California Now World's 9th Largest Economy

California is now the world's ninth largest economy. Which is quite something and remains the U.S. state with the largest economy ranked by GDP, but it was until recently, the eight largest, a rank now assumed by Brazil, and was even fifth on the list in the early 2000s:

Stephen Levy, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy director and senior economist, said the California-Brazil swap is more about Brazil rising than California falling. Brazil’s vast population advantage (190 million to California’s 37 million) and the increasing prices of commodities that Brazil exports are just part of the country’s rise, he said....

Levy said California’s economy could soon surpass Italy’s, because of a recession in Italy and a falling euro.

"Report: California slips to world's 9th largest economy" by Jason Hanna, CNN, January 13, 2012

Governor Brown Proposes Tax Increases for Californians

California Governor Jerry Brown is proposing increased taxes as the solution to the state's budget problems:

Brown, a 73-year-old Democrat, wants to raise income taxes on individuals making at least $250,000 a year to 10.3 percent from 9.3 percent, and would boost sales [tax] levies to 7.75 percent from 7.25 percent.

Brown Seeks 7% California Spending Boost, Michael B. Marois and James Nash, Bloomberg, January 5, 2012

See also current California sales tax rates.

California companies continue to flee state over taxes, regulatory environment

CNN ran another article on businesses leaving California for more favorable tax and regulatory climates. Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is promising an economic development plan soon, but the bad news for most of my clients and for the state's economic prospects is that they are unlikely to be assisted by it, in that it appears it wiltarget only specific industries and even then likely primarily larger and more politically connected companies:

Newsom's plan will focus on California's premier industries, including biotechnology, agriculture and digital media. It will highlight the state's strengths in innovation and research and cultivate more manufacturing and exports. It also will examine how to address executives' concerns about regulation, taxes and layers of bureaucracy.

See also:



Amazon sales tax battle centers on jobs, LA Times, July 12, 2011



CEOs rank California 51st in the nation



California scheming



August 2011 Update: Lt. Governor Newsom released his short-on-specifics economic agenda for California, to a mixed response on July 29, 2011.

CEOs rank California 51st for Business Environment

More than 600 CEOs rated states on a wide range of criteria from taxation and regulation to workforce quality and living environment, in our sixth annual special report.

In Chief Executive’s annual survey of best and worst states for business, conducted in late January of this year, 651 CEOs across the U.S. again gave Texas top honors, closely followed by North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. They gave the booby prize for worst state to California, with New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts filling out the bottom five-a line-up virtually unchanged from last year. Florida and Georgia each dropped three places in the ranking, but remain in the top 10. Utah jumped six positions this year to sneak into the top 10 at No. 9.

The business leaders were asked to draw upon their direct experience to rate each state in three general categories: taxation and regulation, quality of workforce and living environment.

Best and Worst States for Business 2010, chiefexecutive.net, 29 April 2010

See also Of 50 States, California ranks 51st, Orange County Register editorial, 5 May 2010:

As the magazine noted, Californians pay among the nation's highest income and sales taxes. Unemployment exceeds the national average, and, contrary to the national trend, "union density is climbing, from 16.1 percent of workers in 1998 to 17.8 percent in 2002."

Indeed, according to the magazine's critique, "organized labor has more political influence in California than in most other states." The magazine zeroes in on perhaps the crux of the problem: "When state employees reach critical mass, they tend to become a permanent lobby for continual growth in government."

That helps to explain why unfunded pension and health care promises for state workers "top $500 billion, and the annual pension contribution has climbed from $320 million to $7.3 billion in less than a decade," as the magazine noted.

It doesn't take a national survey to reveal California's failing business climate. Seven California metro areas were among the 15 national leaders in commercial bankruptcy filings in 2009, according to Equifax Inc. Not coincidentally, California had twice as many personal bankruptcies as any other state in 2009 when it ranked 11th in bankruptcies per capita.

It also doesn't take a CEO to notice the differences between California and top-rated Texas. Texas, with nearly as many residents and the world's 12th largest economy, "is where 70 percent of all new U.S. jobs have been created since 2008," the magazine reported. Also unsurprisingly, Texas gained more than 848,000 net residents based on migration in and out of the state in the past decade, while California lost 1.5 million, according to the Census.

