Brenda wrote: > > In all fairness, exchange funds have been around for quite some time and there > were some issues regarding them which were addressed in the 1997 Taxpayer > Relief Act. So my question is what was the Clinton administration position on them? > Any thoughts as to why he didn't support Neal and take some action to end the > loophole?
Again, my post was not to argue that only the Republicans give tax breaks to the wealthy. As far as the exchange funds go, the amount of wealth needed in order to take advantage of them was raised in 1997 along with other changes, and yes they have been around a long time. >From my point of view it seems unfair that so few people have such an advantage. And Clinton was very pro-business. Only he knows how much of what was enacted reflected his beliefs and how much was the pressure of the Republican majority in Congress. For whatever reason, he caved. Why do you think so many Democrats were so disappointed in him? It wasn't just because of the sex stuff. So if you think I'm going to say that Clinton was an old fashioned, liberal thinking, anti-business Democrat, you're mistaken. My only purpose in all that I wrote was to point out that the general and always used Republican promise to lower taxes for everyone is not always what happens, and definitely not where the death tax is concerned, even though they're still using that myth in order to get votes. Debra Shea
