Look at these five estates above, from this past calendar year, and tell me, Mr. and Mrs. America, we don't need an estate tax on the wealthiest of us.
While you're at it, look, too, at the amount of tax revenue we lost by not applying it to these estates.
Mind you, I'm not saying grow government at all costs and I'm not an advocate of ever-larger government agencies. Not at all.
All I'm saying here is that we have costs and debts associated with running this country and that's why we have taxes.
I find it difficult to believe these estates and the people they will now go to would be hurt substantially by having paid these taxes.
If you're not for an estate tax on the wealthiest of Americans, I hope it's because you're one of them.
Otherwise, I question your connection to reality.
And I say that with seriousness, gravity and respect.
Posts
2 comments:
This illustrates a fundamental difference between us-rather than 'we need to shrink government spending to match income', you say 'we need to maximize tax revenue, then figure out how to spend it'. You also want this increased revenue to come from people other than you.
We need to vastly reduce federal spending, and the federal share of the overall tax burden. This may mean increasing state taxes (although not by a compensating amount), as they take over functions the feds shouldn't be doing in the first place.
I have never, absolutely never, here or anywhere else, said or suggested or even thought that "we need to maximize tax revenue, then figure out how to spend it" and I resent highly that you said here I did.
A quote from above: "Mind you, I'm not saying grow government at all costs and I'm not an advocate of ever-larger government agencies. Not at all."
Post a Comment