"You feel like [Texas] state government understands the value of business and industry to create jobs and growth," one CEO said in the magazine.

California Annual Minimum Franchise Tax Repeal Proposed

A bipartisan commission appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger has recently proposed sweeping overhauls of California's tax laws, including reduction of personal income tax rates, the elimination of the corporate tax, and the elimination of the $800 per yaer minimum annual franchise tax levied on corporations, LLCs, and LLPs doing business in the state. The committee did, however, propose a 4% business net profits tax, exempting small businesses with less than $500,000 in revenues.

The recommendations are only that, and must be acted upon by the legislature and governor in order to become law.

For more information see:

Commission on the 21st Centuray Economy Press Release dated September 29, 2009

California Attorney General Targets Annual Minutes "Scam"

California's attorney general has filed suit against a nyumber of individuals and companies to combat what he calls a scam targeting small businesses:

News Release
October 08, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: (916) 324-5500

Brown Sues 8 Individuals and 6 Businesses Operating Scams Targeting California Small Businesses

San Diego - Continuing his fight against "rip-off artists" operating in California, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed suit today against eight individuals and six businesses that operated scams targeting small business owners. The lawsuits, filed today in San Diego Superior Court, seek to recover more than $3 million.

Schedule note: Brown is in San Diego this morning and is available to speak about these cases at approximately 10:30 -- at the Hilton Bayfront Hotel - downtown (Indigo A Room, 1 Park Blvd in San Diego 92101.

"These cases will send a powerful signal that small business owners must be on the alert," Brown said. "These rip-off artists sent official-looking documents through the mail for the sole purpose of duping small business owners into paying them money - for no value in return."

The three cases are separate scams, each following a similar theme. The defendants mailed to small businesses solicitations that appeared to be government documents featuring an official-looking seal, an official-sounding name, citations to the Corporations Code and a "reply by" date. The forms claimed that the business was in danger of losing its corporate or limited liability status if payment was not made within a short period of time.

In the first case, Anthony Williams operated Compliance Annual Minutes Board that mailed to California businesses official-looking forms demanding that the recipient complete the form and return it with payment of an "Annual Fee" of $150 or risk loss of corporate status. Williams claimed that in exchange for payment, he would provide corporate minutes. Instead, he prepared generic fictitious minutes for the business owners who paid his fee.

The next case involved George Alan Miller, Rebecca Miller, Arghisti Keshishyan and Kristina Keshishyan who together operated two corporations and one limited liability company: Annual Review Board, Inc., Business Filings Division and Corpfilers.com, LLC. Miller and his co-conspirators mailed solicitations to California limited liability companies and corporations, demanding that the recipients complete the form and return it with payment or risk penalties, fines and suspension. The payment amounts varied from $195 to $239, but all mailers were designed to be official-looking government documents that misled the recipients into sending money.

In the third case, Maria Jones operated Corporate Filings Division and Corporate Compliance Filings, Inc., which mailed official-looking forms entitled "Annual Minutes Disclosure Statement" to California businesses, implying that the recipient business was required to complete the form and return it with payment of an "Annual Fee" of $175 or risk loss of corporate status. In exchange for payment, Jones agreed to provide corporate minutes. The information she solicited, however, was inadequate for legitimate corporate minutes, and she instead provided fictitious minutes.

All defendants are accused of violating:

- Business and Professions Code section 17533.6 (Deceptive Solicitation Statute)
- Civil Code section 1716 (Phony Billing Statute)
- Business and Professions Code section 17500 (False Advertising Statute)
- Unfair business practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

In all three cases, the Attorney General's Office seeks civil penalties, injunction and other equitable remedies and costs.

Since 2004, the Attorney General's Office has received more than 5,000 complaints against a growing number of individuals who mailed solicitations made to look like governmental forms to small businesses in California. Today's announcement adds to the five cases the office has already successfully handled since these scams were brought to the office's attention....

