Replies

There are two basic problems with your arguments. The first one is that the current system (which you are defending) benefits mostly the lawyers. When you talk about exemptions, exclusions, and regulations you are talking about the basis for the hugely lucrative estate law industry. The only ones who profit from that are lawyers. Even middle class people these days wind up spending thousands for estate planning.
The second problem is that you are assuming that the economy is static, and gov't expenses are also fixed. And that's not true. Gov't policies that increase economic activity bring in more revenue. A good example is what happens when they lower capital gains tax rates. Every time they do, more money is collected in capital gains taxes. And there are secondary effects as well. When more money is available to support business, more businesses start and grow, and the base for income taxes of all sorts rises.
So, lowering taxes on business could actually mean that your individual tax rate could be lower.

The bottom line is that tax codes do drive behavior. There are two ways to guarantee that no money at all is collected from income taxes - one is with a 0% rate and the other is with a 100% rate. The same thing applies to other taxes.
Estate taxes like we have today penalize some people, but more of the money goes into the estate planning industry than into the gov't coffers.

The first one is that the current system (which you are defending) benefits mostly the lawyers. When you talk about exemptions, exclusions, and regulations you are talking about the basis for the hugely lucrative estate law industry. The only ones who profit from that are lawyers.

I don't think I have been defending the current system. I have simply been questioning the rationale for the propsed repeal, what the probable effects might be, and why the Republicans didn't sign on to the Conrad amendment.

As for the tax lawyers, I know that you are correct. I know a guy who is involved in tax law who was in DC back in the Reagan days, and he saw firsthand the resistance to tax simplification that the tax lawyers put up.

The second problem is that you are assuming that the economy is static, and gov't expenses are also fixed. And that's not true. Gov't policies that increase economic activity bring in more revenue.

The problem with that is that no one seems to be able to agree on a projection. I'd just as soon assume the worst, and if more money comes in, it's gravy. I don't recall Phil Gramm or anyone else saying a repeal of the estate tax will generate revenue. If you know of someplace where the GOP has said that, point me to it. I'd like to see what they say about that.

So, lowering taxes on business could actually mean that your individual tax rate could be lower.

Maybe. But why take chances? Which goes back to another point I have been making, which is that to me it is most rational to protect my own interests. That is not to say I want to stick it to anyone else, or take money from someone else. But the problems we have with taxation, IMO, stem from spending. And the biggest drain on the system, now and moving forward, is Social Security, and Medicare. Until those two programs are dealt with, keep your hands off of my pile. Cut my payroll taxes. Between the income tax and the SS tax, I am paying almost half my income away, and it's going--some of it--to rich folks with estates. Messed up system we got here.