• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The "Death Tax" --Tax Break to the Wealthiest Amer

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
TSR
Another thing, those that did pay how many went broke?? What %??

87% of small businesses ,Family farms, and Ranches effected by the tax "FAILED"


I am well educated on the tax......I am directly involved in a small business that sits on a worthless piece of land....that is Assessed at an excessive price....the cost of the legal battle to fight just the assessment is taking a toll....I've had to pay experts....solicit plans,...reports....and all just to prove the "goverments" value is wrong if I die in the porcess, the business is gone......then someday after the lawyers finish fighting.....and the IRS has had the proceeds for years......my child will prevail.....

in the mean time....the business will fail....my estate would be broke.....for what so someone could punish the rich?

the rich don't pay this tax......89% of it comes from businesses, ranches ans farms from estates...

look across the field or pasture of a successful Ranch or farm.....look in thier Machine shed...add in the cattle....stock...everything....even the contents of the ranch house,.......take you highest estimate at what it's worth.....thats what the IRS does......now tax it out of existance......then support the TAX

all the while CORPORATIONS NEVER DIE,....so are completly exempt......I want a fair tax.....every forty years......assess them , tax them rip them apart.....and see how many corporations are left in this country......

Since you are well educated on this matter--- Again, 87%of what number???? Ex: 87% of 10 or 20 or 10,000???
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Econ101 said:
I am coming to the conclusion that no discusion will work on the estate tax. Since the other 75% of the people outvote the top 25%, the tax should stand as is.

It just depends on whether you'd like to see America remain somewhat "as it is", or see family-owned farms, ranches, and businesses get sold out to corporations and developers.

If the environmentalists were only smart enough to realize it, their best friends are these family-owned farms and ranches. When land gets purchased by developers, it gets paved over and is no longer habitat for wildlife. Asphalt and cement aren't very fertile for producing food, either. Maybe when hunger sets in, people will wise up. A person never gets thirsty until the well goes dry, but then it is often too late.

A few further thoughts on the subject came up, as the veterinarian and I were visiting while we bangs vaccinated heifer calves yesterday.

The government is always trying to provide "help" to young people who wish to become involved in agriculture. This "help" comes in many forms, such as education, low interest loans, and even flat-out "free" grant money. A better idea would be for the government to just allow the young people who are already involved in agriculture to get to stay there, without making them sell out just to pay inheritance tax.

This concept would be much more beneficial. The young folks that are already established on farms, ranches, and businesses already have useful knowledge that gets thrown by the wayside when they are sold out. A continuous flow from established productivity would go on uninterrupted. But, alas (sigh), then the government wouldn't get to be the hero. Many bureaucrats wouldn't have job justification, because after all, their duty is to take money from one entity and give to another, siphoning off a major portion as "administrative costs".
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
No, Steve, an exemption for 5 million would be enough to cover the small businesses and the family farmers/ranchers. Anthything over that and they don't fall in the small category anymore.

But thats not what the law is.....or will be in the future......"For Estate Tax Purposes in years 2006, 2007 and 2008 the Unified Credit is $780,800 and the Applicable Exclusion Amount is $2,000,000."
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98968,00.html

how can you debate about something you know so little about?



as for the 75% over-riding the 25% Maybe you could show some proof of that, every poll or survey I have read shows overwhelming support for killing the Death Tax......

Steve, I know the exclusions, the loopholes, and the estate planning tools used by the lawyers and insurance companies that was noted before.

As inflation continues over time, as cowpuncher pointed out, the real value of hard assets increase with no indexing of the exclusion. It is the same problem that the minimum wage has. These are good points that need to be addressed when looking at the estate tax. So is the dichotomy between asset values and asset values based on income.

I am also intimately familiar with the leverage effects of real and nominal rates of inflation have on asset values when based on the income approach to evaluating taxable values. One of the reasons we are so out of whack is the subsidized interest rates we have today--subsidized by the Chinese through a manipulated currency--that is undermining the structure of our economy.

