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

Originally posted by oper8zhin

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 outd 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.

edit on 17-11-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)

If anything...farmers are the working class. They help put food upon the table of those who do not grow, but yet contribute.

There should be a well thought out excemption to this particular tax.

Otherwise, we'll all pay in the long run. In the checkout line at the grocery store and eventually healthwise as more GMO Megafarms take over.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Then the posit that government is the people. The public's will is that of the government's law. We, the people, disdain the idea of feudal lords and insist our government write laws to prevent or curtail things we perceive to be associated with those concepts.

This is the seperation that you and I may have though, you seem to view the government and the people as totally seperate entities whereas I view them has co-dependant entities working for each other. Government is the collective efforts of the people. Are there flaws in government? Of course, so long as people are flawed then so too will their governments.

I think there's some good discussion to be had on the topic, but to say we should completely do away with one thing or the other simply because it adversely affects an individual is short-sighted in my opinion.

reply to post by oper8zhin


So only treating the middle class and poor fairly and screw those evil rich right?

In a country and a party that is suppose to be about equality smells of hypocrisy.

The fact the middle class and the poor take more out of a system than they ever return to it, the thing that millions of middle class used to create wealth has been demagogued and vilified that most evil Wall Street, money markets,mutual funds,stocks, and ever other investment vehicle that use to make American middle class millionaires.

Has been replaced by tax the evil rich by the income tax,property tax, and the death tax, the only way people are suppose to make money these days is from Government.

This country has gone stupid.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by oper8zhin

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 outd 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.

edit on 17-11-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)

If anything...farmers are the working class. They help put food upon the table of those who do not grow, but yet contribute.

Right, and my replies were in part to help you see that the Right and Conservatives do not represent you, but figured you may benefit from their logic which is silly to me but maybe helpful to you.

The Right wing and Conservatives are the LAST FOLKS IN THE UNIVERSE to represent the working class folks!!! Just listen to them talk and see what they want to pass!! Listen to the Dems and the left and HEAR them talk and what they want to pass and its CRYSTAL CLEAR who is on the side of ALL BUT THE SUPER WEALTHY.

Conservatives and the working class go together like OIL AND WATER!! Thats NOT a good pair in the least.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
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?

The thread is about farmers estate tax and passing it on their heirs. I don't know of any farmer who would pass his/her property to a lazy son or daughter. (I'm sure that some do exist though)

The way this tax code is written, NO small family farm will survive beyond two generations.

reply to post by oper8zhin


You're confusing conservatives with Republicans, just as many do with liberals and Democrats.

There are many paths between these four mindsats.

I believe in competition. Those who oppose me are to be treated in a fair and honest manner. If they don't treat me in the same respect...they are to be crushed.

Nothing is fair in this tax as to regards to the family farm. It's a death by a thousand cuts and they expect us to accept it because it's for the common good.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

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

My first reply to you was deleted due to the "Thumper rule". My apologies to the mods. I originally questioned why you did not take the time to research the law. I guess the way I phrased it the mods thought it was too personal. So my question to you is why have you not taken the time to look up the law yourself? It would appear all of us could use a little personal responsibility.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States by President George W. Bush. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes), but is more commonly referred to as one of the two "Bush tax cuts".

The Act made significant changes in several areas of the US Internal Revenue Code, including income tax rates, estate and gift tax exclusions, and qualified and retirement plan rules. In general, the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement and qualified plan rules such as for Individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans, 403(b), and pension plans. The changes were so large and numerous that many books and analysis papers were published regarding the changes and how to best take advantage of them. All the 2001 tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010 when Congress extended them

Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

A report published by researchers with the Heritage Foundation predicted the cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.[2] In the eyes of one economist[3] the cuts resulted in a massive explosion in the U.S. national debt and recorded deficits every year since its inception.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
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?

The thread is about farmers estate tax and passing it on their heirs. I don't know of any farmer who would pass his/her property to a lazy son or daughter. (I'm sure that some do exist though)

The way this tax code is written, NO small family farm will survive beyond two generations.

I know what the thread is about. My question relates to the statement you made about "Many just expect that things be given/inherited to them"

Originally posted by TDawgRex




Dad warned me in no uncertain terms, trust no one...not even family. Does he know something I don't?

