DescentBB

the House of Representatives just passed a repeal of the Estate tax. Not that the present tax, shielding over 5 million dollars in assets from taxation isn't a bit lenient on inherited wealth as it is, they did away with all of it. That is $260 Billion in revenue to be returned to a handful of individuals. The same folks wish to get rid of the earned income and child tax credits. Not that any of this will pass into law, thanks to Obama being able to veto it, but MORE signposts from the folks who wish to usher in serfdom for 95% of the American citizenry. Is THIS really what Americans voted for?

I think it will affect more than a handful. Lot of farmers could not pass the farm on to the children due to the estate taxes.

it goes WAYYYYY beyond that, the lefts Faux story about it only being about Tax breaks for the rich.
My son in law just lost a 5 acre inheritance along Clackamas river that was homesteaded and has been in the Family for almost 100 years because of the government inheritance tax. that tax affects EVERYONE.

woodchip wrote:I think it will affect more than a handful. Lot of farmers could not pass the farm on to the children due to the estate taxes.

sheer BS. Any farmer will tell you otherwise.

CUDA wrote:it goes WAYYYYY beyond that, the lefts Faux story about it only being about Tax breaks for the rich.
My son in law just lost a 5 acre inheritance along Clackamas river that was homesteaded and has been in the Family for almost 100 years because of the government inheritance tax. that tax affects EVERYONE.

we've been through this story before. Your son in law either owned land worth over $1.000.000 per acre, or is lying to you.

Nah you're not worth it, you'll just twist words anyways

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think it will affect more than a handful. Lot of farmers could not pass the farm on to the children due to the estate taxes.

sheer BS. Any farmer will tell you otherwise.

I suggest you google farmers death tax before making another truly ignorant reply

I suggest you consider that I am very much up on the details and rules of the Federal Estate tax as it will be something I'm subject to within a very few years. The current exemptions of 5.4 million dollars, which easily can be nearly DOUBLED, protect anything short of a MASSIVE hunk of property at current ag land pricing.

Slick you aren't completely up to speed or else you are not being honest.

If the surrounding lands have evolved into higher priced real estate, as in the town has grown towards the farm...the value of the land, and thus the 'farm' shoots up.

The farm will only produce what a small farm can, thus cash flow is minimal and the 'farms' value as a business is determined by its production but the valuation of the land puts the total value of the inheritance into the higher bracket.

So now the children who inherited the small farm face a big inheritance tax AND a higher assesment in property tax. The 'farm' doesn't produce enough cash flow to warrant a loan and only the land itself is worth enough to generate the funds to pay the government tax bills.

So the farm is sold or seized and sold.

One simple solution would be to exempt the land value of the inheritance from estate tax if it is a working farm. Value the farm business as the inheritance and treat the land the way you do an IRA ...as long as it isn't sold in total or in pieces it remains exempt.

What gives a single family the right to own huge areas of the planet’s surface into perpetuity anyway?

Although I do disagree with using taxes to “redistribute” wealth in principle, especially the kind that just put the wealth right back into the hands of other “rich” people, or act unfairly.

Spidey wrote:What gives a single family the right to own huge areas of the planet’s surface into perpetuity anyway?

Although I do disagree with using taxes to “redistribute” wealth in principle, especially the kind that just put the wealth right back into the hands of other “rich” people, or act unfairly.

Property rights is major part of the foundation of liberty. How big of a parcel is too much to be able to pass it down?

If having a large piece is too much then who/what should have ownership as the alternative?
The fraternity of elites who bought their way into, or sold their souls to get, a seat in that fraternity called government?

Will Robinson wrote:Slick you aren't completely up to speed or else you are not being honest.

If the surrounding lands have evolved into higher priced real estate, as in the town has grown towards the farm...the value of the land, and thus the 'farm' shoots up.

I understand that completely, as I am dealing with that for one 50 acre farm of mine that is near a proposed golf course. The price of the land on paper goes from $5000 per acre to as high as $20K. That is the problem I've had with CUDAs tale. At most, unless it were in midtown Manhatten, that Willimette valley land is worth $150,000 per acre, tops. Thus, 5 acres wouldn't even be worth a million, and if one tosses in a few buildings and other improvements, no more than 3 million.

The farm will only produce what a small farm can, thus cash flow is minimal and the 'farms' value as a business is determined by its production but the valuation of the land puts the total value of the inheritance into the higher bracket.

very few 'family farms' are EVER going to be subject to that, unless they directly border a developed area, in which case, farming is a dubious land use anyway.

