Wealthy Clintons Use Trusts to Limit Estate Tax They Back

[fskimospy]

Conservatives continually make the same absurd argument: If you advocate that a law be changed, you're a hypocrite if you don't hold yourself to the strictures of the proposed law before the law takes effect.

Not only is that interpretation of the word "hypocrite" clearly incorrect, but to follow this right-wing principle (which they only pretend to believe) would be in many cases self-destructive. For example, a chemical company that advocated that the EPA enforce new, ultra-stringent anti-pollution standards against chemical companies would be committing financial suicide if it held itself to those standards before the new regulations went into effect, as the playing field wouldn't be level.

Would conservatives think that a runner was a hypocrite if he advocated that some new high-tech, friction-reducing running suit be outlawed but continued to use the high-tech suit while it was still legal, rather than competing at a huge disadvantage?

To modify a famous quote: It's hard to get someone to understand a concept when their ideology and pride depends on them not understanding it.

 

[Cozarkian]

Actually they are exposed to additional harm by not taking advantage of loopholes others are using. After all money is speech and less money mean less speech, kind of important for people who dabble in the political scene.

That's a specious counterargument. Look, I can do it too. OMG, if I don't eat while I drive, other people save more time than me, and time is money and money is speech so I have to endanger lives by eating and driving!

Making that argument doesn't make you any less a hypocrite for eating and driving if you think it should be illegal, and eating and driving is still a much better analogy to not paying as much tax as you think you should then speeding or invading Iran. Both refraining from eating while driving and voluntarily refusing to claim allowable deductions would help achieve the policy goal of the advocated behavior. In contrast, not speeding or invading Iran by yourself would be potentially detrimental to your goal.

The speeding example can actually work if you put into a contextual setting where you aren't increasing safety by speeding, such as advocating for a speed bump on a residential neighborhood. Claiming you are justified in driving 40 mph because it won't make much difference if you slow down while others continue to drive 40 mph, doesn't save you from being a hypocrite. Similarly, claiming that you are justified in claiming deductions you don't think should be allowed because your contribution would only make a small difference, doesn't save you from being a hypocrite.

 

[ivwshane]

It's like talking to a brick wall and the piss stain that's all over it (guess who represents what).

 

[glenn1]

No, liberals want everyone to pay them.

Of course Warren didn't pay voluntary higher tax rates. Again I will ask you to visit a public policy 101 class. There is a reason why taxes are compulsory.

Okay, let's try another angle then. You support estate taxes for the reason that "wealth shouldn't be passed down through generations." Let's try a thought experiment using a theoretical 100% estate tax rate to ensure your wishes prevailed.

Now say you have 2 millionaires, each aged 30 with a newborn child. One millionaire lives to be 100 years old. Estate planning ends up being moot as his newborn child pre-deceases him after having lived a life of complete luxury and idleness courtesy of his parents.

The other millionaire dies the next day before he can sign the estate plan his lawyer drafted and his estate is taxed at his death just as you wish. The millionaire's business is sold, all possessions auctioned off, and the proceeds paid to the Treasury. His child inherits nothing since as you say everyone should have to earn his own way.


Given this scenario, please explain why the second outcome is morally preferrable.

 

[Cozarkian]

Conservatives continually make the same absurd argument: If you advocate that a law be changed, you're a hypocrite if you don't hold yourself to the strictures of the proposed law before the law takes effect.

No, it depends on the purpose of the law you are advocating and how your behavior would effect that purpose.

If you advocate for all abortions to be illegal and choose to have an abortion, you are a hypocrite. If you advocate that abortions should be legal and choose not to have one, you are not a hypocrite. If you advocate that people shouldn't have children out of wedlock and then choose not to either abort your baby or marry the other parent following a birth control mishap, you are a hypocrite.

In your EPA example, if the company could reduce pollution by accepting less profits, it is a hypocrite. If other companies would drive it out of business and fill the void, resulting in the same amount of pollution, then there is no hypocrisy.

You didn't state the runner's purpose for seeking the rule, but I'd wager he isn't a hypocrite.

If you claim a certain tax exemption/deduction/loophole shouldn't exist and then take advantage of it, you are almost certainly a hypocrite.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, let's try another angle then. You support estate taxes for the reason that "wealth shouldn't be passed down through generations." Let's try a thought experiment using a theoretical 100% estate tax rate to ensure your wishes prevailed.