Hes right.

Ive seen too many times money, get in the way of family loyalty.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

This is the seperation that you and I may have though, you seem to view the government and the people as totally seperate entities whereas I view them has co-dependant entities working for each other. Government is the collective efforts of the people. Are there flaws in government? Of course, so long as people are flawed then so too will their governments.

Well, this is turning into an interesting discussion.

We do disagree on the premise of the Government, in it's current form, being by and for the people. Indeed. To illustrate my point, I'd ask you how representative you felt the Government was to your beliefs and values after the power changes or affirmations of 2000 and 2004? I'm willing to bet full and fair representation of your concerns and desires weren't how you'd describe that 8 years. That is not to hash out election politics, but simply to note that how representative the Government seems to be to any one person can change by a few events.....while the enormous beast that is the U.S. Federal Government changes some, but very little in the long term. Presidents come and go...the system is everlasting (Or so they'd have it believed).

In this case, you also make another good point and it leaves me in a bit of a pickle to be honest. My argument is based on the premise that the whole tax represents Double (or..far more more than just a second) taxation of the same money once earned. You raise the issue of compromise and not being radical to NO tax or the crushing 50% + tax rates this looks to be returning to.

Maybe you've hit the core issue of where both sides ARE wrong on this topic and others. Simply staking the extreme sides means it's a GREAT fight ....but never likely to lead to any solution. Heck...maybe the topics are actually secondary to THAT problem, which sits at the heart of everything these days.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

I know what the thread is about. My question relates to the statement you made about "Many just expect that things be given/inherited to them"

Don't you know people who think, "It's not fair! Why should my sister/brother recieve the majority of the inheritance?"

All without questioning why they did not?

If their own parents percieved them as lazy, why should they recieve said inheritance?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit,
You and I disagree on a lot but we disagree in a good way. As for the first decade I was extremely apathetic. I had bigger things to worry about wearing combat boots than what the government was doing.

There is something that I just thought about and wanted to share. I have spent many years living in a VERY [color=dodgerblue]BLUE state. I now have spent many years living in a VERY RED state. I gotta tell you, that there were MANY MANY successful farmers doing very well in the BLUE state that I used to live. In the RED state that I live now, these farmers that I know have either SOLD OFF all their land and tractors/equipment or are living paycheck to paycheck with all their children chipping in to pay.

The farmers up in the Blue state are STILL doing very well. They are not profiting AS WELL in the last few years, but they are STILL making excellent profits and enjoying a GREAT LIVING as I keep in touch with them for the line of work that I do. Now I used to be fairly Conservative until SEEING FIRST HAND THESE TWO IDEOLOGIES IN PLAY!!!!

I have first hand experience living in both "UTOPIAS" and the Conservative thinking only benefits the SUPER WEALTHY. PERIOD!! Their ideology is meant to make you think it is right for you if you give it your all, and give it your all 100% of the time, but it BURIES you soon enough and then KICKS you when you are DOWN. 100% HONEST I have SEEN both "UTOPIAS" and that is why I hate the Conservative ideology. The ideology that I at one time had preferred UNTIL I SEEN BOTH IN ACTION for several years first-hand!!

Conservatives do NOT represent the working class, period!!!!! NO. NOPE, NO WAY, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

reply to post by FreebirdGirl



What was the tax policy in 2001? The act you just addressed was in response to the tax policy that already existed in 2001.

reply to post by oper8zhin


My family, and those that farm are living in a "Blue State" and are struggling.

I just got off the phone (because of this thread) with my cousin and he states that things seem to be turning around, but he is still worried to death about the renewed "Death Tax."

He is seeing no way around it.

I used to be quite the Liberal, but am now a Conservative...because I lived both worlds, I see one as a model for failure, and the the other that does reward hard work and initaitive.

