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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (48962)1/12/2012 2:44:25 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 71588
 
And that low level of revenue, is not for the estate tax but for both the estate and the gift taxes combined. And the real revenue is left since there is a step up in basis on inheriting, subtracting those lost capital gains taxes leaves the government with even less revenue.

Consider all those factors, and all the direct and indirect cost the estate tax imposes, it wouldn't surprise me if it generated one dollar in additional revenue for every $10 of cost to society. In fact its even possible that the net revenue to the government of the tax is actually negative.



To: TimF who wrote (48962)1/13/2012 2:03:01 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Yes.

So?

(I still, given by druthers, would rather see taxes assessed when estates change hands rather than on weekly or monthly paychecks.)

I believe that in the main, work (and not accidents of birth), should be advantaged in the tax codes... not the other-way around.