So now the children who inherited the small farm face a big inheritance tax AND a higher assesment in property tax. The 'farm' doesn't produce enough cash flow to warrant a loan and only the land itself is worth enough to generate the funds to pay the government tax bills.

no, that will never happen unless you view a farm of more than 10,000 acres a 'small' farm. Essentially, what I'm trying to show you is that you've bought into a widely dispersed, and completely bogus argument. It simply cannot happen under the current code.

So the farm is sold or seized and sold.

One simple solution would be to exempt the land value of the inheritance from estate tax if it is a working farm. Value the farm business as the inheritance and treat the land the way you do an IRA ...as long as it isn't sold in total or in pieces it remains exempt.

actually, the work around is to do(as my Dad and I have done) an agricultural trust around the property, which restricts sale and subsequent use to SOLELY agriculture. Most states have such arrangements on the books. Virtually ALL major agricultural states do.

slick, the idea that the solution to a bad government policy is for the citizens to find a loophole to avoid some of the burden is not a solution. That just leads to more bad policy being created by politicians selling new loopholes and politicians creating more policy to close loopholes...
Thus our tax code is immense and if you ask 12 IRS agents the same question you get 6 different 'official' correct answers!

The solution I proposed is the government fixing its unjust policy.
And a trust is not something you can do after Daddy dies and leaves you a farm in his will that suddenly has a tax bill attached to it that exceeds the farm's business liquid assets.

And why do you say farming is dubious if the land surrounding the farm brings the value of the farmland up to create the problem? People have a right to keep farming instead of selling the farm to a developer. You don't get to decide for them that they must abandon the family business. Well, apparently you do thanks to this policy...

You don't mind bad policy to harvest farm country votes via corn/ethanol subsidies. Why not policy that protects farmers anywhere if they are in these circumstances? There aren't enough of them living in a state that is up for grabs during elections to make the pandering worth it?

What's funny about this tax is that it was supposed to be a temporary tax enacted to help fund WWI. Well, since ol' Bush pretty much put the U.S. deep into the red with 2 more unfunded wars, maybe that tax still needed to pay off those wars too. I mean, that's the price we all pay for freedom isn't it?

Will Robinson wrote:slick, the idea that the solution to a bad government policy is for the citizens to find a loophole to avoid some of the burden is not a solution. That just leads to more bad policy being created by politicians selling new loopholes and politicians creating more policy to close loopholes...
Thus our tax code is immense and if you ask 12 IRS agents the same question you get 6 different 'official' correct answers!

a bit of exaggeration on your part, but essentially true. Still, one plays the game as the rules dictate.

The solution I proposed is the government fixing its unjust policy.
And a trust is not something you can do after Daddy dies and leaves you a farm in his will that suddenly has a tax bill attached to it that exceeds the farm's business liquid assets.

not my problem if people don't plan their estates. There are folks in the specific line of work out there, everywhere, called Estate Planners.

And why do you say farming is dubious if the land surrounding the farm brings the value of the farmland up to create the problem?

if you are at the very outside of commercial development, that is not great farmland. My land might border a potential golf course, but that doesn't bump the value into something stratospheric, nor taxable.

You don't mind bad policy to harvest farm country votes via corn/ethanol subsidies.

never expressed an opinion here, that I'm aware. I think in some ways the corn subsidies and the soybean subsidies are screwing up the balance of fuel agriculture vs food. Don't like either, but it has provided a tidy income as one of the two is the summer crop on all 5 of our farms.

Why not policy that protects farmers anywhere if they are in these circumstances? There aren't enough of them living in a state that is up for grabs during elections to make the pandering worth it?

there are some pretty generous protections via cheap crop insurance made available to ALL farmers. Don't know if you knew that, but there are.Every farmer I know utilizes that system.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:slick, the idea that the solution to a bad government policy is for the citizens to find a loophole to avoid some of the burden is not a solution. That just leads to more bad policy being created by politicians selling new loopholes and politicians creating more policy to close loopholes...
Thus our tax code is immense and if you ask 12 IRS agents the same question you get 6 different 'official' correct answers!

a bit of exaggeration on your part, but essentially true. Still, one plays the game as the rules dictate.

I'm suggesting we improve the rules. You are still clinging to the illogical suggestion that the problem is the farmers fault that the government created a burden that can cause his business to fail by literally taxing him out of his property.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The solution I proposed is the government fixing its unjust policy.
And a trust is not something you can do after Daddy dies and leaves you a farm in his will that suddenly has a tax bill attached to it that exceeds the farm's business liquid assets.

not my problem if people don't plan their estates. There are folks in the specific line of work out there, everywhere, called Estate Planners.

Again with the cavalier attitude. And the trust is not exempt from the death tax so I'm not sure I believe you have even suggested a viable plan.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And why do you say farming is dubious if the land surrounding the farm brings the value of the farmland up to create the problem?

if you are at the very outside of commercial development, that is not great farmland. My land might border a potential golf course, but that doesn't bump the value into something stratospheric, nor taxable.

You are really dodging the point here. Regardless of surrounding land values the farm is either productive or not. Profitable or not. Why do you get tell a farming family invested in the life for generations, that because the surrounding real estate has driven values up his farm is no longer the proper use of the land he owns?!?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You don't mind bad policy to harvest farm country votes via corn/ethanol subsidies.

never expressed an opinion here, that I'm aware. I think in some ways the corn subsidies and the soybean subsidies are screwing up the balance of fuel agriculture vs food. Don't like either, but it has provided a tidy income as one of the two is the summer crop on all 5 of our farms.

So because that bad policy has benefited you you are ok with it.
Why are you in favor of letting the death tax force families to give up their farm to pay a death tax. Why not treat the land seperate from the business, asses a value for the land but treat it like an inherited IRA. The government would still get tax revenue from it if it ever changed to a non working farm.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Why not policy that protects farmers anywhere if they are in these circumstances? There aren't enough of them living in a state that is up for grabs during elections to make the pandering worth it?

there are some pretty generous protections via cheap crop insurance made available to ALL farmers. Don't know if you knew that, but there are.Every farmer I know utilizes that system.

That is irrelevant to the point raised.
And it is insulting in the context of that point to suggest the solution to bad government policy is to tell the injured party they should have taken out insurance against the likelyhood the government collapses their livelihood instead of fixing the bad policy!

If your 'solution' is a good one then why not tell poor people to take out insurance to cover the shortfalls of underfunding of social programs by congress instead of insisting on increasing the budget to fund them?

Will Robinson wrote:I'm suggesting we improve the rules. You are still clinging to the illogical suggestion that the problem is the farmers fault that the government created a burden that can cause his business to fail by literally taxing him out of his property.

improvement is ALWAYS good, Will. I am not so much blaming farmers but suggesting that the reality is that VERY FEW family farmers have lost a damned thing due to the current estate tax schedule. I suggest that much of what you are alarmed about is a red herring, floated constantly by those who stand to gain a LOT from the elimination of the inheritance tax, and NONE of whom are 'farmers'.

You are really dodging the point here. Regardless of surrounding land values the farm is either productive or not. Profitable or not. Why do you get tell a farming family invested in the life for generations, that because the surrounding real estate has driven values up his farm is no longer the proper use of the land he owns?!?

I'm not saying that, I was suggesting that farming becomes untenable in the midst of certain types of development.

So because that bad policy has benefited you you are ok with it.

no, I've fought against it, because I'm all about farms for food production, not overpriced energy sources.

And it is insulting in the context of that point to suggest the solution to bad government policy is to tell the injured party they should have taken out insurance against the likelyhood the government collapses their livelihood instead of fixing the bad policy!

how are floods and droughts(the prime causes of poor crop yield, and thus income instability) the government's bad policy. I am merely arguing that we subsidize farms in a lot of ways, and that vote pandering isn't really the root of why.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm suggesting we improve the rules. You are still clinging to the illogical suggestion that the problem is the farmers fault that the government created a burden that can cause his business to fail by literally taxing him out of his property.

improvement is ALWAYS good, Will. I am not so much blaming farmers but suggesting that the reality is that VERY FEW family farmers have lost a damned thing due to the current estate tax schedule. I suggest that much of what you are alarmed about is a red herring, floated constantly by those who stand to gain a LOT from the elimination of the inheritance tax, and NONE of whom are 'farmers'.

I never advocated anything in favor of non farmers. Your acceptance of the status quo is the position that allows all to be stuffed under the same umbrella. My suggestion only helps the real farmers who find themselves faced with selling the family farm. Everyone else would still pay the death tax as it is...

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are really dodging the point here. Regardless of surrounding land values the farm is either productive or not. Profitable or not. Why do you get tell a farming family invested in the life for generations, that because the surrounding real estate has driven values up his farm is no longer the proper use of the land he owns?!?

I'm not saying that, I was suggesting that farming becomes untenable in the midst of certain types of development.

The day before the father dies its a tenable farm endeavor. The day after the death the government hits the heirs with a tax bill. The surrounding land values stayed the same during that change....

So your assertion that they face a burden because they are farming in the wrong place is silly.

They are still farming in the same place it was working well in until the government changed their status....not land values...not anything farm industry related....just government policy giving them notice that they have a new, large tax bill.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So because that bad policy has benefited you you are ok with it.

no, I've fought against it, because I'm all about farms for food production, not overpriced energy sources.

And it is insulting in the context of that point to suggest the solution to bad government policy is to tell the injured party they should have taken out insurance against the likelyhood the government collapses their livelihood instead of fixing the bad policy!

how are floods and droughts(the prime causes of poor crop yield, and thus income instability) the government's bad policy. I am merely arguing that we subsidize farms in a lot of ways, and that vote pandering isn't really the root of why.

You want to tell us ethanol and the subsidies that go with it is a good idea? Or will you recognize it is a bad idea and it won't go away because no one wants to lose elections in states like Iowa.
I can't tell if you are just commenting without considering the facts or you just jerk your knee to reject an opposing view and then issue statements of slick-facts that sound like they could support your position...if the facts aren't considered.

it seems that Will is hell-bent on finding gotchas, but my point is pretty clear:
1. The inheritance tax serves a valuable purpose- yielding around 28 billion dollars per year to the treasury, and virtually ALL of that is from
those inheriting great wealth. It is a valid idea that was first put forth by Andrew Carnegie and others, and still holds up.
2. The stories about 'lost family farms' are, largely a crock of crap with very little proof that such happens to any extent. Likewise 'small businesses'.
The stories have floated for a while, for political reasons, but have no real basis in reality, and serve to distract from where most of the tax collection
comes from
3. I don't support, in any way, the concept of ethanol or soybean subsidies to make hydrocarbon fuels. I believe in maintaining land in agriculture for
the purpose of food production on a planet which needs same.

edit--further, the original post about the elimination of the tax suggested that NO offsets would replace the lost revenues in the budget, although the same group of hateful loons would LIKE to propose the elimination of the Child Tax Credit and reduction in Child Healthcare programs to do so, but at a 'later' point. Sound fair to you all. Lotsa luck in those robot-driven dreams, because I suspect most everyone on this board will be out of luck in that brave new world......

callmeslick wrote:
2. The stories about 'lost family farms' are, largely a crock of crap with very little proof that such happens to any extent. Likewise 'small businesses'.
The stories have floated for a while, for political reasons, but have no real basis in reality, and serve to distract from where most of the tax collection
comes from

Slick, I don't know if you are willfully ignorant or just too lazy to do a search to back up what you say. It's no wonder your comments are meaningless:

"Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax."

"Echoing Gov.-elect John Kasich’s pledge to cut taxes, Ohio’s incoming agriculture chief recently called for the elimination of the state’s estate tax.

The tax has contributed to the declining number of family farms in Ohio, said State Rep. Jim Zehringer, a Republican from Northwest Ohio whom Kasich recently picked to lead the state’s Department of Agriculture."

Next time try and look halfway intelligent by doing a simple google search

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
2. The stories about 'lost family farms' are, largely a crock of crap with very little proof that such happens to any extent. Likewise 'small businesses'.
The stories have floated for a while, for political reasons, but have no real basis in reality, and serve to distract from where most of the tax collection
comes from

Slick, I don't know if you are willfully ignorant or just too lazy to do a search to back up what you say. It's no wonder your comments are meaningless:

"Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax."no mention of how many

"Echoing Gov.-elect John Kasich’s pledge to cut taxes, Ohio’s incoming agriculture chief recently called for the elimination of the state’s estate tax.some states do have onerous estate taxation. Most don't but I wasn't addressing that, I was talking about the Federal tax only

The tax has contributed to the declining number of family farms in Ohio, said State Rep. Jim Zehringer, a Republican from Northwest Ohio whom Kasich recently picked to lead the state’s Department of Agriculture."

Next time try and look halfway intelligent by doing a simple google search

speaking of simple, try not to expose yourself as simple minded by inserting irrelevant material into a thread.