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: combjelly who wrote (380448)	4/25/2008 7:29:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575761

I wasn't confused, there was no confusion to clear up. The number of estates affected at all is very small. Less than 1%. of those actually affected, with the $4 million deduction and other rules, most only pay a small amount. Which is why the revenue from this tax is pretty low. And when you consider the indirect effects of the actions that the people with large estates take to avoid or reduce the impact of this tax, its possible that the tax actually reduces government revenue (although canceling it would also reduce revenue in the short run, because it takes time for the change of incentives to take full effect). But even if we assume there is a net positive increase of government revenue do to this tax, it is small enough to not justify the perverse incentives it creates. Edit - This post probably says it better (certainly with more detail and figures) than my post does Message 24520024