One of you mentioned that 87% of small businesses fail after the estate tax. You fail to mention these often cited (I am not vouching for these numbers) numbers for small business altogether:

Why Small Businesses Fail

Starting a small business is always risky, and the chance of success is slim. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50 percent of small businesses fail in the first year and 95 percent fail within the first five years.

In his book Small Business Management, Michael Ames gives the following reasons for small business failure:

1. Lack of experience
2. Insufficient capital (money)
3. Poor location
4. Poor inventory management
5. Over-investment in fixed assets
6. Poor credit arrangements
7. Personal use of business funds
8. Unexpected growth
9. Competition
10. Low sales


Underestimating the difficulty of starting a business is one of the biggest obstacles entrepreneurs face. However, success can be yours if you are patient, willing to work hard, and take all the necessary steps.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Underestimating the difficulty of starting a business is one of the biggest obstacles entrepreneurs face. However, success can be yours if you are patient, willing to work hard, and take all the necessary steps.

and your not forced to pay a TAX to start the business........

I only looked at the presented fact..."that 87% of the small businesses, Farms and Ranches effected by the tax fail".......while.many things cause a small business to fail,.......would any business exist if we were forced to pay 50% of our assets to the goverment "before" we ever started a business?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Underestimating the difficulty of starting a business is one of the biggest obstacles entrepreneurs face. However, success can be yours if you are patient, willing to work hard, and take all the necessary steps.

and your not forced to pay a TAX to start the business........

I only looked at the presented fact..."that 87% of the small businesses, Farms and Ranches effected by the tax fail".......while.many things cause a small business to fail,.......would any business exist if we were forced to pay 50% of our assets to the goverment "before" we ever started a business?


So now your griping about the inheritance. Geeeeze. Maybe we need a tax rebate when we die for our heirs' benefit. Most businesses start without the help of a relative giving them money at death.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Perhaps we can give a subsidy to those people who inherit money to ensure that their businesses are successful? :shock: :shock: :shock:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Perhaps we can give a subsidy to those people who inherit money to ensure that their businesses are successful? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Might as well, we already subsidies all those that doen't pay taxes. Might as well give some money back to people that pay it in instead of just giving it to those that do not pay their fair share.

But then again you Marxist will never grasp the side of fairness.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Econ101 said:
Perhaps we can give a subsidy to those people who inherit money to ensure that their businesses are successful? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Might as well, we already subsidies all those that doen't pay taxes. Might as well give some money back to people that pay it in instead of just giving it to those that do not pay their fair share.

But then again you Marxist will never grasp the side of fairness.

You fascists don't realize that marxism and its allure to the masses was the result of societies that went too far to the right. This was surely the case of China and the rise of marxism under the Soviet monarchy model where wealth was concentrated by the aristocracy.

I don't support marxism in any form and your characterization of anything to the left of your far right fascist view is marxism smacks of extremism.

If you can not argue the merits of your case without these labels, maybe your points are not good enough.

Might as well, we already subsidies all those that doen't pay taxes. Might as well give some money back to people that pay it in instead of just giving it to those that do not pay their fair share.

The fact is that more of the job production in the U.S. has led to more of these type of jobs where people are not paid enough to exist in society. Walmart has had a specific law and lawsuit in Maryland regarding its workers not having the resources to afford healthcare and the state having to pick up those costs There have been other acts by other state legislatures to address this problem. It is a shame that states have to address the problems the federal government has created.

This problem is a result of allowing labor to be arbitraged to the lowest common denominator in the world--Chinese and orient labor. Sure people have jobs, but the jobs don't pay enough to meet the minimum standards in our society. Communist china has much lower standards as it relates to freedoms, liberty, and benefits society brings.

I am all for an economy that can produce jobs that actually pay well enough to live on, not some min. wage job that fills employment rolls but little else.

These problems are in part a result of trading with communist china and having no minimum standards for the labor that produced the goods.
 

Latest posts

Top