Who's money is it?

This New York Times editorial tells us that those darn rich are getting all the breaks again:

"That's not very reassuring. Fewer smaller estates -- currently, those worth up to $2 million are exempt -- are subject to the tax today than when Mr. Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.

The I.R.S. also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brings in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results. "

"Ever more gold in those hills?" Are they serious? The incomes EARNED by citizens is to be considered "gold to be mined" by the government? Didn't we throw some tea in a harbor once protesting unconscionable taxation?

And another thing. Since when is "...producing ever more billionaires and millionaires..." a bad thing? Doesn't that, by definition of the word "more", mean more people are achieving this level of income? Isn't that a good thing? Apparently not at the NYTs.

What do the editors at the Times think happens with "all this gold" in the hands of the "evil wealthy"? Is it buried in coffee cans in backyards - err, acres? Do they use it heat their homes while the rest of us poor schleps have to buy natural gas or oil? Have they ever considered that the money is invested in: industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people -- who then have the opportunity to succeed and join the evil wealthy; charitable organizations who use the money to help those unable to participate; and still, pay their fair share of the tax burden, so that politicians can play with some money too.