4 ms·

Is it really link bait? The amounts in question are tax revenue that the government would have collected in other years which were not collected this year due

Is it really link bait? The amounts in question are tax revenue that the government would have collected in other years which were not collected this year due to the one-year-only-exemption. How is missed revenue opportunity not lost money? The question comes down to semantics of how you interpret a missed chance at revenue, we can probably leave the question of the fairness of the inheritance tax out of it (for now).

forgotAgain 16y ago
The tax code is what it is. The deaths of the four people did not cause the government to lose the money. The structure of the tax code did.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  Dubner's point here is that the timing of the deaths did in fact cause the government to miss out on some tax revenue. I agree he's being a bit cute about the wording, but it is just a blog post - not a NYTimes cover news story. He's trying to make a point about the quirks and odd facets (some might call them ridiculous) of our tax code.
  - spinlock 16y ago
    Or, maybe not. You see, this year, you not only get to avoid the death tax but you also miss out on the step-up in tax basis. So, you can pass assets down to your heirs tax free but they then have a much larger tax bill if they ever realize the gains on those assets.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  " The structure of the tax code did." Then the decision of the Republicans to structure the tax code so that the kids of billionaires get tax-free windfall income has cost other taxpayers billions.
  - donspaulding 16y ago
    FTFY: ...so that the kids of billionaires get tax-free windfall income just like the kids of non-billionaires...
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      The billionaire kids won't have been saddled with the cost of supporting their ailing parents. The two situations are not just like each other. Also, there's a benefit to society in avoiding a hereditary concentration of wealth in a quasi-aristocracy of Paris Hilton-class morons.
spinlock 16y ago
I'm a bit unclear what "link bait" would be but I do think that the title is a tad misleading and sensationalistic but in a good way. It's like pitching a VC your problem statement. You'd be a fool to be pedantic about it. You want to catch their interest so that they'll listen to the rest of your pitch. The title does the same thing. No one would read the blog post if it was titled "How 4 Deaths Delayed an Indeterminant Amount of Government Revenue for an Indeterminant Amount of Time."
- forgotAgain 16y ago
  Agreed that titles are meant to attract but this specific case I believe goes beyond that. It left me with a negative impression of the NYT. A feeling that I had been misled.

forgotAgain 16y ago

The tax code is what it is. The deaths of the four people did not cause the government to lose the money. The structure of the tax code did.

brown9-2 16y ago
Dubner's point here is that the timing of the deaths did in fact cause the government to miss out on some tax revenue. I agree he's being a bit cute about the wording, but it is just a blog post - not a NYTimes cover news story. He's trying to make a point about the quirks and odd facets (some might call them ridiculous) of our tax code.
- spinlock 16y ago
  Or, maybe not. You see, this year, you not only get to avoid the death tax but you also miss out on the step-up in tax basis. So, you can pass assets down to your heirs tax free but they then have a much larger tax bill if they ever realize the gains on those assets.
jonhendry 16y ago
" The structure of the tax code did." Then the decision of the Republicans to structure the tax code so that the kids of billionaires get tax-free windfall income has cost other taxpayers billions.
- donspaulding 16y ago
  FTFY: ...so that the kids of billionaires get tax-free windfall income just like the kids of non-billionaires...
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    The billionaire kids won't have been saddled with the cost of supporting their ailing parents. The two situations are not just like each other. Also, there's a benefit to society in avoiding a hereditary concentration of wealth in a quasi-aristocracy of Paris Hilton-class morons.

spinlock 16y ago

I'm a bit unclear what "link bait" would be but I do think that the title is a tad misleading and sensationalistic but in a good way. It's like pitching a VC your problem statement. You'd be a fool to be pedantic about it. You want to catch their interest so that they'll listen to the rest of your pitch. The title does the same thing. No one would read the blog post if it was titled "How 4 Deaths Delayed an Indeterminant Amount of Government Revenue for an Indeterminant Amount of Time."

forgotAgain 16y ago
Agreed that titles are meant to attract but this specific case I believe goes beyond that. It left me with a negative impression of the NYT. A feeling that I had been misled.