I'LL MAKE THIS ONE RESPONSE PUBLIC, AND THEN TAKE OTHER RESPONSES OFF LINE.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Holly MacDonald-Korth wrote: > sorry to do this. but i strongly disagree. it greatly hurts agricultural > (farmers) families. it also disincents anyone to work hard, becuase so much > is taken away at the end. There is no proof that this hurts farmers. I've seen the line that it does, but have yet to see one example of a farmer that has been affected negatively. And exactly how does this disincentive process work? I'm rich...and want to give my wealth to my children. From the standpoint of the donor, I could make an argument that the tax will make donors work HARDER (in order to give more money after taxes to their progeny). But there is also another argument from the standpoint of the inheritor. Doesn't wealth itself provide a disincentive to work? Why would I as an inheritor want to work if I've already been given enough money to provide for my needs, AND THE NEEDS OF MY PROGENY? This is actually an argument for a larger rather than smaller estate tax... > granted, the rich will get richer. but that will happen no matter what. If this is the case, then an estate tax won't hurt...because whether the tax exists or not has nothing to do with acquiring wealth. > it will also prevent the current middle class from acquiring the wealth they > need to make the leap to being rich. How? They aren't effected by the tax. peace lks --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
