The Top Fifth

[BigRedBuster]

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

 

As for post #31, yes, we should break the chain of inherited wealth, whether that's a rancher or a banker should make no difference. Why should someone get millions or billions of dollars having done nothing to earn it?

As for my solution, it would be to allow small (relatively speaking) transfers of wealth but just prevent the gigantic transfers of wealth, which is similar to the estate tax today. I'd select a limit case - say $10 million/person - that a person could pass on to anyone they wanted (not just their kids), and then tax the rest at 90%. In this case, your ranchers could pass up to $20 million (for a couple) worth of the ranch without taxes. I'd even go so far as to agree to a higher limit like $50 million/person if the associated tax was also higher like 99%.

 

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.

[knapplc]

 

Rich or poor, everyone should be taxed the same. Making this a tax only on people with assets in excess of X-million dollars doesn't change my opinion.

Then we're going to have to disagree on that point. The rich should bear far more of the tax burden because they gain the most from having the government and infrastructure and it deprives them the least.

 

Equal or disproportionate percentages?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.

[RedDenver]

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

 

As for post #31, yes, we should break the chain of inherited wealth, whether that's a rancher or a banker should make no difference. Why should someone get millions or billions of dollars having done nothing to earn it?

 

As for my solution, it would be to allow small (relatively speaking) transfers of wealth but just prevent the gigantic transfers of wealth, which is similar to the estate tax today. I'd select a limit case - say $10 million/person - that a person could pass on to anyone they wanted (not just their kids), and then tax the rest at 90%. In this case, your ranchers could pass up to $20 million (for a couple) worth of the ranch without taxes. I'd even go so far as to agree to a higher limit like $50 million/person if the associated tax was also higher like 99%.

 

 

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?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

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

 

As for post #31, yes, we should break the chain of inherited wealth, whether that's a rancher or a banker should make no difference. Why should someone get millions or billions of dollars having done nothing to earn it?

 

As for my solution, it would be to allow small (relatively speaking) transfers of wealth but just prevent the gigantic transfers of wealth, which is similar to the estate tax today. I'd select a limit case - say $10 million/person - that a person could pass on to anyone they wanted (not just their kids), and then tax the rest at 90%. In this case, your ranchers could pass up to $20 million (for a couple) worth of the ranch without taxes. I'd even go so far as to agree to a higher limit like $50 million/person if the associated tax was also higher like 99%.

 

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.

[JJ Husker]

 

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

There's a lot of variations in how assets are taxed. In Nebraska for example, agricultural land is taxed at only 75% of its value.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

[JJ Husker]

 

Can I ask why $40M is the magic demarcation point?

It was intended to be a starting place for discussion. It seemed high enough to not affect most family businesses but low enough to actually generate tax revenue and reduce wealth not being spent for generations. I'm not attached to the number.

 

 

Okay. So it really is a sort of luxury tax for the rich and $40M was a high enough figure to help squash any opposition by people who have less than $40M to be concerned about.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Can somebody explain how real estate that has appreciated in value is deemed to have never been taxed?

 

When my home value increases, my real estate taxes increase accordingly. Those taxes are paid yearly. How would it be different on a business, farm or ranch? Am I missing something here?

There's a lot of variations in how assets are taxed. In Nebraska for example, agricultural land is taxed at only 75% of its value.

 

 

Yeah, I understand land and real estate is often taxed based on assessed values, adjusted in various ways, maybe capped at a percent of value, and then often times their will be many mill levies involved for various taxing entities....but it is a yearly tax.

 

That brings up the question, why at only 75% of value?

I'm not proposing it go to 100% of value but it seems that 75% of value cap was arrived at for some reason. That you mentioned it, makes me think you want to override that limit.

 

I guess I'm not seeing why an inheritance situation should override the taxing mechanisms already in place. Seems like at that point in time you want to somehow make the state "whole" and get every dime you can out of the deal even though apparently the limits etc. are fine before it is left to heirs. I'm trying to understand why. Is it just an opportune time to grab more tax $$'s?

 

I was pointing out that the government isn't necessarily double or triple taxing as knapplc suggested. I don't think the number of times you get taxed is a persuasive argument, as I'd rather get taxed at 10% twice than 20% once, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up as I don't really care whether the estate tax is taxing the same assets or not.

 

Why the strawman that I want to override the 75% limit? I don't know enough about the Nebraska agricultural land tax situation to have an opinion either way.

 

I'm not attempting to override or "make whole" any other tax.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Can I ask why $40M is the magic demarcation point?

It was intended to be a starting place for discussion. It seemed high enough to not affect most family businesses but low enough to actually generate tax revenue and reduce wealth not being spent for generations. I'm not attached to the number.

 

 

Okay. So it really is a sort of luxury tax for the rich and $40M was a high enough figure to help squash any opposition by people who have less than $40M to be concerned about.

 

That's not how I'd characterize it, but if that's how you want to take it, then fine.

 

Let me switch it around to pose the two questions that I think the estate tax helps answer: How do you propose we limit/reverse the current massive wealth inequality? How do we tax to both raise enough money for the nation and not burden those with less?

[JJ Husker]

 

I want to comment on this inheritance thing but I can't. There is such a ludicrous opinion on it in this thread that I can only shake my head. If you're coming for MY land, MY assets, MY life's work, to take it away from whomever I see fit to leave it to, you better be driving a tank and have some troops with you. The state has no claim whatsoever to what I have accumulated. It's already been earned and taxed, likely multiple times. The opinion that my heirs haven't done anything to deserve/earn it doesn't have one frikken thing to do with it. I'm sad, angry and distraught that there are people in this country that feel the state has any claim to it. If the belief is the state infrastructure helped me acquire it, then you better raise tax levels now to cover whatever it is you think I owe society because you're going to have the fight of your life if you try to collect it later. Lunacy.

Except that it has NOT been taxed. Only the income has been taxed.

 

And we're not talking about taking what is yours. We're talking about how your assets should be distributed when you're gone.

 

And part of what you're paying for with that estate tax is protection from people with tanks coming to take your land.

 

 

 

Please explain the bolded.

 

For discussion sake, let's say I make $50,000 extra every year that I do not spend but rather I save it or invest it and want to leave it to my children when I pass.

I paid income tax on it when I earned it.

I paid income tax on the interest or dividends it earned.

Any capital gains will be taxed when it is sold or disposed of.

 

Please explain how it has not been taxed or why it needs to be taxed yet again.

Are you wanting to treat the inheritance transfer as a taxable sale type event?

And let's leave the $40M exclusion out of the explanation to prevent me from coming back with the same question using much larger numbers.

 

The biggest problem I have with this is YOU'RE talking about how to distribute MY assets when I'm gone.

What claim do you have to MY assets? Why do you get any say whatsoever? This is when this discussion starts to anger me.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help me out here. I don't understand how everyone pushing back against my position doesn't seem to see that were talking about the upper tens of millions to billions of dollars and not the lower amounts. I'm quite literally saying, "Pass on that $40 million to your heirs without paying a dime in tax." It's only amounts above this that would be taxed.

 

If I made the limit $100 million before any tax is applied, does that change any minds or make any difference?

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.