One of the reasons the Left is so eager to advocate for high taxes is because they themselves simply do not pay taxes. Either they exploit loopholes that they created for themselves, or they just blow it off -- after all, who's going to prosecute them? They view taxes as a moral duty for the hoi polloi, a penalty that the little people must pay for polluting the universe with their existence. The exalted classes are morally superior and therefore exempt. In fact, as they see it, we should be paying them to rule us (and we are).

"The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy."

Yeah, and how's that working out? Of course, when they say "meritocracy", they do not mean in the dictionary sense of the word.

Lefty Minnesota governor / trust fund baby Mark Dayton shelters his wealth in low-tax South Dakota.

Huh.

My parents did the same thing, and believe me, we are the 99%.

Cousin Dave is absolutely right on this; the left does advocate taxing everyone to death because they have loopholes that make them exempt from paying their "fair" share. (actually, they most often find ways to pay NO share)

It has always been that way and will always continue that way for the limousine liberals.

So, this "news" about the Clinton's taxes doesn't surprise.

Oh, you poor poor thing, Hil. I can't imagine what sort of sacrifices you and Bill must have had to make. HowEVER did you muster the down payment for a SECOND million dollar house to the tune of $855,000?! What a burden it must have been to find a way to pay for two houses (tax free!) and your daughters ivy league education AND all those fees for all those fancy lawyers that got good ol' Bill off scott free. It's really hard to switch to living like the still-millions-above-average American. I'm sure LOTS of Americans will be able to relate in your upcoming book, so appropriately titled "Hard Choices". I mean, I get it. It's totes hard to choose between the pasterized caviar and the pressed. It must've been especially hard eating it from your silver spoon instead of a pearl one. You poor thing! I don't know why you just didn't end it all after such horrors. Thank GOD for all your millions of dollars worth assets, Billy's paid speaking engagements, life-long salary and protection, and all the wonderful rich friends who lifted you up with a multi-million dollar fundraiser. You really are blessed.
So blessed.

Forgive me if I can't muster the proper amount of Liberal mandated sympathy for her and ol' Billy-Boy.

Meanwhile, in the real world, hubby and I are trying to figure out how to get groceries next week with $15 in the checking account. Will Diane Sawyer be interviewing me next?

And yet, there are people who will still vote for her for President. I swear to God I cannot survive another one of these people in office.

"... your daughters ivy league education..." - Sabrina

Actually, Chelsea went to Stanford, which I would not consider Ivy League. I only know that because I live in the area.'

Everything else in your comments is on the mark.

I don't think the fact that you think a law should be changed doesn't mean you shouldn't follow the law as it exists.

An analogy from a different political viewpoint:
You may be philosophically opposed to the law that requires insurance policies to cover birth control.

But if you go to the pharmacist to pick up your prescription, and he tells you "No charge, it's covered by your insurance." do you insist on paying anyway?

"But if you go to the pharmacist to pick up your prescription, and he tells you "No charge, it's covered by your insurance." do you insist on paying anyway?"

I hold the Left to a different standard because they hold everyone else to a different standard. Their position is that paying high taxes is a moral duty of the non-elite classes to compensate for the fact that they exist. Their position on this vs. their own actions is fundementally hypocritical. Especially when you frequently hear them saying things like "Hell yes, raise my taxes" when they have no intention of actually paying said taxes.

I am amazed that laughter doesn't blanket the entire nation.

Hillary, you're either a ridiculously poor liar, or you SUCK at keeping money, which should tell everyone with a wallet to stay the hell away from you.

Two things wrong with that statement, clinky:

1) We are not the ones making the laws. These laws serve no purpose but to provide loopholes for rich politicians and their constituents; They created this law for their own benefit. This tax law doesn’t actually serve the purpose that laws are supposed to do which is 1) defend our constitutional rights 2) maintain law and order in the land.
And considering the fact that the Clintons were part of the reason for this type of legislation being created, I have a hard time accepting that just because it’s “law” means that it’s right. So yes, demanding a change in the law isn’t an unreasonable argument to make.

2) Technically, it’s not ‘free’. My insurance plan includes an optional prescription coverage plan that I pay a little extra for. Before the ACA, the insurance plan was able to decide if birth control was one of the prescriptions it covered (and I think this is well within the plans rights as a business) and luckily, mine was and it was pretty unlimited to what it chose to cover. Every month, I contributed a pretty significant amount to my prescription coverage so, essentially, I would have already paid for my birth control before I even got to the pharmacy.

Using your logic, as the law is written, I’m simply required to HAVE insurance. I don’t, however, have to USE it for my prescription coverage. So, philosophically, if I were so morally opposed to the law requiring insurance to cover birth control, I could choose not to use my prescription coverage and pay for my birth control out of pocket.

It’s also worth noting that as the law stands now, after the ACA went into effect, the type of birth control some insurance will cover is now restricted; they are only required to cover the bare minimums and after the ACA, most insurance companies decided to do just that as the other requirements became to cost prohibitive. Mine was one of them. To use my insurance for my birth control recently, it would cost me $300 AFTER the insurance was applied and it was only allowed by mail, not over the counter, whereas before, my co-pay was only $25 and the pharmacist was able to fill it within 24 hours. It was actually cheaper and more convenient for me to use a coupon I received from my doctor and pay out of pocket than use my insurance. I still ended up paying $75 out of pocket in the end. So essentially, I lost money on the deal and the law did more harm than good in the end.