Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/01. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Prying the Gold Fillings out of a Dead Taxpayer’s Mouth

Posted on December 10 2010 12:22 pm
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

Sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives is a laughable, petulant little boy named Anthony Weiner. He represents the 9th Congressional District in New York. In an interview Wednesday with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Weiner showed the world that he and his fellow “progressive” comrades in Congress believe, to the very core of their being, that they are entitled to micromanage every last cent that you have ever earned – not only while you are living, but after you are dead and buried, as well.

When Ms. Kelly asked Weiner how he could justify the imposition of an estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”) on the assets of a deceased person – assets that already had been taxed during that person’s lifetime – the laughable little boy offered a ready response that he clearly had rehearsed, and of whose cleverness he was quite obviously very proud: “You aren’t paying anything in that case, because you’ll be dead,” he quipped with precisely the type of self-satisfaction that adults have witnessed in smug adolescents ever since the dawn of time. (Click here for a 2-minute video of the relevant portion of the interview.)

Ms. Kelly then reminded Weiner that while she was quite aware that the corpse itself was not technically being inconvenienced by the imposition of an estate tax, the dead person’s estate was in fact paying the tax, thereby leaving “less for [his] children.” But the laughable little boy from the 9th District was prepared once again, pointing out how unjust it was for “people who inherit money” to be “taxed at a lower rate than if they worked 70 hours to earn it.” “That’s just not fair,” said the boy. He then likened such heirs to people who “get very lucky at the casino,” and claimed that their “unearned income” should not be taxed “at a lower rate than if [they had] worked hard and earned it.”

Who, exactly, is Anthony Weiner to decide whether or not money has been properly “earned”? The parent who worked for it, who payed taxes on it, and who then elected to bequeath the remainder to his children, certainly earned it. Why should it have to be “earned” twice? Do the intentions of the deceased count for nothing? If the deceased worked hard all his life, mainly so he would have something to leave to his children and grandchildren, why do those heirs have to prove that they are sufficiently “deserving” of that inheritance – to the satisfaction of a laughable little boy from New York’s 9th District? After money has already been earned and taxed, does it not then belong to the person who possesses it? Is that person not free to do with it as he pleases – whether he wishes to pass it along to his heirs on the one hand, or to let laughable little boys like Anthony Weiner dump it into a gargantuan cesspool of government waste, on the other? And while we’re on the subject of merit, who’s to say that little Anthony and his fellow congressmen themselves have “earned” even a penny of their own pay? Can any sane person actually make a case for the absurd notion that elected officials who have saddled a once-prosperous nation with far more debt than it will ever be able to repay, have “earned” anything – let alone the right to confiscate and squander even more of our money, under the guise of trying to “reduce the debt”?

But another, perhaps even more vital, question begs to be asked: If the government is magically entitled to take whatever it wants out of a dead person’s estate, why, by the same token, does it bear absolutely no responsibility toward that same estate? Indeed, why shouldn’t Weiner and his fellow thieves use some of the money they steal to pay for the funeral of the deceased? Why shouldn’t they pay for whatever grief counseling may be needed by the family of the departed? And why shouldn’t they foot whatever outstanding medical bills the deceased may have left behind? Why is their intervention limited only to taking, while giving nothing?

In the final analysis, a laughable little boy like Anthony Weiner is, quite literally, indistinguishable from an unscrupulous mortician who yanks the gold fillings out of a dead man’s teeth. Hey, what’s the difference? The man’s dead, isn’t he? He won’t miss his gold fillings any more than he’d miss whatever portion of his estate might go to pay government taxes, will he? The laughable little boy from New York’s 9th District says no.

Be Sociable, Share!
9 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry