Absolutely super

At a time of staggering inequality, I can’t believe that Congress and the Trump administration want to give me another tax break.

On Wednesday, the Republican party unveiled their tax reform plan, which included the elimination of the federal estate tax. But as one of a small segment of people in the top 1% with enough wealth to someday pay the estate tax, I believe a tax on inherited wealth is completely reasonable and fair.

Well, great, off you go then love. “Gifts to the United States” is the account, just send your check there.

After the second world war, between 1945 and 1975, we taxed wealthy people and invested in infrastructure, education, and middle-class opportunity. Veterans Administration mortgages, the GI bill, and other debt-free college opportunities put millions of families, albeit mostly white, on the road to economic prosperity. Median income rose commensurately for all working people, secretaries and sanitation workers as well as CEOs.

In recent decades, we have cut taxes on wealthy folks and failed to make adequate public investments to ensure broadly shared prosperity.

You do know that the Feds swallow more of the economy than they did back then, yes? Meaning that it’s what they’re spending on which is the problem, not the amount?

7 comments on “Absolutely super

  1. “great, off you go then love. “Gifts to the United States” is the account, just send your check there.”
    I noticed as I’ve careened through the rapids of life that the Left don’t believe in individual choice. In this case, the excuses will be: (1.) that everybody should do it and, ( 2.) That someone else should pay as I’m not quite rich enough.

  2. “…the estate tax doesn’t affect those who’ve been successful. Rather it limits the rewards received by their heirs.”

    And why do we strive to be successful, if not to provide for our families?

  3. In the first place you can’t cut taxes to welfare recipients who don’t pay any anyway.

    And part of the reason for tax cuts is that –by keeping more of what they earn–the productive who pay tax will have incentive to increase their productive activities. Thus increasing the wealth available for all to enjoy.

    By her own admission Ms Ratarse has always enjoyed other peoples money–her well-off family in her case. She is thus delusional enough to think cash does arrive as a right and the gubmint pissing it up against the wall is actually a benefit to everybody.

    Silly Cow.

  4. Presumably the U.S. estate tax suffers the same problem as the UK one, namely that it only affects those who are least prepared for it.

  5. ‘We can reverse inequality by making public investments in education and infrastructure that create good jobs.’

    What happened to the money we already spent?

    The U.S. spent $3.9 trillion in 2016. Versus $2.8 trillion in 2006. Ms Ratliffe is an idiot, having no comprehension of the world as it is.

    ‘But a key ingredient is a progressive tax system, including the estate tax.’

    No explanation given. Just an assertion. One would think that a tax system that maximizes revenue would be the most desirable. Ms Ratliffe appears to think that the most punitive is best. Cos inequality.

  6. “millions of families, albeit mostly white”
    Isn’t the US population mostly white – 80% comes to mind – so any general subset of it is going to be mostly white.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.