Hillary: Your kids don’t deserve your money
Posted December 12th, 2007 at 2:01 PM by Jon HamThat’s what she said standing next to multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, whose guilt is spurring him to push the “death tax.” Hillary agrees that when you die they government should get your money:
“It’s really a tax to prevent us from having inherited wealth generation after generation, which would really undermine the kind of spirit and meritocracy that the United States stands for.â€
She says it’s not “affordable,” as if tax revenues belong to the government and not to individuals. Please nominate this woman.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
To most people the concept of “you can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” is a vow to fight to the bitter end; to Hillary it signals an opportunity.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m trying to think which character from Atlas Shrugged most equates to Warren Buffett. It’s not Peter Taggart, because Peter inherited his wealth and then got all preachy about giving it away, while Warren earned his wealth himself (through investing, but still he didn’t inherit it).
Hey Warren: If you want to give your money away now or when you die, that’s fine. But leave the rest of us alone, you moron, and shut the hell up.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I cringe at the term “death tax.” What unalienable right to I have to inherit all the remainders of my parents’ estates without paying tax on it? I’d pay tax if it were income; I certainly should have to pay tax on it as an inheritance.
(There clearly should be some exceptions to the rule, much as there should be with capital gains — such as family farms and small businesses — but, come now, that’s such a small portion of what we are talking about here.)
December 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Rose, every form of actual income (what you are paid; dividends; interest; capital gains; you name it) is already taxed. For it to be taxed again, just because someone had it in their possession at the time of their death, is ludicrous.
Personally, I’m in favor of abolishing ALL forms of income tax and switching to a consumption tax. Unspent money has no actual value in the real world, only potential value, so why should you be taxed for taking money into your possession? It’s only when you spend it on material goods and services that it attains any actual value.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Rose,
On any estate, there was income tax paid on the income that built the estate. There was property tax paid annually on the real estate. There was an annual tax to the DMV to register any cars contained in the estate. Let’s face it: Everything was taxed at some point when it was acquired or maintained by the estate.
The proponents of the death tax are mostly motivated by envy. They are envious of other people who have had productive relatives who amassed wealth and left them something. “Why did this guy who I don’t think deserves it get a bunch of money, and I didn’t? That’s NOT FAIR,” they cry! For some reason, they are also much more concerned about some unattainable “equality” than they are about any harm that may occur to any individual person.
I say: NO DEATH TAX. I personally will be unlikely to inherit anything more than an old Chevy, as near as I can tell. But that does not mean that I want to make life tough on the sons and daughters of the rich.