| Well, yoooooo didn't go to the booth with the nymphs! --- Seriously, I agree with everything you said except in practice the tax will come from someplace else. I was a big supporter of Jarvis-Gann (prop 13), but the reality is, it blew a hole in California services that we're STILL feeling. People want to have services and they don't want to pay for them. President Reagan found that out. That's why dispite the hoopla, Reagan never really cut the size of anything. --- I get real leary anymore when politicians start talking aout cutting this tax or that tax because people expect X level of service and that costs X amount of dollars. The money comes from somewhere and anytime something changes that way, it wants to default to the burden of the working man without the lobbyists and such. --- I'm all for losing the inheritance tax. Anyone with an estate would be. Sounds like a pretty safe thing to turn into a sound bite. --- But where will that burden shift? --- Devices like trusts are wonderful and becoming
pervasive to the point where you get cold calls at dinner from somebody or other wanting to sell you one. They're pretty hard to avoid anymore. --- I'm presently involved in having to raise a pretty big chunk of inheritance tax 'change' (not me personally, but related to a portfolio I manage). It really bothers me that we can't just pay the tax with the equity directly, instead of having to sell it first, because guess what, that's all gonna be a taxable gain the following year. That's outrageous to me. --- But you know what, it's not as outrageous to me as the things we (sic) are doing to our environment, the frenetic consumerism/consumpiton and the state of our schools and healthcare. --- I'm no longer going to have my vote bought with "vote for me and save" and tax cut / tax repeal / tax rebate / tax whatever. --- Maybe now that I'm 40 something, I'm just getting old. --- But, I'd rather pay the damn tax and play naked hide n' go seek in the redwoods with the hippie girls. :) -JCJ |
