In article 
,
 Kurt Ullman  wrote:

> In article ,
>  Amy Guskin  wrote:
> 
> > an does nothing loses the argument. <<
> > 
> > But that's not what Josh said.  "...a rich man shouldn't be
taxed for money 
> > he receives for doing nothing" is a subset of "all rich
men."  And in fact, 
> > it's a subset of "a rich man's income."  Josh is
talking about inherited 
> > wealth only.  Surely, if I can understand that -- when most of this 
> > economics 
> > discussion we invariably get into her makes my eyes glaze over -- you can?
> > 
> 
>       But it was earned by the previous generation and often used as a 
> basis for the next to add to it. Many family companies add value the 
> next generation if the company isn't hurt by having to gut it to a pay 
> inheritance taxes. Especially small businesses and mid size ones. Even 
> the bigger companies such as Johnson and Johnson, Ford, etc. that are 
> still largely family owned are places where rich people still work for a 
> living.   It is a conceit that this isn't at least as gray as the other 
> end with the subsidized housing. 
>    It also tends to be self limiting anyway. Many of the idle rich 
> manage to lose the money. Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three 
> generations.

  As a follow-up, inheritance taxes run 45% above a certain point 
currently, bordering on confiscatory. Also, with the repeal of the 
inheritance tax there would be no step-up in the basis for computing 
taxes (especially cap gains) like there is now. So, when the second (or 
third or fourth or whatever) generation sold the asset, they would still 
be using the first generation's basis for tax purposes. Thus, the taxes 
would be paid eventually.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32