Posted on 07/28/2005 5:40:10 AM PDT by OESY
...A recent study by... found that over 20 years the Joint Committee on Taxation] has always underestimated the revenues from tax hikes, while overestimating the revenues that are lost when taxes are cut....
The Joint Tax calculations of the "cost" of death tax repeal have been particularly wild and inexplicable. In 2001, JCT famously estimated that repeal would cost the Treasury $600 billion over 10 years -- twice as much as the death tax actually raises. The Joint Tax whiz kids built into their computer models the behavioral effects of lawyers working the interplay between the death and gift tax rates, and somehow came up with far more lost revenue. At the same time, however, they ignored the behavioral impact of eliminating the tax on saving and economic incentives.
This year the JCT is peddling another indefensible death-tax cost estimate: $300 billion in lost tax collections. This guess also turns a blind eye to any dynamic impact of faster economic growth, more savings, more job creation, and more capital investment that can be anticipated once the tax is gone.
No one can say for certain how much revenue will be recaptured from higher growth, but one thing we do know is that the number is surely not zero--eliminating the death tax would provide enough of a boost to the economy that the overall revenues of the federal government would be slightly higher without the tax....
In addition to being bad math and bad economics, all of this works to distort tax policy. In the case of the death tax, the large lost-revenue estimates provide an excuse for Democratic fence-sitters to vote no....
Death should not be a taxable event, as most other serious countries seem to understand....
[I]f the death tax survives this Congress, Republicans have only themselves to blame.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
First, "taxable income" cannot be defined - at least the IRS itself fails to be able to do so at least half the time. How can an ordinary citizen, not in the tax industry, expect to do any better? It is the definition of "taxable" that is so problematic under the flat income tax.
Second, I didn't compare to taxing 100% of spending. Indeed if you were to have someone read the post to you, it says something quite different.
Look here to find out about how necessities are untaxed.
Capital gain rate is 15%. Estate tax rate is around 40-50%.
Why?
And even if it were, wouldn't 15% be a little better than 50%?
That is an old chart. The estate tax rate has been coming down since Bush's first tax cut.
"One thing you haven't addressed is if the 'Death' tax is repealed, so will the step-up in basis that heirs receive on inherited property. For example, if you and your sister inherit your parent's residence in which they have a $100,000 basis, and it is worth $500,000 you and your sister will have a $400,000 capital gain to share."
Golly, I think Auntie Dem just came up with another reason to pass the FairTax - which repeals BOTH estate and gift taxes, as well as capital gains taxes.
"Capital gain rate is 15%. Estate tax rate is around 40-50%."
The top federal etate rate is 55%, if memory serves, but that is only for very large estates and only for the portion of the estate above a threshold amount of several million $$$. The unified credit is currently $1 million, I believe, which means that the first million is tax free. The estate tax, like the income tax, is graduated/progressive.
"INCOME TAX CODE: 60,000 PAGES and growing."
Slight correction - I believe the Internal Revenue Code is around 9,500 pps. The tax SYSTEM (as defined and measured by CCH) was just over 60,000 pages last year (04). CCH counts, in addition to the Code itself, Treasury Dept rulings, IRS regs, among other documents in their tabulation of the tax system.
Thank you. Can you post an updated chart?
2004-48%; 2005-47%;2006-46%;2007-45%
That's as far forward as I have, except I know that in 2010 the rate is 0%, and then goes back to 55% in 2011.
I stand slightly corrected.
As Zell Miller said: "How in the world is anybody supposed to plan based on that law?"
fter all these many years of your continually misstating things, Looey, you should surely know that 100% of your spending is not taxed.
You SQL guys just LOVE to say anything negative you can think of about the FairTax - even if it isn't true. Bad on you!
I guess you just figger out when you're gonna die and adjust accordingly to minimize taxes - right???
It's not that simple. There are various and multiple exemptions, unified credit, prior gifts, etc, etc, etc.
For most Americans who would not even end up in a taxable situation in an Estate, the loss of the step up in basis would be catastrophic. Anyone whose taxable estate is under $1.3M would not pay ANY estate tax under existing law, and the step-up in basis would protect heirs selling appreciated property. If the estate tax were repealed EVERYONE would pay a capital gains tax on the increase in value of any assets passed to heirs, even if those assets were valued at less than $1.3M. An increase from 0% to even 15% is outrageous.
I'm surprised the democraps haven't figured this one out yet, because the "take" to the government would be dramitcally increased if the estate tax were eliminated. They must hate the rich so much they are willing to pass up this "extra" revenue from the little people.
Ironically, the super rich can afford to find ways around the estate tax and pay little or no estate tax anyway.
Thank You!! LOL!! This is the best news I've heard all day!!
In 2010 the murder/suicide rate will go up 3000%!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
