Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9384)	1/21/2006 9:55:54 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541274

The second problem is with assets that would have to be sold to pay the tax. The family business, for example. Why should those with a family business or farm get to keep it going in perpetuity, but the heirs of a salaried worker get nothing from the former career? TP

To: Lane3 who wrote (9384)	1/23/2006 5:04:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541274

Re the negative income tax, I've been reading about that for a good four decades and I've never seen her argument before about placing the burden of raising taxes on everyone, not just the tax payers. I think that's a terrific argument. I think its terrific in theory, but I'm not sure how well it would work out in practice. When spending increases, if there is an eventual tax increase to cover the cost you will get politicians saying "the burden shouldn't fall on the poor", and so the "negative income tax rate" may change so that the overall tax increase does not impact the people receiving the "negative taxes". But I wonder how many people who know work would work if they could collect $28K for not working. Quite a few I imagine. Of course a lot of them are already not working but for the most part brining in less. But giving them all extra income (and also giving extra benefits to the working poor as well) would indeed be expensive. Also you would get some additional people who would stop working. The state takes a chunk, the heir finder takes a chunk, and I suppose that, with Jane's plan, there would be a tax guy to take the rest. Isn't "the state" also "the tax guy"? Jane's plan removes the inheritance tax, but also the step up in basis. Hard to say if you would do better or worse (impossible to say without information about the original basis). The removal of the step up in basis is in theory more elegant and fair than the inheritance tax, but in practice it is complicated. Tim