See also: California Corporate Compliance Annual Minutes

Tax Increases Expected by 2011

Higher Taxes Are Coming. Are You Prepared? Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2009:

As the recession and bailout have pushed this year's federal budget deficit to an unheard-of $1.6 trillion, an unpleasant reality has dawned: Taxes are going up. The only questions are when, how much, and for whom?

The answers depend on the shifting sands of wealth politics and the scope of health-care revision. "But everybody thinks that by 2011 tax rates will be higher, at least for those with higher incomes," says Thomas Ochsenschlager, a tax official at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

This certainty turns traditional tax-planning logic upside-down. Taxpayers have long been advised to defer taxes as long as possible, especially by making contributions to tax-sheltered IRAs and 401(k)s or holding assets for years in order to postpone realizing gains.

Now taxpayers should reconsider this rule. The current top capital-gains rate of 15% on most assets is the lowest in living memory and the Obama administration has proposed raising it to 20%. Another proposal might tack on a 4.5% surtax for the wealthiest taxpayers. So it may make sense to realize long-term gains now, says Robert Gordon, who advises clients on sophisticated tax matters at Twenty-First Securities in New York....

See also: Barack Obama's Tax Policies

Study Names "Most Free" States; California Ranks Poorly

A recent George Mason University study ranked the 50 U.S. states on a freedom scale, attempting to turn the various economic, social, and personal freedoms available in each state into a number, allowing comparison and ranking.

According to the researchers, the "freest" states are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota: "All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism."

On the other end of their spectrum, "New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland."

A color-coded freedm-ranked map of the states is available here.

California Sales Tax Rate Increase

Effective April 1, 2009, but unfortunately not an April Fool's Day joke is a 1% rate increase to California's sales tax, for a new total of 8.25%. In addition, certain cities and localities may add an additional surcharge of up to 2.0%, for a grand total not to exceed 10.25%, among the highest sales tax rates in the nation. Los Angeles County's rate is now 9.25%.

More detailed information is provided in this notice issued by California's sales tax authority, the Board of Equalization (CA "BOE").

See also:

California Legislature Plans to Increase Taxes Amid Recession

Obama Moves to Raise Estate Tax

President Barack Obama has announced his intention to increase the estate tax:

President-elect Barack Obama and congressional leaders plan to move soon to block the estate tax from disappearing in 2010, suggesting the levy might outlive the "Death Tax Repeal" movement that has tried mightily to kill it.

The Democratic stance on the estate tax contrasts with Mr. Obama's reluctance to press forward with his campaign pledge to raise income-tax rates on top earners, which he worries could have an adverse economic impact during a recession.

But Democrats are determined to act quickly to prevent the estate tax's scheduled repeal. Elimination of the levy on big inheritances was approved by Congress under President George W. Bush in 2001, with rollbacks phased in slowly and its full elimination slated to take effect next year.

The Senate Finance Committee will move within weeks on legislation to reverse that law, and Mr. Obama is expected to detail his estate-tax preservation proposal in his budget next month, congressional tax writers said.

Under the Obama plan detailed during the campaign, the estate tax would be locked in permanently at the rate and exemption levels that took effect this year. That would exempt estates of $3.5 million -- $7 million for couples -- from any taxation. The value of estates above that would be taxed at 45%. If the tax were returned to Clinton-era levels, it would exclude $1 million from taxation with the rest taxed at 55%....

Obama Plans to Keep Estate Tax, Wall Street Journal Online, January 12, 2009

See also:

Barack Obama, Democrat for President, On Estate Taxes

Hilton Hotels Leaves Beverly Hills, California To Lower Its Cost of Doing Business

Hilton Hotels Corp., which last month announced it was leaving Beverly Hills, said Wednesday it had chosen Fairfax County, [Virginia], as its new corporate home.

Hilton, which wants to lower its cost of doing business .... [intends to] create more than 300 full-time jobs in Fairfax County within the next 36 months.

Hilton Selects D.C. Suburb for New Home, Los Angeles Business Journal, February 4, 2009

See also: California Scheming and Some Californians Flee State for Greener Pastures

Some Californians Flee State for Greener Pastures

Go East, young man? Californians look for the exit, Associated Press, January 12, 2009:

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

California's loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state's population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S.

A losing streak that long hasn't happened in California since the recession of the early 1990s, when departures outstripped arrivals from other states by 362,000 in 1994 alone.

In part because of the boom in population in other Western states, California could lose a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

Why are so many looking for an exit?

Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates....

March 2009 update:

Related: Corporate oil booms in low-tax Switzerland, Reuters, March 12, 2009 ("[A] wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.") and California Scheming: What One-Party Rule Is Doing To Once-Golden State

California Scheming: What One-Party Rule Is Doing To Once-Golden State

California Scheming: What One-Party Rule Is Doing To Once-Golden State, Investor's Business Daily editorial, December 22, 2008:

.... As the financial crisis in California gets worse, it's pretty clear the real problem isn't the budget at all, but a political system that has resulted in a dysfunctional one-party state. ....

A reasonable response from a mature group of individuals might be to cut spending — especially since polls show that most Californians don't believe their taxes should be raised. Instead, they've chosen to thumb their noses at the people's will. It shows the danger of what is in effect California's one-party rule. .... Frustrated with their inability to raise taxes, Democrats got creative: They decided they could declare outright hikes in taxes to be "fee increases." This would let them pass a massive $9.3 billion in tax hikes without consulting Republicans in the legislature, in direct violation of state law. ....

California is already the most costly place in America to do business, according to the Milken Institute's business cost index. Its business costs in 2006 were 23% higher than the average for the rest of the states, and well above those of its neighboring states.

Worse, energy costs are already 35% higher than the national average. With California's costly new CO2 mandates about to kick in, the economy could well grind to a halt.

Such business mainstays as Intel, Exxel Outdoors, Toyota and Tesla have already left California. Intel is a particularly alarming example: The world leader in chip technology started in Silicon Valley but no longer makes anything in California.

Since 2001, according to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the state has lost 440,000 high-wage jobs. Today, the state's jobless rate of 8.4% is third-highest in the nation.

Even Hollywood feels the pinch. In 2003, 66% of Hollywood's feature films were made in-state; today, it's down to 31%. Increasingly, Hollywood is a state of mind — not a place to do business.

Things are so bad that, just last week, 25 business groups wrote an open letter to the state's legislature begging it to think about the role businesses play in the economy.

We wish them luck. Unfortunately, instead of aggressively addressing these competitiveness problems, California's Democrats think they can simply tax their way back to prosperity. They can't.

California's tax base is so narrow — 1% of the population pay 50% of income taxes — that you can't "tax the rich" and get more revenue, a long-held Democratic fantasy. California individuals today bear the sixth-highest tax burden in the nation. Raising taxes won't do anything but drive off productive workers and kill the economy.

It's already happening. Tired with having their voices ignored and faced with soaring taxes, high housing costs and state fiscal chaos, Californians are leaving in droves. They're voting with their feet.

Last year, 135,173 more people left California than moved in, the fourth straight year of net out-migration. As the Los Angeles Times accurately noted, "the trend remains significant because such declines usually occur when working Californians decide better opportunities lie elsewhere."

Members of California's one-party ruling class better start listening to their businesses and productive, overburdened taxpayers, or pretty soon they won't have an economy to fund their government. ....

See also:

Gas Buddy USA Temperature Map

California Legislature Plans To Increase Taxes Amid Recession

Study: Los Angeles, Santa Monica Among 10 Most Expensive Places to Do Business in United States

California Legislature Plans To Increase Taxes Amid Recession

State Democrats Plan To Increase Taxes, Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2008:

Democratic legislative leaders are planning to use a series of complex legal maneuvers to raise Californians' gas, sales and income taxes over the objection of Republican lawmakers, who have been able to block such proposals in the past.

Under the Democrats' plan, sales taxes would increase by three-fourths of a cent. Gas taxes would go up by 13.5 cents per gallon. And a surcharge of 2.5% would be added to income taxes.

More coverage: California Democrats Devise Plan To Hike Taxes:
By structuring them as fees, they would skirt GOP opponents and raise $9.3 billion; A court fight looms, Los Angeles Times, Decemeber 18, 2008.

