Call me a revolutionary, but I’ve always thought that if one is an advocate of higher estate taxes, then one shouldn’t take advantage of even legal methods by which those taxes can be reduced.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.
To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.
Let’s just stress the obvious here: There is absolutely nothing illegal about what the Clintons are doing. But there is plenty hypocritical about it. While the Clintons demand higher estate taxes, they are working to reduce their own. While expressing concern that in the absence of higher estate taxes, America could become “dominated by inherited wealth,” the Clintons are undertaking actions that . . . well . . . only serves (according to the Clintons themselves) to ensure that America will become “dominated by inherited wealth.” The Clintons have every right to do what they are doing in order to reduce their estate taxes, but they are not living up to the policy demands they wish to impose upon others. It’s just impossible to come to any other conclusion regarding the matter.
The tone-deafness is nothing short of amazing, and as we have seen recently, Hillary Clinton has been quite tone-deaf as of late. I imagine that the tone-deafness will continue, which means that those who believe that Hillary Clinton is certain to be the next president of the United States may wish to recalibrate their expectations. This is not a good candidate, and if she is indeed running for president, she is not running a good campaign. At all.
Just as a final thought, imagine what the Democratic reaction would be if “Mitt Romney” were substituted for “Bill and Hillary Clinton.”