Now say you have 2 millionaires, each aged 30 with a newborn child. One millionaire lives to be 100 years old. Estate planning ends up being moot as his newborn child pre-deceases him after having lived a life of complete luxury and idleness courtesy of his parents.

The other millionaire dies the next day before he can sign the estate plan his lawyer drafted and his estate is taxed at his death just as you wish. The millionaire's business is sold, all possessions auctioned off, and the proceeds paid to the Treasury. His child inherits nothing since as you say everyone should have to earn his own way.

Given this scenario, please explain why the second outcome is morally preferrable.

There are a lot of problems with this scenario.

I never said I supported a 100% estate tax, nor did I say that wealth shouldn't be passed down through generations: I said wealth so large that it allows people to never do anything should not be passed down.

So right away your argument is a straw man. If you wanted to discuss a scenario where someone was able to live under their parents' wing for their whole life while the other person was only able to inherit hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars, we can discuss that

 

[Vic]

And so does anyone else who has any assets worth protecting. This thread makes no sense.

 

[Cozarkian]

There is a reason why taxes are compulsory.

Yes, there is. It's the free rider problem so perfectly exhibited by the Clinton's behavior. That doesn't mean they are morally justified and/or not acting hypocritical in contributing to the free rider problem.

Imagine, the following versions of tax laws:

1. All wealthy persons except current and former federal elected officials must pay extra taxes.
2. All wealthy persons except current and former Presidents of the United States must pay extra taxes.
3. All wealthy person except the Clintons must pay wealthy taxes.

Let's say the Clintons advocate against each of these 3 laws. If they were enacted, however, at any point would you think the Clintons are hypocrites for not voluntarily paying the extra tax?

 

[Vic]

I bet the Clintons use deductions and write offs too! Those hypocrites!!

 

[OutHouse]

I said wealth so large that it allows people to never do anything should not be passed down.

why?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, there is. It's the free rider problem so perfectly exhibited by the Clinton's behavior. That doesn't mean they are morally justified and/or not acting hypocritical in contributing to the free rider problem.

Imagine, the following versions of tax laws:

1. All wealthy persons except current and former federal elected officials must pay extra taxes.
2. All wealthy persons except current and former Presidents of the United States must pay extra taxes.
3. All wealthy person except the Clintons must pay wealthy taxes.

Let's say the Clintons advocate against each of these 3 laws. If they were enacted, however, at any point would you think the Clintons are hypocrites for not voluntarily paying the extra tax?

They would never be hypocrites for not voluntarily paying the extra tax. Saying you think a law would be a bad idea and then following the law when it is enacted is simply how our system works. I'm pretty sure just about everyone's position on taxation is predicated on the idea that everyone should pay what they legally owe and no more. The only people you hear arguing otherwise are those who are attempting to create straw man arguments for their political opponents.

Since we both agree that taxes have a free rider problem, saying that you think tax law should be different while complying with it as it currently exists is the only rational behavior to take.

 

[fskimospy]

why?

It's economically inefficient and I think that perpetuation of massive dynastic wealth hurts our society.

 

[Exterous]

There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey, look what we're doing. You really should close this loophole" - I find that to be far more ethical than someone who sees it as being something that should be changed, but says nothing. And again, in either case, you'd have to be retarded not to use every possible loophole to limit your overall tax.

I don't think thats what they are doing though. I am not aware of them ever coming out and saying they have a trust or pointing to loopholes they want closed. What Hilary proposed was capping the exemption - nothing about loopholes. She comes down pretty hard on continuing estates and inherited wealth but her proposal didn't close the loopholes she is using to continue her estate and pass on her wealth.

I don't think its hypocritical but it does strike me as misdirection. I am willing to bet most of the rich will know how to use the loopholes that no one in congress is fixing. Just like the Jackie-O trusts. Didn't see any outrage for decades about its use until it suddenly flared to existence last year. Died out after some powerful rhetoric talk but no real effort was made to close the loophole

 

[ElFenix]

In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions.The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great suns bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means.

It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary considerations, then, of course,the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for ?fl moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception, but the rule, that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar," and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.