See also:

Study: Los Angeles, Santa Monica Among 10 Most Expensive Places to Do Business in United States

2009 California Employer Payroll Tax Rates

Study: Los Angeles, Santa Monica Among 10 Most Expensive Places to Do Business in United States

And predicted to get worse. Westlake Village rated most business friendly in Los Angeles County. The Daily News reports:

The city of Los Angeles will finish 2008 in familiar company: Among the 10 most expensive places in the country to do business, according to a study released today.

Santa Monica is also on the list compiled by the 14th annual Kosmont-Rose Institute Cost of Doing Business Survey released by the Rose Institute of State & Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.

Los Angeles' placement on the list has remained steady, but at least it hasn't gotten any worse in the past year, according to Larry Kosmont, the survey's founder and president and chief executive officer of Kosmont Companies.

"Cities that charge the highest license fees such as Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati are often those that have a history of uneven relations with the business community," Kosmont said.

But Robert "Bud" Ovrom, Los Angeles' deputy mayor of economic development and housing, said the city is making progress.

For example, next year the city starts the final phase of a five-year plan to reduce the business tax by 15 percent. The final installment, a 3.9 percent reduction, kicks in Jan. 1.

"When I'm talking to companies I almost never hear about business taxes. I don't even hear much about workers' comp," Ovrom said.

"Everything I hear today is (about) the quality of the work force, schools, traffic and affordable housing." ....

On the contrary, the author's clients are more concerned with the high costs of state business taxes,* local business taxes, regulation, and workers' comp. Perhaps Ovrom's conversations are primarily with larger companies...? The article continues:

Los Angeles is challenging for businesses because of its fee and tax structure, it said. And while California cities are more competitive than in the past few years, costs for businesses remain high.

It also noted that Los Angeles County continues to be one of the nation's most expensive places for business and 10 of its cities are among the 50 most costly. The Bay Area is pricey, too.

The situation will worsen next year, Kosmont said, as voter-approved tax and fee increases kick in.

"What is happening in California is the cities are going to the ballot box and winning tax increases," Kosmont said. "Some of these cities were Los Angeles County cities. That makes a bad climate even worse."

Kosmont said that California and many of its cities have been expensive for a long time, but some have tried to compensate with aggressive economic development and redevelopment programs.

But now all are struggling with the state's budget deficit, which is the largest in its history.

The survey compares 402 cities nationwide based on the array of taxes and fees each imposes. They include sales, utility, income, property, and business taxes....

It noted that the highest-cost cities, such as Santa Monica and Oakland, cluster around the aging urban cores, while newer bedroom communities in the outer suburbs charge developers for their growth and pass on the savings to businesses to stimulate their economies.

For example, Kosmont said the least costly city in the county is Westlake Village.

"It has no business tax, no utility tax and very low property taxes.

So it is one of the bargains," Kosmont said.

That's by design, said City Manager Raymond B. Taylor.

"We have strived to be one of the most business-friendly cities in California since our inception in 1981," Taylor said.

About 8,800 people live in the city that abuts the Ventura County line. But there are 850 businesses in the village that generate 11,000 jobs.

"The city recognizes the value and the role that businesses play in terms of job development and the vibrancy of the community," Taylor said.

* A domestic corporation in Utah costs a minimum of $100 in annual franchise tax payable to the state for the privilege of doing business as a corporation in the state; in California, $800, among the highest cost in the nation.

See also:

California Legislature Plans To Increase Taxes

2009 California Employer Payroll Tax Rates

No recession? Strong U.S. growth tops estimates

It is conventional wisdom today that all of the United States of America, including California, are in a recession. However, as is often the case, the conventional wisdom appears to be incorrect:

A recession is typically defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, but the just-released second quarter 2008 U.S. economic growth rate numbers show a healthy growth rate of 3.3%, akin to the average rate of growth in the Reagan and Clinton administration "boom" years, and topping estimates of 1.9% (which accounted for the economic stimulus rebate checks). Q1 2008's growth rate was weak but positive, and Q4 2007 was recorded at negative 0.2% (-0.2%).

The U.S. Labor Department also reported a decrease in new unemployment claims numbers.

