That article is so one-sided it hurts. It gives few and silly examples of what trusts are actually used for, like it characterizes one by a rich woman leaving m

That article is so one-sided it hurts. It gives few and silly examples of what trusts are actually used for, like it characterizes one by a rich woman leaving millions in care for her dog after the woman died, in order to convince the reader that trusts must be often wasteful and frivolous. For one (among other issues) it completely ignores the destruction of family farms and businesses, no longer able to operate due to heavy tax burdens put on them by the state, simply because one of the owners has passed away and they didn't have enough cash in reserve to pay what the government deemed they owe. Mine and your politicians forced the creation of these havens because of their wanton disregard for people's hard work and effort, and I'm not going to shed any tears of there being a way for some of them to protect it. I know, the writer alludes to a one-world dictatorship that might one day have been able to prevent this 'horrible evil' from taking hold, but we're not there yet, thankfully.