12

 

[OutHouse]

It's economically inefficient and I think that perpetuation of massive dynastic wealth hurts our society.

how does some rich kid not working hurt our society? care to put a number on how much one is able to inherit or you still going with if they don't have to work then its too much and they have to gift it to the government?

 

[chucky2]

That taxation is a collective action problem.

And so we collect taxes in such a manner. That has nothing to do with someone who feels that Gov needs more tax money and that people such as he/she should pay it, and the Gov providing a means to do it (an exceedingly easy and personal means no less), and the contextual realization that until their policy is made law, said Gov will not be the benefit of the increased tax money they feel the Gov so desperately needs, writing a simple check to the Gov for what they really feel they should owe. It's why the 'compulsory taxation' claims are moot - this has nothing to do with compulsory taxation, and introductions of that concept into this discussion are improper at best.

And here come the contortions and the spinning! How is it at all complicated to understand how an individual attacking Iran contributes to attacking Iran? It is a simple truism, it literally must be true.

It's interesting to watch all the caveats start pouring out of you though.

Ummm...No. Basically this is why your analogy fails. When someone advocates for themselves paying higher taxes, they are advocating for the Gov receiving more money. When they voluntarily pay through the means the Gov has legally setup for them to make such a contribution, their goal is 100% realized: The Gov has actually received that money. Now we get to this 'attack Iran' analogy you want to stick with.

Whoever wants to 'attack Iran' is obviously advocating for the US Military to attack Iran. Note that when they advocate for this, it is assumed the US Military will effectively identify targets, and effectively attack them to satisfaction - else, why attack in the first place? Also assumed is that attacking these targets is a goal larger than 'attack Iran'. Also note, no one advocates for individuals (which is what you are when you pay your taxes, not a group like the US Military, which should be obvious, but I guess that needs to be pointed out) to attack Iran, as, that would be entirely impractical. For example, how would this person get to Iran? How would this person get arms? What target would they attack? How would they choose that target? And finally, and most importantly in your 'attack Iran' bad analogy, would be if they actually accomplished all of these things to individually go 'attack Iran', how effective would they be in achieving their goal of attacking that target in Iran for whatever the purpose was in 'attacking Iran'. Now, I'm sure, there might be a small few who could actually pull off all these things and 'attack Iran' successfully, making your analogy have some kind of parity with what I've been talking about. The other 99.99% of the people who want to 'attack Iran' would have their goal, that is, 'attacking Iran', end up in failure.

Which is why your analogy is so bad. In what I am pointing out, these people have a means to 100% accomplish their objective of the Gov getting more money - and now, not in however many decades it'll take for their policy to maybe be implemented - with basically zero effort. In what you're trying to Nick, you have basically a 0% chance of meeting the objectives of 'attacking Iran', and that's with incredible (and improper) hoops being jumped through. Someone is contorting and spinning here, but it's not me...

Ahhhhh, so now your contribution needs to rise to a certain level before you should start unilaterally enforcing preferred political positions on yourself. How amazingly and unsurprisingly convenient.

You're a hypocrite and you're desperately trying to get away from acknowledging the obvious implications of your own statements.

No, I meant, I can't Nick to the level needed to arrive at 'agree it's stupid and pointless'. So far you've completely failed in your analogy and the equating of what I'm talking about to compulary taxation. Try another Nick tactic, these have been bad failures...

 

[fskimospy]

And so we collect taxes in such a manner. That has nothing to do with someone who feels that Gov needs more tax money and that people such as he/she should pay it, and the Gov providing a means to do it (an exceedingly easy and personal means no less), and the contextual realization that until their policy is made law, said Gov will not be the benefit of the increased tax money they feel the Gov so desperately needs, writing a simple check to the Gov for what they really feel they should owe. It's why the 'compulsory taxation' claims are moot - this has nothing to do with compulsory taxation, and introductions of that concept into this discussion are improper at best.

How convenient that you decided that everyone advocating for higher taxes didn't really mean that they wanted higher taxes but just some sort of revenue that they themselves alone would supply.

The spin from you on this is getting truly dizzying. How will you tie yourself up in intellectual knots next? It's funny as you feel more and more trapped that your responses are getting longer and longer as you try to find a way out.

