[ExI] The Dogs of Immortality

Mike Dougherty msd001 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 9 19:00:50 UTC 2008


On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
wrote:

> If this were only a matter of Leona Helmsley wasting her own money, no one
> would need to care. But she is wasting ours too.
>
> The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government.
> The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable
> bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley's case, given that her fortune warranted an estate
> tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of
> $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me.
>

Can someone explain to me how that costs me $3.6 billion?  I understand that
if the government took it's 45 percent from that 8 billion, that would be
3.6 billion.  Is this author suggesting that because that tax money was not
received that I am expected to make up the difference?  Would I really be
taxed any less if the government had reduced the 8 billion give to
(effectively) 4.4 billion?  I feel this kind of "math" is as disingenuous as
saying that on an impulse purchase of a product that retails for 100 for the
sale price of 80 is a savings of 20 - it's still an expense of 80, if we
resist the impulse we would save the whole 80!  Is this just one more
example of how our economic sense has been warped in our
constant-consumerism world?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080709/7317c388/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list