The Top Fifth

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Just saying "my taxes are enough" doesn't make it true. But I absolutely agree that if we can meet our tax needs at a lower estate tax level, then I'm for all it. What I'm not in favor of is shifting the tax burden from the extremely wealthy to everyone else.

[knapplc]

You're saying, over and over, that the state has more rights to my assets after my death than my heirs. That is absolutely communism.

[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.

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?

 

I went off the cuff on that but, for some of the larger ranches, I don't think I'm too far off.

 

Here is an article on a sale of a Ranch by Hyannis back in 2004. With owned and leased land, it's 63,871 acres and 3,000 head of cattle. So, put that as one of the larger ones and my argument still stands.

 

That's why it takes generations to build it. It's because you don't make huge amounts of money off of it and it takes time to build. So.....the state is the arbitrator that just decides who gets to "try to" ranch because someone isn't making very much money off of it?

 

And...you obviously don't realize there is a big difference between "farms" and "ranches" and how that stat is put together. There is also a big difference between a cow calf rancher in southeast Nebraska compared to one of the larger ones in the sandhills.

[BigRedBuster]

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

[zoogs]

Does the state have any right to your assets in life?

 

Let's be clear about something. Abolishing the estate tax wholesale isn't merely "not communism." It's very, very far in the other direction. Maybe that's the right way to go! But to call any existence of it communism is simply absurd.

 

Abolishing the estate tax isn't about stopping the communism that is nowhere near incipient in the United States, nor in the countries that have considerably higher estate taxes. It's simply the most politically viable instrument to effect a strongly regressive shift in U.S. tax policy. Again -- you may be a fan of this. It may even be the right way to go; reasonable folks can agree to disagree. But let's be clear that this is the objective. The Red Scare belongs in decades past.

[BigRedBuster]

Does the state have any right to your assets in life?

 

Let's be clear about something. Abolishing the estate tax wholesale isn't merely "not communism." It's very, very far in the other direction. Maybe that's the right way to go! But to call any existence of it communism is simply absurd.

 

Abolishing the estate tax isn't about stopping the communism that is nowhere near incipient in the United States, nor in the countries that have considerably higher estate taxes. It's simply the most politically viable instrument to effect a strongly regressive shift in U.S. tax policy. Again -- you may be a fan of this. It may even be the right way to go; reasonable folks can agree to disagree. But let's be clear that this is the objective. The Red Scare belongs in decades past.

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.

[RedDenver]

You're saying, over and over, that the state has more rights to my assets after my death than my heirs. That is absolutely communism.

No, you keep saying that. I'm saying the state has a right to TAX PART OF the value of the assets.

 

And even if I were claiming that, I'm still not claiming the stat then owns those assets (that's communism), but instead would use the value of those assets just like any other tax it collects.

[Moiraine]

People being rich and having the opportunity to get rich isn't a problem.

 

The problem is that more and more, mega-corporations and $ are in control of the country. It's not a democracy. It's, if you are wealthy and want to, you can create policy that makes you more wealthy, often to the detriment of those who are not wealthy. Not all wealthy people do this or want to, but those that do shouldn't be allowed to.

 

We are increasingly becoming an oligarchy and that oligarchy keeps eroding more laws to help tighten their grip.

[knapplc]

Does the state have any right to your assets in life?

Of course, through reasonable rates of taxation, which the citizenry help create through elected officials.

[zoogs]

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.

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"?

[knapplc]

 

You're saying, over and over, that the state has more rights to my assets after my death than my heirs. That is absolutely communism.

No, you keep saying that. I'm saying the state has a right to TAX PART OF the value of the assets.

 

And even if I were claiming that, I'm still not claiming the stat then owns those assets (that's communism), but instead would use the value of those assets just like any other tax it collects.

 

Being able to tax those assets, after they've already been taxed, is the ownership I'm talking about. It's a semantic difference, but that's how I see it.

[zoogs]

 

Does the state have any right to your assets in life?

Of course, through reasonable rates of taxation, which the citizenry help create through elected officials.

 

They're my assets. What makes any amount over zero reasonable?

[RedDenver]

Also.....so why is a ranch different than another business in town that has taken a couple generations to build?

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.

[knapplc]

 

 

Does the state have any right to your assets in life?

Of course, through reasonable rates of taxation, which the citizenry help create through elected officials.

 

They're my assets. What makes any amount over zero reasonable?

 

I feel like you're making a point here. Just make the point.

[RedDenver]

 

 

You're saying, over and over, that the state has more rights to my assets after my death than my heirs. That is absolutely communism.

No, you keep saying that. I'm saying the state has a right to TAX PART OF the value of the assets.

 

And even if I were claiming that, I'm still not claiming the stat then owns those assets (that's communism), but instead would use the value of those assets just like any other tax it collects.

 

Being able to tax those assets, after they've already been taxed, is the ownership I'm talking about. It's a semantic difference, but that's how I see it.

 

Would it be better if we used a capital gains tax on the estate instead? So only paying taxes on the increase in value?