Ranchers, farmers brace for 'death tax' impact (Should be titled, The Death of the private farmer)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I went through that truth in life as well. But they are family. I have given thousands of dollars over my life as has the family to me. I don't expect the money back, some of my family does though.

Something about my Dads warning though sounded dark and ominious. I heard fear in his voice...which I have never heard before in my life.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Good point and that is where I am after the last try at helping when I couldn't really afford to do it myself. It hurt..badly..to give that loan which is why it needed paid back. Our own ability to pay bills came into question...and their endless reasoning why their movie nights and mini-vacations mattered more nearly ended the relations. So, indeed. From now on it's a 100% gift when we have no problems handing it out as pure surplus to our own needs..or... hell, Sorry, can't help.

The way you put this sure sounds interesting for what he may have meant...if you figure it out and it's more than the obvious, please do share. Perhaps something in law or regs we've missed and he didn't? Something he thinks is next?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by sonnny1

 

The farmers I know are pretty much divided. The ones on subsidies always vote liberal, and the ones struggling always vote conservative.

Farm Counties Topping Subsidy List Backed Romney: BGOV Barometer

Mitt Romney was the overwhelming choice of voters in counties that receive the biggest federal farm subsidy payments, even as the Republican presidential candidate campaigned against dependence on government.

The BGOV Barometer shows nine of the 10 counties collecting the most in farm subsidies last year backed Romney, with Stoddard County, a rice, corn and cotton producer in southeast Missouri, voting for the Republican over President Barack Obama by the biggest margin, almost three-to-one. Farmers there got $13.5 million in farm subsidies in 2011, ranking seventh on the list.

Nine of the 10 U.S. counties receiving the most federal farm subsidies supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

“Farmers vote Republican but they like Democratic programs,” said former Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas, who served as the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee while in office and is now a lobbyist. “They consider themselves to be conservative, and if something is important to them, then they don’t consider that liberal.”

www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

I support abolition of all income taxation which means,and includes federal income tax,property taxes, and the death tax.

None should exist.

edit on 17-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Something I AGREE WITH coming from you!!

Never thought i'd see this day!! If I drank, I would throw a party right now.

reply to post by oper8zhin


I do appreciate that your trying to "help". But yelling at me (the bold thing) does not help. I get what you are trying to say.

I didn't vote for either of the two parties...but that is off topic.

This tax affects me and my family, (I'm not a farmer, but I do help out where and when I can). There have been droughts where crops have failed. That is not due to laziness, that is nature. And those periods do have a effect on the financial bottom line. So they sold acreage to hold the family over.

But now I am looking at this renewed Death Tax as the new drought that will push the family farm out of business.

People keep looking at the family farm as nothing more than feeding themselves. It's much more than that. It's a small business, with acreage...which is taxed beyond what it produces. Just because it's acreage.

This smacks more of Agenda 21 than anything else.

reply to post by roadgravel



Farmer's vote Republican because they are one of the most over regulated industries in the nation. Additionally they face burdensome taxes. They take subsidies out of desperation to stay afloat, but they would rather not be in the position to need subsidies. The liberal polices love to force people into government dependency. Funny how that works, and obvious to those who have a clue.

Originally posted by links234

If you're running a business and you can't afford to pay for that business...then you're in the wrong business.

But the taxes are on the property, not on what that property produces (which are taxed as well).

No one can keep up with that.

We're talking about farming...not a hardware store.

reply to post by oper8zhin


Apparently you don't agree as per those earlier posts to turn this into a partisan issue.

Income taxation,death tax are nothing but political wedge issues for votes to keep an maintain power in Washington.

A house divided is a controlled house, and some gladly let themselves be controlled.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I fundamentally disagree with the idea of perpetual wealth within families. Consevatives should too. If I set my children up so that they don't have to work a day in their life...then what kind of people will they be? What kind of respect for themselves and others will they have?

reply to post by TDawgRex


Then you're missing the point. You're focusing on farms where this tax is general and meant for everything from hotel chain empires to the local land magnate. If your children are forced to sell the property but at some point later are successful enough to buy it back then they've earned it more than can be quantified.

Your arguments seems to boil down to 'self-reliance for the poor, but not for me and mine.'

reply to post by links234


Yes let's destroy the family farm because you don't like inheritance. Now there is some great logic. I just love having huge agr-businesses like Monsanto produce my food instead. Yum yum eat your GMO's.

Sounds like the position of a useful idiot.

How you vote has consequences.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Farmer's vote Republican because they are one of the most over regulated industries in the nation. Additionally they face burdensome taxes. They take subsidies out of desperation to stay afloat, but they would rather not be in the position to need subsidies. The liberal polices love to force people into government dependency. Funny how that works, and obvious to those who have a clue.

Not all farmers vote Repub. I know a few "Gentlemen Farmers" who are paid NOT to grow crops. That is why they bought the property in the first place.

They have other jobs as well.

What the Government pays them not to grow, goes right back to pay off the property tax. What a scam!

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

For a progressive you sure do cling to the bad policies of the past. Those policies were gotten rid of for a reason. The property has already been taxed. This is double taxation.

Whoa I had to calm down before I said something I would have regretted. What gives you the right to label me?
While you attempt to put a label on someone take a minute and read. The law was established in 2001. When the law was written in 2001 it was written that it would expire in 2010. It was extended in 2010 to last until 2013.
Read it again the policies were never "gotten rid of". The proverbial can was kicked down the road for whoever would be president in 2010. As far as the double taxation, one being federal while the other would be state, that I do not agree with. So we can agree on something.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now...If we could see with accuracy, who sits on which side of the above two questions vs. who holds what opinions on a thing like reinstating the Death Tax to levels that literally crush family lines of inheritance....I wonder what the correlation would show? I'll bet a pattern would emerge.

I can just state for a fact that people who have nothing and have made nothing for/of themselves are all about redistribution while those of us who have risked it all and come out ahead wish to keep what we have earned.

It is unfortunate that envy is such a strong emotion that people will consistently vote against their best interest perhaps not even understanding that when they do they limit their own future potential for success by insisting that everyone be entitled to food, shelter, clothing, a job, and healthcare (or whatever the gripe of the day is).

No one is entitled to anything I earned - period.

Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome.

reply to post by links234


Now you're getting into parenting skills. My Mom and Dad instilled in me that if I wanted something that the family couldn't afford, I had to earn myself...and live with the consequences.

These are lessons that are being taught rarely these days. Many just expect that things be given/inherited to them.

I remember back in High School when some kid would drive by in a 4X4 and my friends would say he was spoiled.

I would reply that that kid has been working on a farm in many capacities since he was six. He earned it. And from the people I knew back then, not only did they have their chores to do, they also had to keep their grades up.

reply to post by links234

I fundamentally disagree with the idea of perpetual wealth within families. Consevatives should too. If I set my children up so that they don't have to work a day in their life...then what kind of people will they be? What kind of respect for themselves and others will they have?

You make a fair point there. I can't say I disagree with it, in the narrow sense I'm taking it. That is to be the spoiling of children by the flooding of Wealth out of a family. Trust Fund Babys was the term I heard and used regarding those monied little brats when I knew them as kids at the same schools I attended. I came to deeply HATE the attitude and arrogance that came with money they didn't even lift a finger to earn themselves. Daddy may have been a brain surgeon or JPL genius but Junior was a screw up and a D- loser with nothing but a family name to grab for the basis of the superior attitude. We agree very much on that point.

Where you and I go totally different directions is where the Government has the place or ANY right to determine themselves as the arbiter of right and wrong for the handling of wealth within families at any level, of any kind. Least of all by manipulation of the tax code.

It's also very fair to point out that the whiny little trust fund babies were the minority of the "monied" kids I grew up around (My father was a Cop...I never got the "honor" of knowing wealth..just the "fun" of living in the middle of it). for every whiny punk with a fat wallet and a car Daddy bought him there were several who "had money" but were no better off than I was for actually enjoying any of it. Not ALL parents see what they earn as just a gimmie to the kids to party on.

It's also the people's right, not the Governments..in my opinion...to decide if they want to work hard to help build a better life for their children or...just say hell with everyone and give it all to charity at the end. Uncle Sam has no place, no business and NO right to even say Boo in that level of American citizen's lives. It's just THAT simple as a basic and fundamental issue of rights, IMO.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


The taxation policy the law addressed was most certainly NOT created in 2001.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

Apparently you don't agree as per those earlier posts to turn this into a partisan issue.

Income taxation,death tax are nothing but political wedge issues for votes to keep an maintain power in Washington.

A house divided is a controlled house, and some gladly let themselves be controlled.

SO, if I agree with SOME things from the Right, but not others, that means that I actually "dont agree" with what I said I agree on?? What kind of LOGIC is that one??

Look, there are things from the Right that I agree with HANDS DOWN!!! Then there are things on the Left that I agree with, HANDS DOWN.

I dont believe that our income should be taxed, NOR our property, NOR our death. BUT, I DO believe in a society that treats its middle class, poor, and working classes FAIRLY and allows SAFEGUARDS to be in place for when the chips are down for Americans.

And when the chips are down for the country as a WHOLE, I do not see it FAIR to ask the poor, middle class, and working classes to sacrifice MORE than that which they ALREADY DO to get the country going again!! So that means when America is in a bad rut, I believe that only those who CAN afford to help out should be asked to HELP the country get back on its feet. CUTS as well, but more importantly, things need to be CUT from those WHO HAVE IT.

I share ideology from both sides. Thats a lot more of an ideal place to be than that of the handful of Neo-Cons here who just wont budge from the most EXTREME of RIGHTIST ideology. I think for MYSELF, not for a PARTY...

reply to post by MsAphrodite


What are these taxes, other than what others pay?

In my state, agricultural usage nets a large property tax discount. And on top of that, large tracts of land are valued lower. Purchases for many materials used in production are tax exempt. Some other ag realated stuff is not subject to the business tax.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Many just expect that things be given/inherited to them.

Is that not what the estate tax does? It taxes you on inherited or gifted property. So you are against people who this tax would apply to? So why start a thread about estate tax?