BigRedBuster

In this particular situation, I would much rather the discussion be about easing tensions between the two sides and having our leaders actually lead us in that effort instead of fostering hatred between people who disagree. The President needs to be the leader in this....sadly, I think he is unable to do that.

Good Lord..... Texas A&m has gone 2016 8-5 2015 8-5 2014 8-5 2013 9-4 Go back one more year and they were 11-2. They've also had players like Manziel and Garrett that make people take notice of their program. We've done nothing but be mediocre for a decade now and have certainly not churned out any of those types of players as of late. The point is they've been far more relevant and the perception of them is much better than the perception of us on a national stage. In 2012 when they went 11-2, the Moore twins were in 7th grade. You mentioned Manziel and Garrett. We had Suh and Ameer. And...mentioning Manziel is almost like if I would have put Gregory on this list.

Good thing we have a President that knows how to defeat ISIS more than the generals do.

Good Lord..... Texas A&m has gone 2016 8-5 2015 8-5 2014 8-5 2013 9-4

Touche. But I think we actually agree here. Maybe a better statement from me is "Not everything should be fair". That's fine. But, just remember, if you use that argument, it's fair game for the other side to use it too.

Well, the other side can just say life isn't fair and it sucks some times. I've worked hard for my wealth and you haven't. Life isn't fair.....deal with it. I can pay for healthcare and you can't.....life isn't fair...deal with it. Now, in general, I believe "life isn't fair" and the sooner an individual understands that and deals with it...the better for them. I've told my kids that a lot. But, in a macro sense, saying "I don't care what's fair" that instantly degrades the discourse in trying to find a solution.

I don't really care about "fair" - life isn't fair. I'm more interested in the benefits and harms to both the individual and society. (Maybe I'm being pedantic and that's just another definition of "fair".) But to the point of your question, I'm honestly conflicted. As BRB argues, there's more context to these things than just the raw numbers. You really want to go down that road in this discussion?

I agree with this. The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity. If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized. Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable. If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever. At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out. In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right? Sort of but not necessarily. I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership. Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means? I used a ranch in the sandhills as an example. I feel the same way about any family owned company. Sure, if you raise the limit, it affects fewer people. But, I don't see that as validation that it's the right thing to do. So whether the inheritance is $10 million, $1 billion, or $100 billion, it makes no difference? Let me put this in perspective of people who both of us despise. Let's say Donald Trump dies tomorrow (no, I'm not wanting this to happen). Now, I don't know much about his financial situation other than what has been made public in the last year. He claims to be worth over a billion dollars. Yes, his kids are rich too. Now, let's say a very large portion of that worth is tied up in the real estate of his golf courses and Trump Towers. So, lets say 900,000,000 of the worth is not liquid. With your proposal I saw earlier, you would say that he could will 40,000,000 to his kids and the rest is taxed at 90%. So, Ivanka and brothers get 40,000,000 and the family (company) needs to come up with 864,000,000 in taxes. To do that, his golf courses and other assets would probably need to liquidated. That puts every day Americans out of work who work at those courses and the supporting businesses. It negatively affects the communities these facilities are in. Another thing about this is, a fact that is true about family businesses. Something like 75% of them don't survive the second generation. From that, something like 90% don't survive the third generation. So, the vast majority of these transactions are naturally going to cause an event where the assets get liquidated and broken up. Look at the big business moguls of American history. People like the Vanderbilts and Duponts of the world. Eventually over time, their assets get distributed and sold off. I'm not sure how you're arriving at the bolded. Having to sell your company doesn't suddenly mean it vanishes. There will be new owners, who probably want an income off their purchase. It doesn't happen all the time. But, it would happen a lot of the time.

I agree with this. The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity. If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized. Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable. If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever. At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out. In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right? Sort of but not necessarily. I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership. Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means? I used a ranch in the sandhills as an example. I feel the same way about any family owned company. Sure, if you raise the limit, it affects fewer people. But, I don't see that as validation that it's the right thing to do. So whether the inheritance is $10 million, $1 billion, or $100 billion, it makes no difference? Let me put this in perspective of people who both of us despise. Let's say Donald Trump dies tomorrow (no, I'm not wanting this to happen). Now, I don't know much about his financial situation other than what has been made public in the last year. He claims to be worth over a billion dollars. Yes, his kids are rich too. Now, let's say a very large portion of that worth is tied up in the real estate of his golf courses and Trump Towers. So, lets say 900,000,000 of the worth is not liquid. With your proposal I saw earlier, you would say that he could will 40,000,000 to his kids and the rest is taxed at 90%. So, Ivanka and brothers get 40,000,000 and the family (company) needs to come up with 864,000,000 in taxes. To do that, his golf courses and other assets would probably need to liquidated. That puts every day Americans out of work who work at those courses and the supporting businesses. It negatively affects the communities these facilities are in. Another thing about this is, a fact that is true about family businesses. Something like 75% of them don't survive the second generation. From that, something like 90% don't survive the third generation. So, the vast majority of these transactions are naturally going to cause an event where the assets get liquidated and broken up. Look at the big business moguls of American history. People like the Vanderbilts and Duponts of the world. Eventually over time, their assets get distributed and sold off.

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable. My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong. As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution. As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual. First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim. Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern? Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist. Which "taxable event" do you mean? The death of an owner which would cause a estate taxable event. So would you say it's fair to say your issue with the estate tax is liquidity? That's at least a large part of it. Another part is the amount I see thrown around that people think the state should have claim on the assets. (not necessarily on here) When an event like this has the ability to negatively affect people like this can, it's just wrong.

I agree with this. The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity. If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized. Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable. If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever. At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out. In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right? Sort of but not necessarily. I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership. Yes, I see your point here. Especially given the current $10.5 million exemption. But if the exemption was higher, how often would estate taxes actually affect these ranches? The link you gave somewhere earlier about the Sandhills ranch being sold was for about $19 million (if I remember right), so that ranch at least wouldn't be affected by what I'm proposing. It goes back to my question of, is there any exemption limit (and/or rate above the limit) for the estate tax that could keep billionaires from buying up and holding land without affecting the family ranches? If not, is there another means? I used a ranch in the sandhills as an example. I feel the same way about any family owned company. Sure, if you raise the limit, it affects fewer people. But, I don't see that as validation that it's the right thing to do.

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable. My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong. As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution. As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual. First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim. Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern? Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist. Which "taxable event" do you mean? The death of an owner which would cause a estate taxable event.

Depends on the type of transfer. Like I have spelled out in an earlier post, in the 70s when our company went through this, we almost didn't survive even though we weren't that big of a company. The estate tax was such that we still had to pay a large amount during a time when our company wasn't making much money. It took us 10 years to do. If a company is purchased, obviously the people who sold the company pay the applicable taxes and hopefully they know what those are going to be so they can decide if the proceeds from the sale can cover the taxes plus what they want to walk away with. There is also one hell of a lot of estate planning that goes on as owners age so that it lessons the blow. For instance, owners can gift a certain amount of stock each year to anyone they want without it being taxed. Another way i to put the ownership company into a certain type of trust. All of these methods of estate planning for family businesses have people who want to take them away. They are viewed as "loop holes". In reality, if they were taken away, a lot of family own businesses would cease to exist after the death of the owners.

I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable. My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong. As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution. As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual. First, let me say I don't think society (government) has MORE of a claim than the heirs, but society has SOME claim. Your argument of an estate tax forcing illiquid assets to be broken up is the most convincing argument against the estate tax IMO. If we ignore that for a moment, do you think liquid (cash) assets are different? For example, if the estate tax only applied to liquid assets (and we ignore the other problems and loopholes arising from that), do you an issue with taxing that? Or do you still see that as part of the patently wrong part of your concern? Liquid assets like cash are clearly different that long term assets like ownership of a company. If I receive cash, that is clearly income that I can use to do with whatever I want and I can pay the tax with that cash. If I own a company, the taxable event can severely negatively affect the operation of that company to the point it gets shut down and liquidated. That affects WAY more people than just the heirs. It puts people out of work and negatively affects communities where these companies exist.

I agree with this. The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity. If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized. Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable. If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever. At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out. In your Ted Turner and heirs vs the Mormon Church as land owners, how are they any different if Ted' heirs never sell? Because even when Ted's heirs start dying off, they can hand over the assets to their heirs, and so on with each generations. You see that they're similar problems, right? Sort of but not necessarily. I'm not a big fan of Ted buying huge chunks of land in the Sandhills simply because I think that land is better served in the hands of the local ranchers who know how to take care of a delicate ecosystem such as that is. So, I'm not going to defend him or act like I like it that he owns that land. BUT, my point is, the government doesn't have the right to go in and break that up now or at his death just for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, I firmly believe that if large ranches are forced to be broken up because the government believes those heirs don't deserve it and the state does, that land is MORE likely to be put in the hands of people like Turner and the Mormon Church than staying in local ownership.

There's no assessed capital gains tax. So long as the assets appreciate, those are capital gains, no? And those gains are not taxed as long as they aren't "realized", e.g., through a sale. Thus if you buy $100k of stock which appreciates to $100M by the time you die, you can then pass this on to your heirs with the gains having never been taxed. If I'm understanding correctly. Unrealized capital gains range "from 32 percent for estates worth between $5 million and $10 million to as much as about 55 percent of the value of estates worth more than $100 million.%5B14%5D." No. That is asset appreciation. Not Capital Gains. Think of capital as cash. You buy an asset with 1,000,000 cash. So your basis for the asset is 1,000,000. Now, let's say you own that asset for 5 years and sell it for 10,000,000. Now you have 10,000,000 in capital (cash). So, your capital gains is 9,000,000. You had NO capital gains until the asset is sold.

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs. Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit. Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems. So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here. Where is the win in this? These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations. And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not. The business/heirs could take out a loan. Or have a gradual pay out to the IRS. Or sell off parts as you mentioned. Or you could have been gradually selling the business to your heirs over time. But why does the business in this case have to be inherited? That business can go public, in which case the investors own the company and the money of that sale would then be taxed before going to the heirs. Or it could be sold to a large corporation, as you said. Or it could be sold to the employees as a worker cooperative. What in God's name gives the state the right to force these kinds of changes? And....this entire discussion started by a problem with wealth distribution. Forcing a company to go public would force the company into Wallstreet where there are stock owners that don't give a flying rip about a small town in Nebraska where it is located. Where is the logic of wealth distribution there? I gave you a whole bunch of options and I'm sure there are more. And becoming incorporated doesn't suddenly teleport the business to Wall Street. Please explain how being Incorporated is associated with your ideas. I'm not sure how it's at odds with what I've said. I'm fine with businesses being incorporated. You're the one that brought up the term. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you used it. Do you think all corporations are contributing to wealth inequality? I don't. Nor do I think wealth inequality is inherently bad. It's the effects that wealth inequality is currently having on our society that I'm concerned about. And if there's a more effective tool to improve things than estate taxes, I'd be in favor of those tools instead. You suggested that the company should be forced to go public. When I questioned that idea, you said..."becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out how the term "incorporated" had anything to do with my post. I didn't suggestion they "had" to go public. I gave a bunch of options of which that was one. Yes...you suggested that that is one of the options they should be forced to consider. I questioned that idea and you came back with "becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out this statement. Oh, I see. Sorry I meant "going public" not "becoming incorporated". How does a company "go public" without Wall Street involved? You have an initial public offering (IPO) where members of the public can buy your shares for the first time. Those members of the public may or may not be on Wall Street, but given the large number of institutional investors on Wall Street, it's very likely there will at least be some. The company maintains it's current locations, headquarters, etc. I'm not sure what else to say here as I'm not an expert on IPO's, what's your question/concern? You do realize that to do that, you have to be on an exchange like the NYSE or Nasdaq right which are all........in NYC? And....you also have to go through a brokerage firm which will be one of the large banks that works on Wall Street. You also have to abide by a huge number of regulations that all are managed and regulated by Wall Street firms. You do understand that....right?

I'm beginning to think that he and his brother have the visit to FNL scheduled just to keep interest up and not tip their hand on where he is going. Once he commits to aTm on the 18th, they will cancel the trip. Good luck to him. Time to move on.

I agree with this. The tip-top of estates will consist of "unrealized" capital gains. If the assets are never considered realized, then these gains will go untaxed in perpetuity. If an asset is not sold, there is no capital gains realized or unrealized. Let's say I inherit a section of land in the Platte Valley. Right now that is probably worth around $4,480,000. I have a choice of either selling that or maintaining it and receiving income off of it. So, If I keep ownership, I should be taxed on the income I receive off of that land. If I sell it, I should then be taxed a reasonable capital gains tax. If I then die 5 years from now and pass that on to my kids, they then have the opportunity to sell it and create the taxable event or receive income off of it which is taxable. If assets are privately owned, eventually they will be sold. It may be generations down the road, but nothing lasts forever. At one time (may still be the case) the two largest land owners in Nebraska was Ted Turner and the Mormon Church. Now, I have way more of a problem with the Mormon Church ownership than I do Ted Turner because at some point, he will die and his assets will probably be liquidated. If they aren't they will be eventually when his heirs start dying off. The Mormon Church is the one that will own the land into perpetuity. But, it's their right to own the land, I just hope the tax laws are such that the church (in this case) is taxed just like a normal investor instead of some type of loop hole for churches. I think that's the case but I have never been able to find out.

Sometimes it's good that people are bad shots.

This is patently untrue. It's quickly becoming true under Trump. Healthcare, climate change, civil freedoms, voter rights... There's at the very least a complete discord and inability to agree upon the problems. In the famous words of Trump.....WRONG!!!!! LOMS made a comment that this is part of our culture and what America is. That is flat out wrong. We have a very very very long history of fighting for what is right in the world and fighting to improve life not just here but around the world. Do we have people within our country who don't want to do that or think we don't need to do that? Sure, that has been true since the beginning of time and always will be. BUT, that is not America's "culture".

Wait....who is "giving up trying" to make this all a better place to live? Just because we disagree with that that is and the solution to get there, doesn't mean anyone has "given up".

