SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (700136)9/6/2005 2:38:41 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Yep... 'Rabbi Trusts', 'Farm Trusts', 'Family Trusts', etc., etc.

Re: "economist William Beach estimates that the federal estate tax alone costs the U.S. between 170,000 and 250,000 potential jobs each year. These jobs never materialize because the investments that would have created them aren't made."

I followed the link you posted, but it didn't link to any of the original research... so it's impossible to comment in any detail upon what may be wrong or right with this claim.

However... I'm certain that if you eliminate VIRTUALLY ANY TAX, and DO NOT RECOUP THE LOST REVENUE THROUGH OTHER FORMS OF TAXATION (assume for now that somehow this doesn't produce a deficit, require borrowed money to cover the lost revenues, and that that borrowed money doesn't come with interest payments attached to it. Assume that *if you cut taxes* you ALSO cut spending to keep your budget in balance):

Then --- even if we assume the above favorable set of circumstances --- I feel CERTAIN that an EQUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT of tax reduction, in nearly ANY OTHER TAX, would result in even LARGER 'potential job gains' for society, then would be produced by estate tax reductions. Dollar for dollar.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext