On 4/2/2011 12:30 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
"F. George wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:46:09 -0400, "Tom Gardner"w@w
wrote:
snip
Taking wealth away from those that earn it is not just and
equitable.
snip
===========
Another key point!!!!!!

There is however a huge difference between those that
earn/create wealth and those that simply inherited it as an
accident of birth.

This situation has been greatly amplified and exacerbated by
the legality of non-terminating "dynastic trusts" which
overturn common law precedents dating back to at least King
Edward I (1279 and 1290).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortmain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

Now about those estate taxes.....



Back then there WAS a finite supply of wealth, today there really
isn't. I figure the descendents of the rich have to constantly
re-earn their wealth or it WILL just dissipate. Stupid rich people
never stay both stupid and rich. Besides, I think if all wealth was
confiscated from the rich it wouldn't be enough to solve this
country's problems, politicians would squander it for votes and smart,
hard working people would earn it all back. Instead, why doesn't the
US encourage wealth creation instead of punishing it? Victimhood is a
powerful tool and "victims" are easily manipulated. Gee, who's doing
the manipulating? And, who sees themselves as victims?



Saw a graph today that showed if we had just not continued the Bush tax
cuts for the rich that alone would have reduced our deficit by 50%, and
that only raised their rates from 35 to 39%. So increasing taxes on the
top bracket would help a lot to reduce our debt. Those people would
still be very rich too.

Hawke