This statement isn't about collecting enough taxes to pay for infrastructure or governmental services. It is specifically about how wrong you think it is that people are able to pass millions of dollars onto heirs and how that should be broken up and given to the state. Not to sound hyperbolic. But....that right there is a thought process that is anti-American. So....you are going to arbitrarily come up with a figure that YOU think is just unfair that pass onto heirs. Anything above that is going to be broken up and distributed because YOU think YOU have the right to it. Sorry....count me out of that no line of thought no matter what the dollar figure is. It's not at all anti-American. If read the articles I posted above, you'd see that estate taxes were heavily favored by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican btw). And how does this differ from paying taxes on income or sales? Are those anti-American too? Again, I gave a number of options. Don't like breaking it up, use a different approach. I'm all in favor of a less arbitrary figure. What do you suggestion? I have no problem with taxes as they are necessary for our country to operate it's government. The type and level of taxes are all debatable. My biggest issue with what you have said is from your first statements where your reasoning behind your estate taxes wasn't to raise money for the government to work. It was to break up wealth because you think the government has more right to their wealth than the heirs do. THAT is just patently wrong. As for tax solutions? As I have said, I understand taxes are necessary and everyone should be paying their share. But, I am completely against taxes that openly and purposely force the break up of assets for the purpose of wealth redistribution. As for a solution to collecting money to run the government, off the top of my head I would suggest that we tax income from the assets and capital gains if and when the assets are sold. I would need to be creative on how the capital gains is calculated. So, going back to the ranch in the Sandhills, the heirs would not be hit with a huge tax bill when the parents die just based on a paper value of the assets. They would be taxed on income from the ranch as long as they own it and they would be taxed on the proceeds if the ranch was sold. Also, if people inherit liquid assets like cash, that would be taxed the same way as income is taxed. They obviously would be responsible for all property taxes as usual.

No....because there are some assets that can't be broken up without huge disruptions to even people outside of the heirs. Let's say I live in central Nebraska and own a business that I have worked all my life to build and now, on paper, it is worth $150,000,000. I employ 200 people in a small town and it's located here simply because this is where I lived when I started it. The community benefits from my business by being one of the largest employers in the area and the taxes we pay. Now, let's say I die and you want to now tax my heirs on anything north of $40,000,000. That means I'm going to pay huge taxes on $110,000,000. There are one hell of a lot of businesses that can not afford that type of hit. Look at my example of my own families business in the 70s. Ours wasn't anywhere close to the figures I'm using here. But, at that time, the estate taxes were such that it caused HUGE problems. So....for my family, in my example, can't just sell off 20-30-50% of their manufacturing plant. So, chances are the entire company is going to be sold off. Now.....either it's going to be liquidated and 200 people lose their jobs or a big corporation is going to come in and buy it up and probably move the plant to somewhere else because they aren't committed to the community as we are by living here. Where is the win in this? These aren't made up scenarios. I know people who have gone through these exact situations. And, if you increase the amount to 100,000,000...all that does is decrease the number of people who are affected by that. But....I'm sorry but the number affected doesn't seem like a logical fact to use to see if something is right to do or not. The business/heirs could take out a loan. Or have a gradual pay out to the IRS. Or sell off parts as you mentioned. Or you could have been gradually selling the business to your heirs over time. But why does the business in this case have to be inherited? That business can go public, in which case the investors own the company and the money of that sale would then be taxed before going to the heirs. Or it could be sold to a large corporation, as you said. Or it could be sold to the employees as a worker cooperative. What in God's name gives the state the right to force these kinds of changes? And....this entire discussion started by a problem with wealth distribution. Forcing a company to go public would force the company into Wallstreet where there are stock owners that don't give a flying rip about a small town in Nebraska where it is located. Where is the logic of wealth distribution there? I gave you a whole bunch of options and I'm sure there are more. And becoming incorporated doesn't suddenly teleport the business to Wall Street. Please explain how being Incorporated is associated with your ideas. I'm not sure how it's at odds with what I've said. I'm fine with businesses being incorporated. You're the one that brought up the term. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you used it. Do you think all corporations are contributing to wealth inequality? I don't. Nor do I think wealth inequality is inherently bad. It's the effects that wealth inequality is currently having on our society that I'm concerned about. And if there's a more effective tool to improve things than estate taxes, I'd be in favor of those tools instead. You suggested that the company should be forced to go public. When I questioned that idea, you said..."becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out how the term "incorporated" had anything to do with my post. I didn't suggestion they "had" to go public. I gave a bunch of options of which that was one. Yes...you suggested that that is one of the options they should be forced to consider. I questioned that idea and you came back with "becoming incorporated doesn't automatically teleport the business to Wall Street". I'm trying to figure out this statement. Oh, I see. Sorry I meant "going public" not "becoming incorporated". How does a company "go public" without Wall Street involved?

So....LOMS....I assume you agree that the state has the right and justification to set an amount like 40,000,000 and basically take everything else when someone dies.