Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote: The "private money and they can do what they want with it" is not a fair defense. In the first place the country is in debt. The surplus money from when the highest progressive tax rate is money that should be given back to the government. The country did better with the money. There is no justification for cutting taxes when the country needs the money. The trickle down theory did not, does not and will not work.
It is absolutely a fair defense because it's their money and they can do what they want with it. The country is in debt for many reasons, but one of those reasons isn't because a handful of rich people want to leave their heirs some money.
You get no disagreement from me when it comes to our tax code needing a major overhaul and that the ultra rich need to be paying their fair share, but these are two entirely different arguments.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: As I mentioned earlier a trust is a trust and has the same effect private or business. There were laws against perpetual trusts. There were reasons . Now Those laws are being changed and just like laws agsinst gambling are being changed there is no good reason.
Not all trusts are created the same and there's no uniform trust law that covers all fifty states. Trust laws are set at the state and not the Federal level.
There's also no such thing as a perpetual trust. Maybe the receiver of a trust decides to form a trust for their dependents, but that's different than a perpetual trust.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: The billionaires that are giving there money away have an excellent cause in Flint, Michigan. Hillary had an excellent opportunity to involve the Clinton Foundation and apparently missed it. The right wing talk stars have just about irradiacated any sense of the country is more important than an individual for having a right to designate the use and purpose of wealth. The right of an individual is not greater than the right of a country. Countries do not exist at the pleasure of individuals. Countries operate to benefit countries. The billionaires have lost sight of the countries . They forget that they only exist because of the country and especially this country. Do you want to examine their charity as a percentage of discretionary income? Big enough to change policy is too big.
If the Clinton Foundation got involved in Flint then the Hillary campaign can be accused of vote buying.
And I'm having a hard time understanding what the rest of this has to do with trust funds. There's a big difference between reforming the tax code to make it more fair and saying that rich people should have to give the government all of their money when they die.