Ummm...No. Basically this is why your analogy fails. When someone advocates for themselves paying higher taxes, they are advocating for the Gov receiving more money. When they voluntarily pay through the means the Gov has legally setup for them to make such a contribution, their goal is 100% realized: The Gov has actually received that money. Now we get to this 'attack Iran' analogy you want to stick with.

Whoever wants to 'attack Iran' is obviously advocating for the US Military to attack Iran. Note that when they advocate for this, it is assumed the US Military will effectively identify targets, and effectively attack them to satisfaction - else, why attack in the first place? Also assumed is that attacking these targets is a goal larger than 'attack Iran'. Also note, no one advocates for individuals (which is what you are when you pay your taxes, not a group like the US Military, which should be obvious, but I guess that needs to be pointed out) to attack Iran, as, that would be entirely impractical. For example, how would this person get to Iran? How would this person get arms? What target would they attack? How would they choose that target? And finally, and most importantly in your 'attack Iran' bad analogy, would be if they actually accomplished all of these things to individually go 'attack Iran', how effective would they be in achieving their goal of attacking that target in Iran for whatever the purpose was in 'attacking Iran'. Now, I'm sure, there might be a small few who could actually pull off all these things and 'attack Iran' successfully, making your analogy have some kind of parity with what I've been talking about. The other 99.99% of the people who want to 'attack Iran' would have their goal, that is, 'attacking Iran', end up in failure.

Annnnnnd here come even more made up caveats and one sided conditions! Even though people's individual contributions will do basically nothing to close the US's revenue gap, you think they should contribute anyway. When it comes to attacking other countries, well then in that case people only meant it when it would be successful in accomplishing their objective! When we raise taxes for our country we mean it as it applies to individuals, but when we advocate for attacking another country we mean it that we act collectively!

Like I said, you're a hypocrite. Write me another few pages worth of contortions and spin to avoid the retarded implications of your argument.

Which is why your analogy is so bad. In what I am pointing out, these people have a means to 100% accomplish their objective of the Gov getting more money - and now, not in however many decades it'll take for their policy to maybe be implemented - with basically zero effort. In what you're trying to Nick, you have basically a 0% chance of meeting the objectives of 'attacking Iran', and that's with incredible (and improper) hoops being jumped through. Someone is contorting and spinning here, but it's not me...

No, I meant, I can't Nick to the level needed to arrive at 'agree it's stupid and pointless'. So far you've completely failed in your analogy and the equating of what I'm talking about to compulary taxation. Try another Nick tactic, these have been bad failures...

Lol. Spin us some more, chucky! I'm loving this. Give us some more magical, special conditions that apply to one collective action problem but not the other in order avoid having to admit your argument was stupid.

 

[Cozarkian]

Even though people's individual contributions will do basically nothing to close the US's revenue gap, you think they should contribute anyway.

Yes, because it will still do something, regardless of how small. This isn't a case where you are advocating a bond measure to pay for a road that won't get built unless everyone contributes. When there is a massive general fund that is distributed to multiple purposes, every little bit counts, even if it is only enough to pay for one doctor's visit for one person on Medicaid, it still helps.

In that situation, if you believe you don't pay enough, and there is an easy way you could increase your contribution (such as claiming one less exemption), then you have a moral obligation to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, because it will still do something, regardless of how small. This isn't a case where you are advocating a bond measure to pay for a road that won't get built unless everyone contributes. When there is a massive general fund that is distributed to multiple purposes, every little bit counts, even if it is only enough to pay for one doctor's visit for one person on Medicaid, it still helps.

This is not an accurate description of how US revenues and expenditures operate. Paying in money will not lead to any additional visits for anyone on Medicaid. Expenditures are authorized independently of revenues and are financed by bonds if necessary. Medicaid expenditures are determined by eligibility of the participant and procedure, not by federal revenues.

What you're talking about is reducing the US deficit/debt burden. There is for all intents and purposes zero chance that your individual contribution will alter the US deficit/debt situation in a way that changes either our bond rating, the appropriations process, or bond yields.

So no, it doesn't help.

In that situation, if you believe you don't pay enough, and there is an easy way you could increase your contribution (such as claiming one less exemption), then you have a moral obligation to do so.

