The Top Fifth

[zoogs]

Sure. We'll just shift the tax burden downward. Is that a better outcome?

[RedDenver]

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.

And your heirs don't deserve massive amounts of unearned wealth. Especially compared to feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our society. Not to mention supporting all the infrastructure that made your wealth possible.

[knapplc]

 

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.

And your heirs don't deserve massive amounts of unearned wealth. Especially compared to feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our society. Not to mention supporting all the infrastructure that made your wealth possible.

 

Of course they do. They're my heirs.

 

And again, since you're ignoring it, I've already paid for all that infrastructure through my taxes. The government has no right to double-dip on that.

[teachercd]

 

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.

And your heirs don't deserve massive amounts of unearned wealth. Especially compared to feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our society. Not to mention supporting all the infrastructure that made your wealth possible.

 

Do what you want to do with your money and possessions. I will do what I want with mine. If you want to give all of yours away to people that are not your family, go for it!

[BigRedBuster]

This is absolutely absurd.

 

Lets say a ranch in the sandhills is 100,000 acres. Then, let's say that land would sell for $400 per acre. (I'm guessing on the price some) That means the ranch is worth on paper $40,000,000. Then you have the cows that probably are around 5,000 head. Let's say the average value of a cow is $1,200. That puts the value of livestock at $6,000,000. Total makes it $46,000,000.....ON PAPER!!!!

 

A rancher in the sandhills of this size is probably making a decent living, but he isn't raking in millions each year. In fact, some years he's scraping by or losing money depending on the price of feeders. In no way in hell would they have the cash flow to pay large amounts of estate taxes.

 

So.....your saying that because their family ranch is worth 46,000,000 they should be forced to liquidate 76% of what they own just because the parents passed away. Oh my.......

 

You know what? Now....think about this. That is what their assets are worth. So....for someone to BUY those assets, they would need to have that amount of money. What does that mean????? Instead of those ranches being owned by local families who worked their asses off to build them, they get bought up by Ted Turners of the world or large corporations. Geee......how did that wealth redistribution work?

Meanwhile, Ted Turner doesn't have a friggen clue how to ranch and he has ruined more land in the sandhills already than what he should have....instead of keeping it in families who know how to take care of the land and treat it with respect.

[zoogs]

And again, since you're ignoring it, I've already paid for all that infrastructure through my taxes. The government has no right to double-dip on that.

You're asking for those "first-dip" taxes to be increased for people who overwhelmingly wouldn't have been impacted by the estate tax to begin with.

 

I think that would impose a restrictive burden on the economy. And that will be felt by everyone -- those with taxable estates and those without.

 

Taxes in the U.S. don't need to move in a more regressive direction than they currently are. But I'll grant that opinions differ.

[RedDenver]

 

 

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.

And your heirs don't deserve massive amounts of unearned wealth. Especially compared to feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our society. Not to mention supporting all the infrastructure that made your wealth possible.

 

Of course they do. They're my heirs.

 

And again, since you're ignoring it, I've already paid for all that infrastructure through my taxes. The government has no right to double-dip on that.

 

No - that's part of the problem. Your taxes already do not cover the costs of supporting the infrastructure.

 

And I want you to think about what you're saying here. You already lived one of the most financially luxurious lifestyles in the history of the human race (I'm talking about tens of millions to billions of dollars), at the same time that many, many people were poor and struggling. I'm suggesting that you only pass a VERY rich lifestyle on to your heirs in order to serve the greater needs of our nation/society, but you'd rather that your heirs live another historically luxurious lifestyle even though it's unearned instead of helping our nation/society.

[BigRedBuster]

Welcome to one part of evidence of why I have never been able to support the more liberal side of politics.

[knapplc]

That's not traditional American liberal thinking. That's communism. Don't conflate the two.

[BigRedBuster]

That's not traditional American liberal thinking. That's communism. Don't conflate the two.

The extreme that RedDenver is proposing is communism...yes.

 

But, American liberals have proposed much higher estate taxes but have been fought off by conservatives.

 

Back in the 1970s, my grandmother passed away which forced a taxable estate event. In no way shape or form was our company anywhere close to what meets the level of taxation now days. My father had managed and built the company (under family ownership) for over 20 years. This almost put our company into bankruptcy. The IRS finally agreed to a 10 year payoff so for 10 years, we were paying off the taxes (that were not tied to income level at all) while also going through some extremely bad economic times for the industry we were in.

 

So.....to just say....well.....this isn't American politics.......it has been in the past. And...there are obviously people like RedDenver voting in the US.

[RedDenver]

This is absolutely absurd.

 

Lets say a ranch in the sandhills is 100,000 acres. Then, let's say that land would sell for $400 per acre. (I'm guessing on the price some) That means the ranch is worth on paper $40,000,000. Then you have the cows that probably are around 5,000 head. Let's say the average value of a cow is $1,200. That puts the value of livestock at $6,000,000. Total makes it $46,000,000.....ON PAPER!!!!

 

A rancher in the sandhills of this size is probably making a decent living, but he isn't raking in millions each year. In fact, some years he's scraping by or losing money depending on the price of feeders. In no way in hell would they have the cash flow to pay large amounts of estate taxes.

