Re: "Bush costs charities 1 billion a year."
No, that is not the case. It is merely one man's analysis of what would happen if the estate tax is repealed, which it hasn't been.
Re: "The analysis was from the Treasury Dept."
No, the analysis was an "estimate" from one fellow who works there(David Joulfaian), per your posted article.
Re: "Don't blame the messenger."
The messenger is the writer of the article, Adam P. Frankel, not the Treasury Dept.
The article as posted is significantly unclear, IMO, as it understates its own case per the numbers it provides by half(?huh?), it incorrectly leads one to believe Income Taxes aren't deducted from payroll checks, and it incorrectly states such payroll Federal Income Taxes(probably called Federal Withholding on your check, A.S., which is typically about 45% of taxes deducted from a payroll, with the remainder consisting of S.S., Medicare, State Income Tax Withholding, and perhaps Local Taxes) aren't addressed by the Bush plan to cut Federal Income tax brackets down, when in fact they plainly are. Very sloppy. If he has a point, his errors overshadow whatever mysterious truth he may think he understands.
Here's something which isn't surprising, about Bill Clinton:
theaustralian.news.com.au
Dan B |
