Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9673)	6/26/2006 6:07:00 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

I believe he has stated publicly that he has no intention of showering his offspring with any more than they already have. On one hand, he wishes to control where his wealth goes. Therefore he is donating it to someone who will do something with it that he agrees with. Since he has also stated that he believes those who have profited greatly from society have an obligation to return what they have gained back to society, he favors the estate tax for those who neglect to do something with their wealth for the common good. There's nothing hypocritical whatsoever about that. From his point of view, the estate tax would be an incentive to give the money away for the sake of some benficial cause. You, on the other hand, are probably coming from a belief that you don't owe anyone anything, shouldn't have to pay taxes on your estate(which you probably won't have to do) and you should be able to keep everything for yourself and a few select members of your inner circle. That's what most of us do anyway and I'm fine with that.