|
|
 |
|
The views expressed on this page are soley
those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of County
News Online
|
 |
The Giant,
Sucking Maw
By Kate Burch
As one who was involved in the successful grassroots effort to achieve
repeal of Ohio’s Estate Tax in 2012, it is with consternation that I
read about Hillary Clinton’s plan, if elected, to raise the federal
“death tax” even more than she promised previously—to a maximum of 65%
on assets above $500 million. She would tax all estates over $10
million at 50%, and estates over $50 million at 55%.
This is yet another example of Clinton’s crabwise movement to the left,
in her desperate attempt to attract the young voters who were so
beguiled by Bernie Sanders. Her campaign says, naturally, that
this increase would affect only the very wealthy. Her selling
point enlists envy and resentment, justifying government’s confiscation
of estates because the heirs did not earn them.
A family business does not have to be very big, these days, to
represent $10 million in assets. We are not talking about the
“very wealthy” here, but rather about many owners of small businesses
who represent the backbone of our economy. Remember that
the proportion of the assets of a family business, or a family farm,
that consists of cash may be very small, so compliance with estate
taxes will, more often than not, require liquidation of assets and sale
of the business or farm. Then, there is no guarantee that the
business or farm will survive under new ownership. The desire to
leave a legacy for one’s offspring, or even so that one may be
remembered for some good provided to the community, is a marker of
healthy psychological development in middle-age. Thwarting that
healthy function, while meanwhile making use of vice—envy and
resentment—to sweeten the federal pot is degrading and immoral.
Hillary Clinton herself, along with many of her very wealthy friends,
protect their legacies by putting their resources into charitable (?)
foundations which are not subject to estate taxes. That option is
not one that the typical farmer or small business person has
available. Incorporation is another means of protecting a legacy
that is not readily available to Mom and Pop. Here, again,
the policies and ploys of the left squeeze the aspiring middle class,
discouraging initiative and enterprise, the virtues of prudence and
thrift, and the desires of independent entrepreneurs to serve their
community and leave their mark. They justify this by saying they
want us to share the wealth. What really is happening is that
government is relentlessly taking over every aspect of our lives and we
are all being made less capable, less prosperous, and less free, every
day.
As for her argument that a small businessman’s heirs did not do
anything to earn the money: that is untrue in many, if not most,
cases. Family members very often have contributed much, both
directly by their labor and indirectly by sharing in the risk and the
reversals of fortune that often attend the process of creating,
growing, and sustaining a small business. Regarding Clinton’s
charge that the heirs are not deserving of their legacy, one could
reasonably echo the immortal words of Barack Obama in replying to the
government, “You didn’t earn that!”
|
|
|
|
