In article ,
 Amy Guskin  wrote:

> an does nothing loses the argument. <<
> 
> But that's not what Josh said.  "...a rich man shouldn't be taxed
for money 
> he receives for doing nothing" is a subset of "all rich
men."  And in fact, 
> it's a subset of "a rich man's income."  Josh is talking
about inherited 
> wealth only.  Surely, if I can understand that -- when most of this economics 
> discussion we invariably get into her makes my eyes glaze over -- you can?
> 

      But it was earned by the previous generation and often used as a 
basis for the next to add to it. Many family companies add value the 
next generation if the company isn't hurt by having to gut it to a pay 
inheritance taxes. Especially small businesses and mid size ones. Even 
the bigger companies such as Johnson and Johnson, Ford, etc. that are 
still largely family owned are places where rich people still work for a 
living.   It is a conceit that this isn't at least as gray as the other 
end with the subsidized housing. 
   It also tends to be self limiting anyway. Many of the idle rich 
manage to lose the money. Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three 
generations.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32