You have no moral obligation whatsoever to pay higher taxes if you think US public policy would be better with higher taxes for your income group. As mentioned above, revenues and expenditures don't work that way.

 

[glenn1]

This is not an accurate description of how US revenues and expenditures operate. Paying in money will not lead to any additional visits for anyone on Medicaid. Expenditures are authorized independently of revenues and are financed by bonds if necessary. Medicaid expenditures are determined by eligibility of the participant and procedure, not by federal revenues.

What you're talking about is reducing the US deficit/debt burden. There is for all intents and purposes zero chance that your individual contribution will alter the US deficit/debt situation in a way that changes either our bond rating, the appropriations process, or bond yields.

So no, it doesn't help.


You have no moral obligation whatsoever to pay higher taxes if you think US public policy would be better with higher taxes for your income group. As mentioned above, revenues and expenditures don't work that way.

So leading by example is for suckers when it comes to taxes. Does that extend to every other facet of your mindset as a citizen as well, that you won't do it unless you and everyone else is compelled to?

 

[ivwshane]

So leading by example is for suckers when it comes to taxes. Does that extend to every other facet of your mindset as a citizen as well, that you won't do it unless you and everyone else is compelled to?

When it comes to policies and not morals, yeah, leading by example is stupid, its purely symbolic and does nothing. It's like wearing a yellow ribbon and telling people you now support the troops because you wear a ribbon.

 

[shira]

That's a specious counterargument. Look, I can do it too. OMG, if I don't eat while I drive, other people save more time than me, and time is money and money is speech so I have to endanger lives by eating and driving!

Making that argument doesn't make you any less a hypocrite for eating and driving if you think it should be illegal, and eating and driving is still a much better analogy to not paying as much tax as you think you should then speeding or invading Iran. Both refraining from eating while driving and voluntarily refusing to claim allowable deductions would help achieve the policy goal of the advocated behavior. In contrast, not speeding or invading Iran by yourself would be potentially detrimental to your goal.

The speeding example can actually work if you put into a contextual setting where you aren't increasing safety by speeding, such as advocating for a speed bump on a residential neighborhood. Claiming you are justified in driving 40 mph because it won't make much difference if you slow down while others continue to drive 40 mph, doesn't save you from being a hypocrite. Similarly, claiming that you are justified in claiming deductions you don't think should be allowed because your contribution would only make a small difference, doesn't save you from being a hypocrite.

You're confusing two concepts, hypocrisy and wrong-doing. Hypocrisy has a very specific meaning: Criticizing others for the same behavior you do yourself. Thinking that something is wrong but still doing it is NOT hypocrisy; it's being a wrong-doer.

Adding to your confusion is that you also don't seem to recognize the difference between behavior that's "wrong" and behavior that isn't wrong, but shouldn't be allowed because it's counterproductive to society. I think that allowing hedge-fund managers to pay taxes at the capital gains rate on their earnings serves no constructive purpose; but it's not "wrong" for them to pay taxes at that rate.

 

[Cozarkian]

You're confusing two concepts, hypocrisy and wrong-doing. Hypocrisy has a very specific meaning: Criticizing others for the same behavior you do yourself.

You are failing to recognize where these two concepts are inextricably intertwined in this case study. For starters, while not everything that is wrong is hypocritical, all hypocrisy is wrong (although there are worse things).

When analyzing the effects of the laws I've used as examples, it is clear that advocating for such laws can't be distinguished from criticizing those who engage in the selected behavior.

Advocating for a law prohibiting eating while driving, in practical effect, is a criticism of those who eat while they drive. Advocating for a law that prohibits same-sex marriage, is a criticism of same-sex relationships. Advocating for a law that requires wealthy persons to pay a fair share of taxes is a criticism of wealthy individuals that don't pay their fair share. Thus, the Clintons are criticizing other wealthy individuals for not paying their fair share and are hypocritical in that they do not pay what they believe is their own fair share.

Thinking that something is wrong but still doing it is NOT hypocrisy; it's being a wrong-doer.

Let's assume you disagree with everything I wrote above. Okay, fine, in order to avoid further argument, I'll agree with your position. So where does that leave us? Well, I guess the Clintons aren't hypocritical, they are just wrong-doers. How does that change the end result? It doesn't. They are still wrong-doers.