Arguably, one upshot of these figures is that those who believe now is not a good time to start or expand a business may not be correct.

See also UCLA forecast sees no California recession, San Francisco Chronicle, March 11, 2008:

[T]he UCLA Anderson Forecast predict that damage from the collapse of housing will be contained and that the state's feeble economy will avoid a headlong dive into negative territory.

Real estate weakness will remain a significant drag on the economy, leaving us treading water in 2008, but not slipping under the waves into recession," the report concludes.

December 2008 Update: An official U.S. recession was announced, with its effective start being named as December 2007.

John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax

Although U.S. Senator (Republican - Arizona) John McCain's has been criticized by conservatives in his party for his inconsistent support of President Bush's tax cuts, his recent no-new-taxes pledge and his prior Senate votes on the estate tax seem to indicate that as president he would be likely to preserve the status quo on the estate tax: in 2007, McCain voted to increase the estate tax exemption to $5 million and to reduce the maximum estate tax rate to 35%; and in 2006, McCain voted to permanently repeal the death tax and to make the Bush estate (and income) tax cuts permanent.

Source: OnTheIssues.Org: John McCain on Tax Reform

The conservative Club for Growth, which favor repeal of the estate tax, rated McCain's voting record 76 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies.

See also:

Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
John McCain Official Site: McCain Tax Cut Plan

October 2008 update: McCain has clarified that he supports raising the estate tax exemption amount to $10 million for a husband and wife and cutting the tax rate on larger estate to 15 percent. He also supports lowering the federal corpoarte tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax

U.S. Senator (Democrat - Illinois) and presidential candidate Barack Obama's view on the estate tax:

We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.

From Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, 2006, pp. 191-2.

In the Senate, Barack Obama has consistently voted against repealing or reducing most taxes, including the estate tax, and in favor of increasing most taxes, including the estate tax. Senator Obama, for example, voted no on increasing the estate tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum estate tax rate to 35%, voted no on extending the sunset of the Bush estate tax and GST tax exemption increases (which lower the number of families affected by the estate tax), and voted no on permanently repealing what those who oppose it usually refer to as the death tax.

Source: OnTheIssues.Org: Barack Obama on Tax Reform

The conservative Club for Growth, which favors repeal of the estate tax, rated Obama's voting record 7 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies, and most liberal Senator overall for 2007 by the National Journal.

See also:

John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Barack Obama Offical Site: Fiscal Issues

October 2008 update: Obama opposes repeal of the estate tax and supports repeal of, or allowing the expiration of in 2010, the Bush (estate and income) tax cuts. He supports one-time or short-term tax rebates for most individual taxpayers (and many filers who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax and pay only payroll taxes) and overall higher estate, payroll, income, and corporate taxes over the longer term.

In response to a question about raising taxes, Obama said that he intends to "spread the wealth around."

January 2009 post-election update: President-Elect Obama's Big Tax Plan by Bill Bischoff, SmartMoney's "Tax Guy":

$300 billion in tax cuts are probably on the way -- and soon.

Right after the election, I was virtually certain that upper-income individuals would face higher federal income tax bills as early as this year. And I didn’t see anything very good on the business tax horizon, either. But after two more months of horrifying economic data, it’s a whole new ball game.

Now, President-elect Obama is proposing a $775 billion economic stimulus package that does not appear to impose higher taxes on anybody or anything for 2009. Instead, it looks like we will immediately see some of the "middle-class tax cuts" Obama promised, plus some unanticipated business breaks too. All in all, these tax cuts could add up to $300 billion (or more) over the next two years....

February 2009 post-election update: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

ABC News, February 26, 2009.

Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax

In the first in a series, California Business Law Blog examines the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates' stance on the estate tax, sometimes also know as the death tax or ibheritance tax. First up, Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat - New York):

Her current presidential platform proposal, which is to some extent inconsistent with her prior voting record, as can be seen below, is to freeze the federal estate tax at 2009 levels, that is, a $3.5 million exemption (she describes this as a $7 million exemption, presumably meaning, for a married couple, the combined total of $7 million in exemptions, which requires proper estate planning to take advantage of). As a result of the "Bush tax cut", the estate tax has been trending downward each year and is currently slated to be completely elminated in 2010 (unlimited exemption amount, 0% tax rate, leading to numerous estate planning jokes centering around solving estate tax problems by planning to die in 2010). However, due to a legislative compromise and other technicalities, it is also scheduled to jump back to tge old, higher tax levels commencing 2011 (only $1 million exemption, 55% tax rate on the balance). It is unlikely give the current political climate that the currently-scheduled death tax rates for 2011 will be allowed to stand unchanged.

For reference purposes, as this is written, in 2007, the exemption amount is $2 million, and the estate tax rate is 45%.

Recently, on the campaign trail in Derry, New Hampshire, Clinton --

answered questions from voters at a town hall at the opera house here, which was her second stop on a two-day swing through the state.

The first question from the audience after Clinton's speech came from a woman who challenged her plan to pay for universal retirement accounts by freezing the estate tax at 2009 levels. The woman said the money from inheritance had already been taxed when it was earned and she felt taxing it again was the wrong way to fund Clinton's plan.

"People disagree about this, but the estate tax, which came into being by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and others, and has been part of our tax system for a very long time is there for a real simple reason: In America, we've never liked the idea of massive inherited wealth," Clinton replied. "Part of the reason why America has always remained a meritocracy where you have to work for what you get, where you have to get out there, make your case to people, come up with a good idea, is that we never had a class of people sitting on generation after generation after generation of huge inherited wealth."

Clinton said people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were against doing away with the estate tax, because they made it on their own. She went on to explain, to applause, that a married couple could have an estate worth up to $7 million before getting taxed, and said she considered that a "pretty healthy estate to leave to your children."

Source: MSNBC.com: Clinton Questioned on Estate Tax, October 10, 2007

Critics of Clinton's, Gates', and Buffet's argument - not present to state their arguments in New Hampshire - point out that these men are so wealthy that they do not represent the typical high net worth family that is often attempting to pass a family business or farm along to the next generation, and are millionaries, not billionaires. Gates and Buffet deal in publicly traded companies, and cannot pass along Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway, each worth billions beyond the personal wealth of either businessman and each owned by thousands of investors, to their children.

---

As a Senator, she has had the opportunity to vote on the issue serveral times:

Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.

An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

(Proponents recommend voting YES because:

It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them. The problem with the amendment is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not. However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.

Reference: Kyl Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.507 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-083 on Mar 21, 2007);

Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts.

Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.

(Proponents recommend voting YES because:

The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate in past legislation made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. I oppose this legislation's complete repeal of the estate tax because it will cost us $750 billion. Given the world we live in today, with clear domestic needs unmet, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.

To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. We are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go into debt, so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. We must say no to this transparent gimmick.

Reference: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act; Bill H.R. 5970 ; vote number 2006-229 on Aug 3, 2006);

Voted NO on permanently repealing the "death tax".

A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.

(Proponents of the motion say:
We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century. The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted.
The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future. That doesn't make sense.

Opponents of the motion say:

Small businesses and farms rarely--if ever--are forced to sell off assets or close up shop to pay the tax. Under the current exemption, roughly 99% of estates owe nothing in estate taxes. By 2011, with a $3.5 million exemption, only two of every 100,000 people who die that year would be subject to the estate tax.
Today's vote is on a motion to proceed to a bill to repeal the estate tax. Not to proceed to a compromise or any other deal--but to full repeal. I oppose full repeal of the estate tax. Our Nation can no longer afford this tax break for the very well off. Permanently repealing the estate tax would add about $1 trillion to our national debt from 2011 to 2021.

Reference: Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act; Bill HR 8 ; vote number 2006-164 on Jun 8, 2006).

Source: On the Issues: Hillary Clinton on Tax Reform

The conservative Club for Growth, which favor repeal of the estate tax, rated Clinton's voting record 8 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies.

See also:

John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax
Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton Offical Site: Economic Blueprint

June 2008 update: Hillary Clinton ended her 2008 bid for the White House on June 7, 2008, leaving Barack Obama as the presumptive Democrat nominee.