3 ms·
Ok, so there's a case that's pretty important and probably deserves an exemption under the law. Or, maybe not, if you think 3.5 million is enough, you already
by jbooth 16y ago
Ok, so there's a case that's pretty important and probably deserves an exemption under the law. Or, maybe not, if you think 3.5 million is enough, you already have all the exemption you need. I could see something pushing it a little higher in cases of early death and a life insurance payout.
That makes sense.
You know what doesn't make sense, though? Complaining about a "death tax" on the one hand while complaining about the budget deficit at the same time, yet maintaining that you're the political party of hard work, bootstrapping, blah blah. If you care about the latter two, don't spend your time going to the mat for Paris Hilton. If you consult some charts about income distribution in this country, you can conclude that the vaaaaaaaaast majority of the revenue collected under this tax comes from very large estates where the children would be set for life with 10% of it, and they're doing very very well with 3.5Mil + 45% of the rest.
Exceptional cases may be worthy of exceptions under the law, but that doesn't change whether the law makes sense in the general case.
- WalterBright 16y agoSimultaneously complaining about taxes and the deficit does does make sense if you consider cutting spending.
- jbooth 16y agoNot given the size of the budget deficit, and especially not if you're only concerned about taxes that exclusively affect the very very wealthy.