Adding to your confusion is that you also don't seem to recognize the difference between behavior that's "wrong" and behavior that isn't wrong, but shouldn't be allowed because it's counterproductive to society. I think that allowing hedge-fund managers to pay taxes at the capital gains rate on their earnings serves no constructive purpose; but it's not "wrong" for them to pay taxes at that rate.

Oh, no, I understand this concept perfectly. For example, let's assume I agree that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes, which is counterproductive to society. I would say that Mitt Romney's failure to voluntarily pay more is counterproductive to society, but it isn't wrong, because he erroneously believes his action is not counterproductive. The Clintons not paying more in taxes is wrong, because they are deliberately taking an action that they believe is counterproductive to society.

 

[shira]

You are failing to recognize where these two concepts are inextricably intertwined in this case study. For starters, while not everything that is wrong is hypocritical, all hypocrisy is wrong (although there are worse things).

When analyzing the effects of the laws I've used as examples, it is clear that advocating for such laws can't be distinguished from criticizing those who engage in the selected behavior.

You're confusing advocating laws that seek to enforce a particular concept of morality and advocating laws that seek to further a government or societal purpose.

Laws that enforce morality contain the the implicit message "Those who engage in the behavior that are illegal under his law are behaving immorally." So an advocate of such a law is in fact "judging" others, and if the advocate nevertheless engages in the the action deemed immoral, he/she is in fact a hypocrite.

But I'm not aware of many people who think that doing everything legally possible to minimize one's taxes is "immoral," And advocating changes the the tax laws isn't an attempt to enforce morality.

For example, I believe that taxes on the wealthiest in society should be significantly higher, because it's clear that there's a very unhealthy economic trend that's concentrating more and more of our country's wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller fraction of the population. It's undeniable, and it's hard to imagine why anyone (other that those at the extreme top end of the wealth distribution) would want to continue this trend. In other words, I think our tax system is making things worse and worse for the vast, vast, vast majority of the population, and advocating various changes to reverse that trend isn't based on morality; it's based on wanting to encourage a society where many or most people are thriving, not just a tiny fraction of society. So advocating such changes - unlike those who want to make all abortions illegal - isn't "judging" those who take the fullest possible advantage of the current system. And if the advocate continues to take advantage of all tax benefits while they're still available, that's not hypocrisy.

in practical effect, is a criticism of those who eat while they drive. Advocating for a law that prohibits same-sex marriage, is a criticism of same-sex relationships. Advocating for a law that requires wealthy persons to pay a fair share of taxes is a criticism of wealthy individuals that don't pay their fair share. Thus, the Clintons are criticizing other wealthy individuals for not paying their fair share and are hypocritical in that they do not pay what they believe is their own fair share.

And here you've cited two "morality" examples, and then you jump the shark and claim that advocating for tax-law changes is also about morality. You're simply wrong.

Let's assume you disagree with everything I wrote above. Okay, fine, in order to avoid further argument, I'll agree with your position. So where does that leave us? Well, I guess the Clintons aren't hypocritical, they are just wrong-doers. How does that change the end result? It doesn't. They are still wrong-doers.

I disagree with you because you seem to think that all laws are about morality.

Oh, no, I understand this concept perfectly. For example, let's assume I agree that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes, which is counterproductive to society. I would say that Mitt Romney's failure to voluntarily pay more is counterproductive to society, but it isn't wrong, because he erroneously believes his action is not counterproductive. The Clintons not paying more in taxes is wrong, because they are deliberately taking an action that they believe is counterproductive to society.

And I disagree. If either the Clintons or the Romneys voluntarily paid higher taxes, it would be a pointless exercise. In fact, paying extra money in this way would be really, really stupid. It would be much more effective if either family paid extra money in support of specific causes they think are under-funded. And in fact they DO do exactly that: it's called "charity."

 

[glenn1]

And I disagree. If either the Clintons or the Romneys voluntarily paid higher taxes, it would be a pointless exercise. In fact, paying extra money in this way would be really, really stupid. It would be much more effective if either family paid extra money in support of specific causes they think are under-funded. And in fact they DO do exactly that: it's called "charity."

So when one person pays more voluntarily it's stupid and pointless, but when progressives get their way and coerce lots of people to pay more it morphs into good public policy?