Dead wrong

I believe in this election year, the Republican clown car is filled to overflowing much more so than in years past. And Donald Trump is sitting in the driver's seat.

But under the heading of even a broken clock is right twice a day, I'm going to say something I never thought I'd hear myself say. I agree completely with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump about one thing: eliminating the estate tax.

I've never been much for labels, but if I had to put one on myself (besides "do not feed" and "wash only in hot water") I'd call myself a centrist Democrat. Another thing I've never been much for? Falling in step with the party line, especially positions I don't agree with. And on this one issue, both Hilary and Bernie are dead wrong.

This isn't a new position for me. I first posted about it here a little over five years ago, although not in any great detail. But the reality for me, and I imagine a lot of other people, is that I'm not feeling particularly under-taxed. During my working life, the government hasn't missed any opportunity to reach its greedy, mismanaged, politically-motivated, oversight-free fingers into my paycheck and take my hard-earned (well, hard-earned if I had a real job) money.

Whenever the time comes, and I finally catch the last train out, there's no reason my children should be taxed on what I spent a lifetime building (and paying taxes on) so they could have a better life when I'm gone. Any person who builds a business, savings, real estate or portfolio during their lifetime - and pays taxes on it all along the way - shouldn't have it all taken away or wiped out because the government wants it's share, again, when you finally take the big dirtnap.

In 2016, estates exceeding $5,450,000 in value are currently the only ones who pay the tax, which means most people don't. But that number isn't written in stone. It's written in the legislative branch and that makes it subject to change. As you can see on the chart, Hillary and Bernie both want to lower the threshold to $3.5 million. Who's to say if the government needs a little more money, maybe the next administration lowers it even further.

Here's the truth: most of the millionaires who do have to pay it actually worked hard and earned their fortunes. They didn't inherit it. They shouldn't have to pay a penalty because they succeeded, and neither should their families. The battle cry that they can afford it so they should pay it is pure nonsense designed to create class war. Do you want the government taxing or taking away what you've earned? Didn't think so.

When it comes to government, I've been taught there are some truths we hold to be self-evident. One of them should be that it's fundamentally and morally wrong to have an estate tax in the first place. It's double taxation any way you slice it, and it de-incentivizes and deters people who would otherwise bring valuable contributions and ideas to the world. It also encourages offshore shelters and keeps money flowing out of the country.

The fact there's even an estate tax at all reminds me of a line in the movie Quiz Show, when one of the characters says, "It's not exactly Jefferson and Lincoln down there anymore."

Ain't that the truth.

King of pain

Maybe his real name's the one Steve Martin introduced him with on Saturday Night Live.

Stingy.

Today Sting announced not only do his kids not have trust funds, they also won't be getting any of his money when he goes to that Royal Albert Hall in the sky. Apparently, he has two reasons: one is there probably won't be any left. And the other is he plans on spending it all.

So the second reason makes the first one a certainty.

I'm sure that'll just add to all the good feelings his kids have already when they think about dad missing all their formative years with them while he was out earning a living and getting after show, um, backrubs (this is a family blog) from 20-year old groupies.

He's quoted as saying his vast wealth would just "be albatrosses" around the necks of his six children. I'm very sure it's a burden they could learn to live with.

As so many multi-millionaires have said, they don't want their children to have a sense of entitlement. I'm not sure when the idea of good parenting and leaving your kids financially comfortable became mutually exclusive. Seems to me you can teach children to be responsible, have a good work ethic, be good and charitable people, and at the same time provide them enough financial support to let them focus on doing what they love, and making a difference in the world.

The environment is competitive enough as it is today. I can't even imagine what it'll be like when my kids are out on their own in the world. If I could give them a head start and a soft landing when it comes to keeping themselves afloat, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I wish my parents had been able to do it for me.

And while we're on it, what's the deal with Sting cutting them off entirely? Even Warren Buffett said, "I want to give my kids just enough so they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

That sounds about right.

Lest we forget, the one percent of money left after Warren gives it all to charity while he's alive will still be more than most people earn in their lifetime. Sigh.

But maybe Sting is just being pragmatic. He probably realizes that, based on his most recent album sales, his next experimental Neo-soul electronica jazz fusion Peruvian Ska African Norse album featuring folksongs in their original Aramaic from the sixth century isn't going to sell as well as Synchronicity did. He's just planning ahead.

Meanwhile, I'll keep trying to explain to my kids why they can't go to an Ivy League school, and try to convince them that trade schools are very underrated.