Hillary Clinton essentially stated that Donald Trump’s death would be beneficial for the economy during an ostensibly economics-oriented speech on Thursday in Warren, MI. While criticizing Trump’s call for abolition of estate tax/death tax, she provided recommendations for how to best dispose of Trump’s assets following his death via government direction.
Government confiscation and redistribution of her opponent’s wealth following his death, said Clinton, would be preferable to his own disposal of his assets.
And then there’s the estate tax, which Trump wants to eliminate altogether. Now if you believe that he’s as wealthy as he says, that alone would save the Trump family four billion dollars. It would do nothing for 99.8% of Americans. So they’d get a four billion dollar tax cut, and 99.8% of Americans would get nothing. Just think of what we could do with those four billion dollars. We could pay for more than forty-seven thousand veterans to get a four-year college degree. We could provide a year’s worth of health care to nearly three million kids. Or we could fund a year’s worth of federal assistance to state and local law enforcement. I think there are a lot of better ways to spend the money.
The audience applauded Clinton as she pushed Marxist tenets of class warfare and government confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Her justification for such policies is that “99.9% percent of Americans” supposedly do not benefit from the absence of taxing the deaths of millionaires and billionaires.
Clinton also called for more taxes to be levied on multimillionaires, saying several times that corporations and the “super rich” should pay a “fair share” of taxes.
Echoing left-wing demagoguery about “The Buffet Rule,” Clinton said that millionaires and billionaires should never pay a lower rate on their taxes than their secretaries. Clinton was presumably referring to average rates of federal income taxation, although she did not specify which taxes she was referring to. No explanation was provided as to why secretaries were selected as opposed to other categories of employees.
No meaningful mention was made of excessive regulations or taxes stultifying economic growth. The share of GDP composed of government spending was unaddressed.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.