One is based upon rational thought and reality, the other is based upon emotions, and hope that things will work out for the better.

reply to post by TDawgRex


I haven't read the whole thread, but I know there are ways around this tax. My in-laws own a small ranch with about 100 acres. They have already met with a tax attorney, and he has told them how to get around it. I don't know the details, but it involves moving the ownership of the land over to the three sons now, while my in-laws are still living there. It's set up so that my in-laws are in essence "renting" the land from their sons, and continue working their cattle. Part of the money they make off the cattle is "paid" to the sons, who own the land (not really paid to the sons, but it goes to pay for property tax, etc.). Like I said, I don't know exactly how it works, but the tax attorney is setting it all up, so it's totally legal.

My in-laws are doing this primarily because this land has been in the family for many generations, so it's more for sentimental reasons than anything. None of the sons wants to work cattle, but they want to keep the land in the family.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

My in-laws are doing this primarily because this land has been in the family for many generations, so it's more for sentimental reasons than anything. None of the sons wants to work cattle, but they want to keep the land in the family.

As I see it, once they are In-Laws, they are family.

And they sound like honest folk. Do thay want to do something else with the land?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

What was the tax policy in 2001? The act you just addressed was in response to the tax policy that already existed in 2001.

The tax policy that was enacted reduced the tax the already existed. It was a tax cut. You do realize while we have this discussion I am not for tax.

Disclaimer: I have to admit I haven't followed the complete thread only the first couple of pages.

Many years ago, before the estate tax exemption was increased to $1 million, here's what happened to my wife's family. The family business belonged to dad having bought out grandad a few years earlier. The farm land passed from grandad & grandma (who each had inherited several farms) to dad and his sister (who both owned farms as well). Dad died within a year after having sold the family business 2 weeks before his retirement. All the estates collapsed on mom, my wife, and her 2 brothers before any of the probate was settled for grandma and dad. Bottom line was the estate tax based on the value of the farmland that had passed through two different estates was going to bankrupt the three adult kids. There was no problem for mom because of the spousal exemption and the family had been in the life insurance business. Fortunately for the kids, mom also owned farmland which was managed by one of the brothers so the family consulted an estate tax attorney and found that if they consolidated the farms as a family business and operated for 10 years, they would avoid all the estate tax on the land.

Farmers and other folks with tracts of real estate that's been handed down or acquired many decades prior have a real potential to be hit hard by estate tax - but there have been provisions and probably still are to reduce those liabilities. Is anyone here a tax code expert?

Owners of Corporations or majority shareholders - the guys with REAL MONEY (Ross Perot, Bill Gates) - they build "foundations" and stash all the assets in them. Other high income folks establish "trusts" and minimize their tax liabilities by consulting a professional estate planner or lawyer.

The other 90% of us non-land baron/farmers will never have enough assets to worry about estate tax.

ganjoa

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but I know there are ways around this tax. My in-laws own a small ranch with about 100 acres. They have already met with a tax attorney, and he has told them how to get around it. I don't know the details, but it involves moving the ownership of the land over to the three sons now, while my in-laws are still living there. It's set up so that my in-laws are in essence "renting" the land from their sons, and continue working their cattle. Part of the money they make off the cattle is "paid" to the sons, who own the land (not really paid to the sons, but it goes to pay for property tax, etc.). Like I said, I don't know exactly how it works, but the tax attorney is setting it all up, so it's totally legal.

My in-laws are doing this primarily because this land has been in the family for many generations, so it's more for sentimental reasons than anything. None of the sons wants to work cattle, but they want to keep the land in the family.

Actually it was discussed around the second page. I don't understand why it is not being adressed further. With all the energy we have devoted to this thread we could have an answer by now. So this time I will scream my question.

WHY CAN'T THE FARM INCORPORATE BEFORE THE PERSON DIES TO AVOID THE TAX.?

Golf66 pg 2
"You can and should form a corporation; however, even so there are many types and a sole proprietorship is basically personal property as far as a will is concerned. To be completely free from the death tax the company would have to have a public offering and most family farms are too small for that. Even then the value of a person’s shares would be “taxed”.

I have incorporated (a partnership with my wife) but own the land (because my house is on it). That way, if my business should fail my personal assets are not attachable and while I might lose the equipment and the cows I won’t lose the land.

I rent the land and the buildings (and some of the equipment) from myself.."

This is what we should have been debating instead of complaining. I'm starting to think of that Godsmack song.