 

So.....your saying that because their family ranch is worth 46,000,000 they should be forced to liquidate 76% of what they own just because the parents passed away. Oh my.......

 

You know what? Now....think about this. That is what their assets are worth. So....for someone to BUY those assets, they would need to have that amount of money. What does that mean????? Instead of those ranches being owned by local families who worked their asses off to build them, they get bought up by Ted Turners of the world or large corporations. Geee......how did that wealth redistribution work?

 

Meanwhile, Ted Turner doesn't have a friggen clue how to ranch and he has ruined more land in the sandhills already than what he should have....instead of keeping it in families who know how to take care of the land and treat it with respect.

If your issue is specifically with ranch land, then let's write an exception into the estate tax - like there is today. Maybe have some sort of hold on the land such that they'd only have to pay that estate tax if they ever sold the land.

 

But if someone has a 100,000 acre ranch and is barely getting by, then maybe we should let someone else have a try at that land. And how did they get 100,000 acres to begin with? Even if they bought it at $40/acre that's $4.6 million. I think your 100,000 acre example is an unrealistic case since the average Nebraska ranch/farm acreage was ~450 acres in 1950 and ~900 acres in 2012.

 

Imagine the reverse scenario. What if Ted Turner bought up 100,000 acres of ranch land? Do we want to let him and his family hold it indefinitely? Or do we want to redistribute that land to someone who would actually do something productive with it?

 

EDIT: Also your math is wrong. Under what I suggested above, the estate tax in this case would be 90% or $46 million - $40 million, which is $5.4 million. That could be paid for by selling 13500 acres, or 13.5% of the land, not 76%

Edited June 13, 2017 by RedDenver

[zoogs]

I can't sign off on all of RD's rhetoric and reasoning but we haven't begun to approach communism -- that's absurd. Red scare paranoia regularly encourages us to fight for regressive policies that benefit the very few at the expense of the many, only to, in turn, complain about the state of things and how the many are ill-served by the commanding interests of the top.

 

I can't say I know much about your story or even estate tax policy in general. It sounds like you're saying you shouldn't have been paying estate taxes but had to. And hey, I've no strong opinions on whether changes could be made in implementation, or whether there should be more or less. Just that it seems correct to say the United States has relatively mild estate tax today.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.

And your heirs don't deserve massive amounts of unearned wealth. Especially compared to feeding, clothing, housing, and educating our society. Not to mention supporting all the infrastructure that made your wealth possible.

 

Of course they do. They're my heirs.

 

And again, since you're ignoring it, I've already paid for all that infrastructure through my taxes. The government has no right to double-dip on that.

 

No - that's part of the problem. Your taxes already do not cover the costs of supporting the infrastructure.

 

And I want you to think about what you're saying here. You already lived one of the most financially luxurious lifestyles in the history of the human race (I'm talking about tens of millions to billions of dollars), at the same time that many, many people were poor and struggling. I'm suggesting that you only pass a VERY rich lifestyle on to your heirs in order to serve the greater needs of our nation/society, but you'd rather that your heirs live another historically luxurious lifestyle even though it's unearned instead of helping our nation/society.

 

 

 

That's a whole separate discussion because those taxes should more than adequately pay for the cost of the infrastructure. Government''s wastefulness doesn't mean they deserve my assets more than my heirs.

[zoogs]

This has nothing to do with spending efficiency. Remove one revenue stream and you simply shift the burden elsewhere. We all share in the consequences of this.

 

Deciding to spend more, or less -- a whole, separate discussion -- allows rates on all revenue streams to be reduced, along with all the costs and benefits this entails.

[RedDenver]

That's not traditional American liberal thinking. That's communism. Don't conflate the two.

 

 

 

That's not traditional American liberal thinking. That's communism. Don't conflate the two.

The extreme that RedDenver is proposing is communism...yes.

 

But, American liberals have proposed much higher estate taxes but have been fought off by conservatives.

 

Back in the 1970s, my grandmother passed away which forced a taxable estate event. In no way shape or form was our company anywhere close to what meets the level of taxation now days. My father had managed and built the company (under family ownership) for over 20 years. This almost put our company into bankruptcy. The IRS finally agreed to a 10 year payoff so for 10 years, we were paying off the taxes (that were not tied to income level at all) while also going through some extremely bad economic times for the industry we were in.

 

So.....to just say....well.....this isn't American politics.......it has been in the past. And...there are obviously people like RedDenver voting in the US.

 

Either that's a communism bogeyman strawman or you guys need to learn what communism is. In communism the State owns everything. That is absolutely NOT what I'm saying or even suggesting. Nowhere did I say or imply that the State should own ANY of the wealth.

 

And I'm sorry for what happened to your family with your grandmother's company. Note that I'm also advocating for raising the estate tax limit to avoid harming small businesses. I'm suggesting $20 million, but as I said earlier I'd be open to a higher number of specific exemptions. And I don't think the IRS should just drop by asking for a check either, it's ok to have some compassion/perspective here and take a year to sort things out if need be. But your family could take out a loan against the value of the business if it really is worth that much, or ask forbearance to pay that tax over years. Additionally, you could take a company public instead of inheriting it.