Estate-tax debate affects only very rich

Pioneer Press ^ | HANK SHAW

[Desdemona]

That's 300 acres, so at $10K/acre it will take 300 years to make the transfer.

1. That's only if it's one heir. With several.... Many people out there have more than one heir.

2. Just enough to get under the limit. It is possible.

[yoe]

I believe anything over $600,000 is taxable. With today's real estate prices, automobiles, paintings, anything of value is passed onto the heirs who must pay the tax. It doesn't take a farm and equipment, or other land to add up, the ordinary homeowner leaves a lot. Death taxes simply should not be an option it is theft.

The taxes collected have been taxed repeatedly each year in various ways. To tax once more at the death of a person is unconscionable and there is no question the practice should be stopped. It is not just the "wealthy" it is everyone whose life was successful enough to leave something to their heirs be it stock, land, jewelry or anything of value...the federal government and politicians have no right to this, it is stealing/theft plain and simple!

[wjcsux]

Estate tax = a Socialist re-distribution of wealth.

[Anoy11_]

10% isn't socialist but 11% is?

[Night Hides Not]

That's 300 acres, so at $10K/acre it will take 300 years to make the transfer.

This guy needs to talk to an estate lawyer. With the different vehicles (family limited partnerships, discounts for lack of marketability) out there, I'd be willing to bet that they can legally avoid paying estate tax entirely.

If the owner has the foresight to die in 2009, there will be no estate tax anyway. ;^)

[discostu]

I don't care if it only affects 1 person in the whole country. Estate taxes are wrong, they already taxed the income once, they shouldn't get another slice just because that person died.

[Willie Green]

Federal and state governments already own over 40% of the land in this country. Continuation of the estate tax will guarantee that proportion will grow.

Rather than elimination of the estate tax, why not a referendum mandating disposal of public lands? Perhaps setting a "cap" of 20~25% on public ownership (allowing some for legitimate use for public parks, nature reserves, etc. etc.).

20~25% too high/low? Suggest a percentage that you think reasonable.
Please don't insist on 0%. That would be extremist and absurd.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Rather than elimination of the estate tax, why not a referendum mandating disposal of public lands?

Better yet, why not both?

Why should the government be ANYONE'S primary heir, regardless of whether they are "rich" or not?

[Lady Heron]

My family is not rich. We are going to loose our farm that has been in the family a long time when my grandmother dies because of this tax. We have worried over how we could manage to keep the land because it was my grandfathers dream for us to keep it. It won't happen. The democraps taxes will have stolen it from us. This and Christian values could be why so many in the south are becoming republicans.

[Desdemona]

Is there a law that says you have to sell property at market value? If not, your grandmother can sell the farm to her heirs at a bargin basement price and you will lose nothing. It just won't be passed on at death.

[Willie Green]

Why should the government be ANYONE'S primary heir, regardless of whether they are "rich" or not?

To prevent the hereditary economic stratification and stagnation described by Jefferson.
To keep the American Dream alive, turning the ladder of economic success into an vibrant escalator that travels both up and down based upon individual merit, rather than an ill-maintained structure fraught with broken rungs.

[FITZ]

Kennedys are a good example of inherited wealth and how much good it does our society.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

To prevent the hereditary economic stratification and stagnation described by Jefferson.

You do realize that most American millionaires/billionaires are first generation millionaires/billionaires, don't you? Inherited wealth dissipates after a few generations. No need for a stratified, bureaucratic government to step in.

Government can give you nothing that it does not first take away, Willie Boy. I guess, like all Bolsheviks, you don't mind government taking away as long as it is from somebody else to give to you.

[Lady Heron]

My grandmother and father have gone over the laws every year with a lawyer. I think the goverment will do their own assesment of the land at the sell. I have not been in on the disscussions. I just know it does not look good because we have someone farm the land for us.

[Willie Green]

Inherited wealth dissipates after a few generations. No need for a stratified, bureaucratic government to step in.

Tell it to the Rockefellers/Kennedys.

[FreedomPoster]

If the owner has the foresight to die in 2009, there will be no estate tax anyway. ;^)

My wife is a CPA and does a lot of estate transfer and planning work. This one just cracks them up, in a shaking-your-head-at-the-idiocy sort of way. It really doesn't do much for the citizenry.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Tell it to the Rockefellers/Kennedys.

So you want to turn America into a Bolshevik paradise because you hate the Rockefellers and Kennedys?

That's just great. I sure am glad you're just a bitter nobody.

[Protagoras]

To prevent the hereditary economic stratification and stagnation described by Jefferson.

Invoking communism in the name of Jefferson.

[Protagoras]

So you want to turn America into a Bolshevik paradise because you hate the Rockefellers and Kennedys?

The politics of envy serves some on the right as well as the left.

[FreedomPoster]

Huge concentrations take a few generations to fritter away. For instance, John Jr.'s generation is only 2 generations away from "the Old Man" himself, Joe Kennedy. Do you think that generation controls anywhere near the concentration of wealth the old Joe Kennedy controlled at his peak?

A fool and his money are soon parted. We don't need the government's help, no matter what Jefferson thought.