like some intangible is being taxed, when in fact it is not. amazing.
So why do you care? The person who gets the estate will be just fine. They aren't a victim.
Still doesn't matter. When the government starts taxing death, then it can be called a death tax. Since it's a tax against an estate, it's called an estate tax. Any other nomenclature other than 'estate tax' is misleading and is the preface to a disingenuous argument.
liberals think people are stupid. we all know that a death tax doesn't focus group or sell well, so they call it an estate tax instead. that way it targets the rich, which feeds into their class warfare meme, and doesn't so sound offensive. once again, liberals never really want people to know what they're up too, always hiding it with nicer sounding phrases and disquising words. try being candid and honest with how your lust for taxes wants your reach into everybody's pocket more and more. you may get honest disagreement but at least you're honest.
"liberals think people are stupid." - jamesB.
No. This liberal doesn't think people (in general) are stupid, but I think you are.
To answer your absurd statement about taxes, let's just say that I, as a liberal (and not speaking for all liberals as you'd like me to do), believe that taxes are necessary to live in a civilized society. You need infrastructure. You need social security and medicare/medicaid. So what if you don't believe that certain government programs need to be funded. Who cares what you think? You don't set policy. You elect those who do. Last time I checked, the Left in this country won the last two elections overwhelmingly. I'd say you're in the minority.
I've never hidden my agenda. Don't know about your side. In fact, if anything, conservatives have hidden their agenda for the last three decades - you know, the agenda of dismantling the government and turning our country into a fascistic nation where corporations are king and to hell with everyone else. And please, don't tell me that the 'contract with america' back in in 1993-1994 wasn't a scheme. Please. You dolts didn't mean a word of it.
Project much, o stupid one?
It's because they're so pro-life... ;>)
You need to reread the post above. The assets get a new basis upon the death. The increase in basis has not been taxed.
A question I forgot to ask:
Does the inheritance get taxed @ 45% and then the inheritee also has to claim the other 55% as income on there personal tax return? Someone please clear this up for me...
I don't know. Why are capital gains taxed at 15% rather than the being taxed at the tax payers nominal rate?
Is it safe to say that 45% of what our parents worked for belongs to the gov. when they die? - johnrod10
No, it's not safe to say that, unless your parents estate is worth more than $3.5 million. Anything up and above the $3.5 million mark is subject to the 45% withholding (my understanding). What's so wrong with that? Are people that damned greedy? To the heirs, it's FOUND MONEY.
What is the rate for estates worth less than $3.5 M?