Greg Mankiw's recent column at the Times has caused a lot of furor at some of the other blogs I read. Mankiw uses a very specific, though probably unlikely, sequence of events to show the ridiculousness of the current marginal rates. The points made from other bloggers - that these taxes are easily avoided by doing x or y miss the point in my opinion.
What exactly is wrong with writing a column, investing the proceeds in an American company which makes money, keeps its profits here and pays dividends to its shareholders that the tax penalty should be so high?
Where Greg loses me is his treatment of the estate tax - he describes an estate below the exclusion (7 million I think!) when he says he hopes his children inherit a house down-payment and college tuition. While including the estate tax illustrates his overall point, this description of a small estate seems deliberately misleading to me.
original column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html?_r=2&ref=business
and some replies:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43772_Page2.html
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/10-questions-for-greg-mankiw/
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/10/mckinsleys-mistakes.html
And Stan Collender with a better retort:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2001/taxed-more-and-work-less-barry-ritholtz-slices-greg-mankiw
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)