The first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump takes place on Monday. I’m sure Lester Holt will have a whole host of questions to ask the candidates. So I have a question for him. During the “achieving prosperity” section will you ask Hillary about her tax plan? Specifically will you ask her about why she thinks a 65% estate tax is something to cheer about?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would levy a 65% tax on the largest estates and make it harder for wealthy people to pass appreciated assets to their heirs without paying taxes, expanding the list of tax increases she would impose on the top sliver of America’s affluent.

No seriously folks, you read the above correctly. Hillary Clinton has adjusted her economic plan and its a doozy. According to Hillary, this plan would increase taxes in other words RAISE taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, because FAIRNESS!!

Problem number 1. That massive tax hike will only increase federal revenues by 4%. Yes, that’s correct, 4%.

Problem number 2. This grandiose overreaching progressive plan now includes three new tax brackets courtesy of her new new best friend Bernie Sanders.

• 50% death tax on estates worth $10 million or more
• 55% death tax on estates worth $50 million or more
• 65% death tax on estates worth $500 million or more

In case anyone is wondering, right now the death tax stands at 40%. So who would this increase affect? Quite a few of Hillary’s good friends including Bon Jovi, Barbra Streisand, Oprah, Dustin Moskovitz the co-founder of Facebook, Mark Cuban. In fact, Chelsea would have to pay the 55% rate given Hillary and Bill’s current income. OOPS.

Oh wait, maybe not. It seems that the Chappaqua estate is held in residence trusts so the estate tax wouldn’t apply to that nor would it apply to the new house they just bought right next door! Hypocrisy thy name is Hillary.

However, this additional point in her plan just might throw a monkey wrench into things. Her plan includes a repeal of the step up in basis.

Under that rule, people who die with appreciated assets—for example, a stock bought decades ago—don’t have to pay the capital-gains taxes on the increase in value before death. Then, their heirs only have to pay taxes when they sell the assets and only have to pay capital-gains taxes on the difference between the sale price and the value when they were inherited.

Thus, if Chelsea inherits the Chappaqua homes and they’ve increased in value when she does… you guessed it! TAX TIME! But that’s ok, the campaign PROMISES that there will be “careful protections” for small businesses, families, farms & ranches, personal property, and heirlooms. Oh sure! And I’ve some swampland on the moon to sell you…cheap.

Guess who ELSE would get hammered by her new tax plan. Warren Buffett. The billionaire who sat there and cheered along with all the other minions when Hillary bluntly stated that taxing the rich is fair and raising taxes on the middle class will happen under her watch.

In other words,

It's not your family's inheritance ($) it's @TheDemocrats' to redistribute.. Hillary proposes 65% rate on estate tax https://t.co/R7c0mFXeT3

— Deplorable Taco Bowl (@VerumEstLiberta) September 22, 2016

There is a great deal more to this swell little plan of hers. In addition to the death tax hike there’s also a “Fairness” tax (or the Buffett Rule), something called an “Exit” tax on companies that feel they need to leave the US in order to keep prices low on their products, a potential carbon tax, and of course a 25% tax on retail gun purchases. All so future college students can study for FREE!!

This tweet sums up Hillary in a nutshell.

https://twitter.com/Yeeeeeech/status/779084309764243456

All in all..what Hillary is proposing moves beyond “progressive” to blatantly socialist. Hillary’s wonderful tax plan won’t be cheap. IF enacted, it will cost Americans, ALL Americans an estimated $350 BILLION. You know as well as I do that that number is likely low.

Hillary Clinton has yet to meet a tax increase that she doesn’t like. Is this REALLY who we need in office starting January 20th? I think not.