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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (291134)	6/14/2006 1:06:38 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1571413

The really rich just form a "foundation". So they get to give the money away as they see fit rather than letting the government do it.

To: tejek who wrote (291134)	6/16/2006 6:16:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571413

It effects the merely rich more than the super-rich. The super-rich have more ways to avoid it. Not that it would matter much to me if the issue only effected the super rich. I support the cut as a matter of justice and for practical reasons. Just because someone is very wealthy doesn't mean it is ok to take the wealth away. Also capital in the private sector generally is used more efficiently than sending more money to the government. Furthermore the estate tax distorts private sector investment and other uses of the money. People need to deploy the money in such a way as to get around the estate tax rather than use it in the most efficient or otherwise beneficial way. Many of them can indeed find ways around the estate tax so that they don't have to pay it, but that doesn't mean the estate tax does not effect them.