May 31, 2005

Saving Paris Hilton

First, the Bush administration and their Republican cronies decided that they needed to put an end to the estate tax so that Ms. Hilton wouldn't have to part with any money she hadn't earned in the first place. Though I can't say if she's gratified by it, the Republicans have also been working hard to ensure that when she gets married, she won't have to suffer the indignity of sharing that allegedly sacred institution with gay people. Unless she goes to Canada. Or parts of Europe. Or Massachusetts.

... The high-profile hotel heiress has gotten engaged to her boyfriend of five months, whose name is Paris, too.

"They are happy and excited," Hilton's spokesman, Rob Shuter, told People magazine.

Hilton, 24, accepted Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis' proposal on Wednesday when she returned from hyping her movie "House of Wax" in Europe. ...

The baby Jesus is weeping, but they're tears of joy.

Posted by natasha at May 31, 2005 02:28 AM | GLBT | Technorati links |

May I assume that you would just as soon that J&T Kerry not be billionaires? And then, what about the Kennedys.

Personally, I don't see any reason anyone should inherit more that $10,000,000 unless it is tied up in a business or farm that the heirs run.

Posted by: JC Bob at May 31, 2005 10:38 AM

It isn't having money that I object to, it's not paying tax on it like everybody else.

The income tax was first introduced in this country on the premise that it would tax wealth, not work. Wealth was considered to have something of a taint to it, or at the least to allow people too much free time, and work was considered virtuous. Now we've come around to the opposite point, where wealth is considered virtuous and work is despised.

Along with a worship of money and a hatred of the people who wash the dishes and sweep the streets, has come the promotion of a philosophy of taxes holding that unearned money is more virtuous and beneficial to the economy than other types. So now, some people can make loads of money through passive investment, and avoid more than the typical share of tax (and if they're really wealthy and have smart attorneys, avoid them completely.) Then this barely taxed money can get passed tax-free to some layabout that never did anything for it at all.

My irritation is based on the premise that it's unfair for 98% of us to pay taxes on the money we work for, and 2% to pay zip on money that came to them while they were putting in a hard day on the golf course. Further, it's idiotic from an economic point of view. Most of us have to spend our money, stimulating the economy. These people have it to spare, so it sits somewhere waiting to be loaned at interest to expansion-minded retailers whose customers can't afford to shop like they used to.

Posted by: natasha at May 31, 2005 05:25 PM