Posted on 11/24/2012 6:59:49 AM PST by Lorianne
You're missing the point.
The lifetime unified gift and estate tax credit is only good up the amount equal to the estate tax exemption. Right now, there is a 5 million dollar estate tax exemption and anything above that is taxed at 35 percent. But on January 1st, the exemption will go down to 1 million dollars and the tax rate will go up to 55 percent.
Thus the unified gift and estate tax credit will not save the theoretical farmer in this article, or anybody else who dies with a million dollars, from this increase in private property confiscation.
Yes, they are, but that is what the majority that voted, voted for. Not only that, they are going to make it impossible to own your, farm, business, or home. When obama gets through, all of those will belong to the government.
Not missing any point.
Only responded to the erroneous post stating $13,000 a year limit.
Share the wealth Baby!
Okay good.
So then you fully understand that the unified gift and estate tax credit will not save the theoretical farmer in this article, or anybody else who dies with a million dollars, from this increase in private property confiscation.
And you fully understand that gifting does not avoid having to pay death taxes above and beyond estate tax exemption limits as some on this thread have "erroneously" suggested .
I fully understand you have a problem.
In a nutshell, regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to believe about Congress's Section 8 powers, given that Section 8 doesn't say anything about family issues like inheritance, or anything else pertaining to families including healthcare, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues.
But more importantly, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified in general that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially anything that it cannot justify under Section 8.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Again, since you will not find any clause in Section 8 that reasonably addresses inheritance issues, inheritance is automatically a 10th Amendment proctected state power issue. Congress is therefore not authorized to make laws regulating inheritance, incuding establishing inheritance taxes, any more than it can make laws which regulate our 1st Amendment protected rights.
The bottom line question is this. Who is the real enemy to our constitutional republic, corrupt Congress, or voters who don't know about Congress's Section 8-limited powers? "Patriots" can sleep in the bed of ignorance of Congress's Section 8-limited powers that they have made for themselves.
I fully see that you are both dumb and rude.
Great talking to you.
Please feel free to pester someone else. Your sanctimonious comments were unwelcome, unnecessary, and intrusive.
You're the one who pinged me.
And then you're one one who said this...
I fully understand you have a problem.
And that's after I said "okay good", meaning that we agree.
But whatever floats your boat.
The suck state MN alreadys has the 1M limit and hi tax rate over that, and I am dealing with it.
You can't keep a capitalist down, all you can do is shift his/her focus from one place to another. If America wants to turn into a giant "bedroom community" then I know plenty of other folks around he world who are interested in being industrious (and living richer lives).
Please take the following chill pills sport, and quit spooking yourself.
First, using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Thomas Jefferson had clarified the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause (1.8.3) powers.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
And since you mentioned farms, please consider the following. When Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR first got into office in the 1930s, Constituton-respecting justices found some of his New Deal federal spending programs unconstitutonal, the United States v. Butler case dealing with agriculture being one example.
In fact, reflecting on Jefferson's clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, here is an excerpt from Butler where justices clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment, that Congress has no Section 8 authority to stick its big nose into intrastate agriculture.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
The reason that the Supreme Court now interprets Congress's Section 8-limited powers in Congress's favor is the following. Child-minded FDR had decided to get revenge on the Supreme Court for throwing out some of his New Deal programs. And regardless that he initially made of fool of himself trying to get Congress to stack the Court with additional justices, FDR was reelected enough times that he was eventually able to establish an activist justice majority who saw things his way.
In fact, when another agriculture-related case like Butler came along years later, FDR's justices seized the opportunity to essentially sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet. Ignoring what Butler justices had clarified about agriculture and the 10th Amendment, and also ignoring Jefferson's clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10A after FDR's activist justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood (emphasis added). Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's puppet justices had reduced 10A to a wives' tale imo.
The bottom line concerning restoring the constitutional republic is this. Patriots need to wise up to Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers and start using their voting muscle to force corrupt Congress back into its Section 8-limited power cage.
Finally, bear in mind that you're probaby not going to hear any of this from Fx News. I'm convinced that Section 8-ignoring Fx News is a part of the Left's propaganda machine.
Stupid little Geico Gecko. Looters like Buffet are as much to blame for the coming collapse as the moochers.
The collectivization of agriculture.
Steal from the red states to give alms to the blue states.
This is what it has come to folks.
That's what my parents did, and it's worth every penny.
I'm going to start pushing them to check with the attorney for updates regarding new laws; I'd like to suggest you do the same.
Want some more buffett at the buffet? Buffett owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, and “hosts” major amtrak routes-—that is to say amtrak has to rent the rail lines from them, at significant cost because freight has priority over passenger.
Amtrak being all stock held by US gov. this means US gov pays BNSF for the rail lines— so buffett is like a defense contractor.
Cannot stand this bs artist. Ivan Boesky was at least a fully admitted pirate. Nothing buffett does is really brilliant-he sits on the boards of the companies he trades... sweet cook up of the books.
That unjust law will eventually impoverish all of us. The more the government prints unbacked money to stimulate the economy, the more worthless the dollar becomes. We will become inflationary millionaires and then the government will rape us.
With the real estate in a family limited partnership or LLC? It’s not that hard to avoid it.
Same old but good advice...Plam ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.