Won't be around too much longer as it is vote day, however, I can walk to my polling place.
a high tide lifts all boats - John F Kennedy
Sure, the rich of plenty of subsidies, but an estate tax is about the last thing that could be called a subsidy.
What government services are consumed in this transfer of wealth that justify a tax? Almost none.
This is a classic Liberal Lie, repeated endlessly, derived from a purposefully misleading statistic. It is so easy to disprove that it's continued use is baffling. Nonetheless, here goes:
When a person dies, their estate is transferred to their heirs according to the terms of their will, trust, or by court decree. A person's estate typically consists of the accumulated wealth of a lifetime, including cash, personal property and real estate. Therefore, the decedent's stated income for the year in which they died is typically far more than they ever earned while they were alive, frequently placing them in the dreaded "Top 1%" of taxpayers for that year, and that year alone.
So, the same person who perhaps was never even among the top 20% of earners during their entire lives is now counted among the "wealthy", if only by greedy socialists looking to rifle through someone else's pockets. Of course, they always try to justify their attempts at theft by appeals to class envy - "greedy heiresses" being a common theme.
You know the leftists are winning the war of words when they can with a straight face call not stealing your wealth a 'subsidy'.
The dirty secret is that middle class families are hit by the estate tax. The real rich, aka the Kennedys, the Kerry-Heinzes, the Soros, etc. can afford the loopholes and off-shore accounts.
Any tax that only affects 1% of our countries citizens should be repealed on 14th Amendment grounds.
So it's basically the middle class that gets squeezed once again: the so-called 'bourgeousie' that the left despises, while the 'vanguard' class remains unaffected. If that isn't enough proof that today's 'Rats are Stalinists, then I don't know what is.
The rich get richer, it's true. But that is nothing compared to the fact that the libnuts get more and petulant with their journalistic spew.
Only a demented mind could consider not stealing from someone to be a subsidy.
If the rich are getting richer, that's fine with me! It makes increased investment more likely and paves the way for job growth. I hope the looney leftists pardon me for my failure to be alarmed and offended! LOL :)
Only a liberal could possibly consider 'DYING'--a TAXABLE EVENT!
Translation: "But because the money pays for things that benefit everyone, the government's 90-year history of taxing - FILL IN THE BLANK - is both reasonable and fair."
That's how feudalism gets started.
In an ideal world, kids would be kicked out of the house at 21 and left to fend for themselves without a cent from their parents.
Best thing for the brats. Better than unearned millions.
But only if it is true for everyone's children. All should start from zero and work their way up--or down.
There's also a record number of rich folks. This is a problem, why?!?
I'm surprised this appeared in the SLTrib.
Is there some rule that the rich are suspposed to get poorer?
The rich are rich and the poor are poor because of the same reason. They both keep doing the things that make them what they are.
Capitalism and Communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: "No man should have so much." The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: "All men should have as much." Adams Phelps - Author