07/01/2004
Dear Editor:
While I applaud your inclusion of progressive ideas for philanthropy, I must point out that Bill Clinton’s opening shot of self-pity and justification is both poorly aimed and obviously in poor taste (“Filling Four Fissures,” May 2004, page 26). I’ll begin with this striking quote from our former president: “Since we do not need this money and should not have received it in the first place, we ought to give it all away.”
First, whether or not
multimillionaires need tax relief in a personal sense is an irrelevant straw
man. The salient point is what will they do with it? Some may indeed decide to
spend it on themselves, which could be judged selfish, but like all private
spending, it goes back into the economy. The rest will invest it where they
believe it will garner the greatest return. And let’s not forget that many
millionaires (though not all) do not become millionaires by making bad choices.
Their reasoned risk-taking creates jobs, companies and entire industries. Which
as we all know, reduces the burden on both public and private philanthropic
organizations via a combination of the tax revenue generated and the employment
opportunities created throughout the tax brackets.
Second, the money in the
tax cut was created by those in the highest tax brackets. It was originally
theirs, not the federal government’s. Which begs the question: What was the
federal government’s ROI on that $185,000 vs. a direct investment in the
economy? And for that matter, how does the federal government’s performance
compare to the likely ROI on that $185,000 to be invested in new and existing
philanthropic organizations as Mr. Clinton suggests?
Third, Mr. and Mrs.
Clinton did not become wealthy in quite the same way that many captains of
industry did. That is, the Clintons did not become wealthy by investing their
capital in creating new companies, growing older ones, starting their own
business, etc. It might just be that guilt is at the root of Mr. Clinton’s need
to fill four fissures—which would also explain his hasty and, I must say,
intellectually lazy approach to the issue.
Jud Spangler
West Chester,
Pa.
Worth welcomes your comments, critiques and suggestions. Please direct your letters to letters@worth.com
Dear Editor:
I subscribe to Robb Report Worth magazine. In your
January 2004 issue, page 108, you ran an article by contributing writer Richard
Hacker titled, “Spirited Portfolios,” about Scotch whiskies. I currently
have five casks (barrels) dated November 12, 1973, lying in a bonded warehouse
in the north of Scotland. My question is: What would be the best way to
sell these casks? Any comments or ideas would be helpful and appreciated.
Arnold Pomeroy
Eastport, Maine
You do not say from which distillery your casks are from, but my first
thought would be to contact the distillery and inquire if it is interested in
buying back its whiskies. As the available stock of aged single malt grows
scarcer, many distilleries are actively seeking out casks such as yours.
An
excellent U.S.-based contact is Steve Lipp, CEO of Duncan Taylor U.S., at
323.960.9065. The company actively seeks out old single malts such as yours for
bottling under its own label. Multiple barrels of 30-year-old whisky could be
quite the find for the right party. Good luck.
—Richard Carleton Hacker
Worth welcomes your comments, critiques and suggestions. Please direct your letters to letters@worth.com