BigRedBuster

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.

And you clearly didn't read the thread and came in with both barrels blazing about something the thread was not about. I'm the one that said that thought process was un-American along with claiming I was being somewhat hyperbolic. I didn't say any of the atrocities you listed were what America stands for either. So, your post made no sense in context with the thread.

Was it un-American for much of that inherited wealth to be accumulated by the exploitation of black slave labor, without ever having made amends to those black family lines and descendants? Was it un-American for the first several years of the Homestead Act to give away millions of acres of land to only white people (assets that have been inherited) by first forcibly removing the Native Americans living there, and then denying African-Americans the ability to take part due to their lack of citizenship? Was it un-American for the government to never pay reparations to slaves, who had no wealth, no land or property, no education, and no social standing, but to pay slave-owners for their loss of property after the abolishment of slavery? Was it un-American for Jim Crow laws to reserve the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and with them the best chances at good health, at building up savings and wealth, for white people? Was it un-American for the Social Security Act to conveniently exclude the most low-income and the most minority-populated jobs, agriculture work and domestic servitude, from it's income safety net? Was it un-American for the G.I. Bill, on paper said to have the goal of helping WWII soldiers adjust to civilian life with things like low-interest loans, low-cost mortgages, etc., to be specifically designed to accomodate Jim Crow laws, and to be controlled by banks who could legally refuse to loan to blacks? Of the first 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill less than 100 of them were granted to non-whites. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion. That is JUST from slave labor. That doesn't include the decades of social programs that might have been argued as being technically fair but had grossly disproportionate preference to favor whites. But my grandpa's inheritance to me shouldn't be taxed or capped, because he earned it all by his own bootstraps, and the kids that I help mentor on the south side of Chicago just need to break their own cycle of poverty and hopelessness and be self-made men? What in the..........

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.

It's going to be interesting to see what a "less mean" bill looks like from the Senate.

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.

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? Taxes are not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about you believing the state should have the right and the responsibility to make sure wealth over a certain amount isn't passed on to heirs. You're not just talking about taxing at a reasonable rate. You are talking about setting a maximum amount that can be passed on and then the rest is taxed at 90% or more. Meaning.....it doesn't matter if I'm worth 40,000,001 or 40,000,000,000. If the figure is at 40,000,000....then, the state basically takes everything else. THAT is un-American.

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.

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.

And...I want to point out that you seem to be back peddling some. Here is one of your first statements on the subject. 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.

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?

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.

yeah....we purchased spark plugs for the 350 and they appeared to be similar to what was in it and they fit. So, we are pretty sure we have a 350. Some confusion came because the VIN number claims the truck originally had a 305. So, it actually was more of a question of block size than year of engine. We changed the plugs and wires and it still has the miss. The previous owner claims a mechanic told him it was a burnt exhaust valve. I decided to take it to my main mechanic and have him just test it to see what he thinks. I'm guessing we will end up with a valve job.

With Trump and Megan's feelings towards each other. There is no way in hell he isn't going to post tweets that supports Jone's and tries to demonize her.

Good question. I suppose they aren't any different, and I'll go back to my original thought which was they should still pay estate taxes if they're over the limit, which I've proposed as $40 million for a family. I edited my post about your ranch example above to show that using this $40 million limit and a 90% rate can be covered by selling 13.5% of the land in the example. And I'd like to point out that everyone calling this idea communism is ignoring the $40 million I'm suggesting goes to the heirs tax-free. You can point that out as much as you like, but you're giving the State rights to 13.5% of those assets that they absolutely do not deserve. They have already taxed the entire estate throughout the citizen's life. They do not deserve more than that, certainly not more than the citizen's heirs. No, they didn't, they taxed the income. If you're proposing that we tax wealth instead of income, that's a different story. And your did-nothing-to-earn-it heirs absolutely don't "deserve" it either. The person who did deserve it was you, but you've passed on and we need to determine how to divide up your wealth equitably among actors who don't deserve it. And I'm saying part of that division should go to the society that helped you accumulate that wealth. The bolded phrase along with the over sized font is the problem. There is no WE in this discussion. The assets are not owned by "WE".

Not at you. But if we get back to the "extremes" that RedDenver proposed, wasn't it nothing for estates below $10M? I agree for example that 90% past that is pretty darn extreme. But let's suppose for a moment that it was 90%. That's close to communism? How is that not just (really, really high) progressive tax for the top brackets? For comparison, Bernie Sanders proposed an increase from 40 to 45% of the top estate tax rate. What's "communism"? There is not a big red line defining what is Communism and what isn't. Personally, I believe if you're getting into that 40-45% range...your at best starting to sniff communism. As the tax rate increases, it becomes more and more communistic.

If this is pointed at me, I'm not saying the mere existence of estate tax is communism. But, when you get to the extremes that RedDenver is proposing.....it's getting pretty darn close.