|
|
Posted by jakdedert on 08/15/06 19:55
Steve Guidry wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've always thought that this debate on the estate tax
> is probably one of the most legitimate tax debates going . . . because
> (whether you're for it or against it) it reveals one's basic view of social
> policy.
>
> Here's the basic question as I see it : do we take money from those
> families who have found ways to pass on the ability to generate wealth from
> generation to generation, (this is no small feat) and - - among other
> things - - give it to those who have demonstrated a profound lack of this
> ability.
>
That 'ability' is to a great degree dependent on having large amounts of
money to begin with, and intimate contacts among others with similar
amounts. Not everybody is born with that, and they don't teach it in
college. Granted, there are 'self made' millionaires out there; but the
real push behind repealing this tax is coming from those with more than
enough to go around, have had it for generations, and are busily
collecting more and more...the very ones who have been the main
beneficiaries of the other tax cuts of the last several years.
All this happens while the nation, in under six years, has borrowed more
money than the total of first 200 some-odd before 2001.
> Those on the one side claim (rightly so) things like "This money has
> already been taxed", and "It's my money, I should be able to leave it to my
> kids, not the government".
>
Already discussed below. BTW, a non-partisan group found that the
average 'real' rate of taxation for those with savvy estate planners and
smaller (but taxable) estates was much less than the published rate of
45% an average of around 1.7%.
> Those on the other side call for "social justice", and say "sock it to those
> rich bastards, they probably stole it anyway."
>
It's tempting....
> It's a fascinating argument . . .
>
jak
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|