In utilizing tax law as written to minimize their estate taxes (when they are due), the Clintons are doing nothing illegal. And taking advantage of legal loopholes while advocating to close them is not such a big deal. Maybe we should not criticize the people who use them but do something about closing them? As the Clintons have advocated doing?
Or that is the argument one commenter put forth on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA. But, even though this argument makes a LOT of sense, Lying Lester rejects it. Why? Because personally the death tax rubs me in the wrong direction - given that inherited wealth is one of the primary methods by which the noble goal of concentrating wealth at the top can be achieved.
For that reason I've decided to adopt a position of criticizing the Clintons there "hypocrisy". Using the bogus "hypocrisy" angle, I'm going to say that it is one thing to advocate for an estate tax to keep the nation from eventually (possibly) being heavily influenced by inherited wealth as the Clinton's have done. Apparently it is quite another to actually pay them, at lest for Bill and Hillary. They are taking full advantage of financial strategies that benefit the top 1 percent of the nation. You know, those individuals that lIberals love to hate. Well, when it seems politically expedient to do so.
Because they're following the laws as written, even though if they were written differently - and the Clintons have advocated a change that would affect them - and then they'd follow those rules - and therefore me whining about "hypocrisy" is at least a little bit bullshitty... I'm doing it anyway.
If you're wanting to be a leader shouldn't you set an example? Somehow do as I say, not as I do just doesn't cut it. Even though that argument doesn't apply here, as it would be stupid to think that two people opting out of paying certain taxes would make any kind of difference AT ALL when most others aren't.
But bullshit arguments that make no sense at all are just the way Lying Lester rolls, given that Lying Lester is a master of making such arguments.
By the way... if you don't know WTF I'm talking about, I've included an article excerpt below that explains it all...
|Bloomberg reports that while Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth [still they] are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.|
The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.
Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.
"The goal is really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that's really what this is", Sloan said. "You're creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die". (Link).
I won't judge there integrity on this but does anyone think that perhaps the "hypocrites" don't have any? Hopefully I can trick someone into agreeing with my BS argument and decide that they don't.