LETTERS: Hillary no hypocrite on estate taxes

To the editor:

Regarding the Review-Journal’s June 24 editorial (“Hypocrite Hillary), taxes are not in the personal interest of the Clinton family or anyone else, but exist for the good of society. No one in this country has any obligation to, nor needs to, pay any more taxes than are legally due, no matter what they advocate.

According to the editorial’s flawed logic, any liberal making more than poverty wage should write a check every year to the treasury for the excess. Liberals should also have a government truck back up to their house and haul everything away as they close their eyes for the final time. Anyone in Henderson who advocates for increased property taxes to balance the budget should already have calculated their increased tax and sent in the money.

The editorial alleges that the Clintons desire to transfer their estate to heirs. This is no crime. You have no idea how much they will have or what they will do. Maybe they will spend it or come to Las Vegas and lose it, or give it to charity before they die and leave little. Or maybe they will set up a charitable foundation, but you also denigrate that. Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Gates and many others have done immeasurable good.

The editorial doesn’t question that the Clintons were in debt when they left the White House. Now, after a successful speaking career, the Clintons are questioned on how they can afford tax planning. What does one have to do with the other?

The editorial implies malfeasance, noting that the estate tax would be 40 percent of her speaking fee, but ignoring that the fee is subject to income tax. The editorial states that transferring property into a trust is an estate tax dodge that could save taxes. Trusts are still part of your taxable estate, just not in your will. Proper estate tax planning is not a dodge, but responsible.

Maybe the countless people who were unable to transfer their businesses — which have to be worth more than $5 million to be taxable — would have been able to do so if they had bothered to seek out and pay for an affordable plan. The editorial relied on inference, implication and innuendo based on hot air and partial truths. I expect better.

NEAL MATZKIN

HENDERSON

Protect the Constitution

To the editor:

Thomas Sowell’s commentary was right on (“Obama’s abuse of power has created lame-duck democracy,” June 24 Review-Journal). Mr. Sowell talks about the abuse of our Constitution and states that the Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. He writes that the most important thing voters can do is vote against anyone who violates the Constitution.

I might add, we should vote against anyone who supports the individuals who are abusing our Constitution.

Our representatives take an oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the land. If they do not or cannot do so, it is my opinion that they should step down honorably or be removed immediately.

And are our history teachers doing a good job teaching the Constitution to our young people? I am a grandmother, a product of the Great Depression era and World War II. It saddens me when I hear young people saying they are voting for an individual because of their looks or whomever their favorite entertainment idol is voting for.

EDITH ANNE WARD

LAS VEGAS

PC at all levels

To the editor:

I have been amused at Sen. Harry Reid’s rants about the Washington Redskins. This seems to be the most important issue to the aging senator. What I don’t understand is why he isn’t just as outraged when the name “redskin” is used in other places.

We have a street in Las Vegas named Redskin Circle, which crosses Cimarron Road between Alta Drive and Charleston Boulevard. Why is this not an issue? Sen. Reid is looking to relocate to Las Vegas from Searchlight. I saw a nice little home on Redskin Circle where I’m sure he would be quite comfortable.

BILL DIRKSE

LAS VEGAS