Right. In so many cases you hear of, say, a family farm they have worked hard throughout their lives. Yes, the land has a value but they LIKE farming!! But then the last surviving parent dies and to even have the ABILITY to pay estate taxes the children MUST sell the farm AND try to find another way to make a living.

The great Milton Friedman said of "wealth" that it is an interesting phenomenon - humans by nature look out for their self-interest but we find MANY parents sacrifice throughout their lives to have something to pass along to their children. So they invest in ways to build a business or farm so they can leave that legacy to their children. So what will these change in the estate tax cause? It will cause a combination of spending the wealth on themselves before their death on non-assets (trips, clothes, etc.), giving money and assets to children while they are alive (so they won't be a part of estate taxes), and/or purchasing assets that cannot be tracked like gold, silver, etc. In the last example you will hear of safes full of precious metals that upon a death will be "cleaned out" before any lawyers get involved.

End result what it WON'T do is create an incentive for further investment which is what is necessary to grow an economy. An estate tax is the most DAMAGING aspect to an economy. It totally takes away the incentive to BUILD wealth if it will only be taken away. This estate tax is probably to most DAMAGING of all the Obama related taxes and will be directly related to a decreasing investment thus decreasing economic growth in our economy.

So, how is all that "Hopey Changey" thing working out for you now?

OK I'm a left of Al Sharpton liberal, but I say there should be *zero* estate tax. It amounts to double taxation and is unfair, and I don't stand to be subject to the tax under any circumstances.

Buffalo: Glad to hear you understand the negative effects of an estate tax. Yes, double-taxation but, more importantly, it takes away the incentive to try and GROW a family business if an untimely death simply forces the children to SELL a family business just to pay taxes AND now have to go find another job.

What assets are accrued DURING a lifetime should transfer to heirs upon death without tax so THEY can continue the family businesses and benefit from their parents/family hard work.

Hey buddy...neither you nor your family will ever pay an estate tax...get a grip

What assets are accrued DURING a lifetime should transfer to heirs upon death without tax so THEY can continue the family businesses and benefit from their parents/family hard work.

...and further improve the business. How else are we able to advance as individuals, as a country, if we cannot build on the wealth of our ancestors? In a liberal's world, even if the parents were the best doctors in town, the kids would have to start life as cavemen. Everyone would no matter family history. That way everyone would be equal.

Corporations never die so they never have this enormous burden. It just another policy that makes small businesses less able to compete. Democrats pull this stuff all the time claiming to be for the little guy. The fact is policies like the estate tax are exactly what has helped strengthen corporations over the years. Liberals may believe they are against Corporate America, but they are the ones who have created it.

If you REALLY believe in opportunity, make the estate tax 100%

Ha. Case in point. A liberal's idea of equality is setting people back.

America is the land of OPPORTUNITY

Yeah, and I'm not really sure how taxing the crap out of someone to set them back gives you any more of an opportunity. I wasn't aware that my freedom came from others taxes.

If your kids want to continue the farm or business,you, the owner, would have already transferred ownership to include the kids as owners. Bills have been introduced to allow kids to inherit the farm or business, and escape the estate tas as long as they continue the business for two years minimum. No Republican support for that. For years the Farmers Union has challenged any family farm to come forward with facts of how the farm had to be sold against the kids' wishes and no heirs/future farmers have spoken out. All these sad tales of the farm or business being sold because of the evil estate tax are funded by extremely wealthy corporate families.

Taxes like these are designed for the upper middle class people that have accumulated value, but do not have the resources to do sophisticated tax planning. This often hits people with non-liquid assets like farms.

On the other hand, the very wealthy can afford to hire armies of tax lawyers to find ways around the inheritance taxes. Do you really think the Kennedy's and the Rockefeller's pay these taxes? There are a variety of tools they can use to avoid them such as creating blind trusts and moving money into foundations staffed by friends and family members.

"then they get millions and millions of UN-WORKED for dollars"

But it's OK for the govt to confiscate those dollars to give to those who haven't worked for it.

Bottom line: If I earned it, it is mine to do with what I wish. Taxes were paid on the income/assets during my lifetime. Keep your hands off.

Finally, and really to the point, is all this talk about taxes is a joke. You could confiscate 100% of the income, etc. from the so-called rich and this country would still run a deficit. When is the real discussion going to take place, REAL spending cuts?

For all the people on this board who call for higher taxes, you've been clear about that. What are you willing to cut that affects you (can't say the military if you don't serve or work for a defense contractor, can't say the mortgage deduction if you don't own a home, etc.) What are YOU willing to give up since you are so willing to penalize others. OK big talkers, let's hear it. You're up to bat.

Amazing that most of you think people who have accumulated some money via hard work and investing should just turn it over for redistribution. As I age, if I cannot leave it to my sons and grandson, I will be spending a lot of it. Perhaps if some of you got off your a$$es you would think differently. What I have my husband and I have worked hard to accumulate. No inheritances. Pray tell why you and the idiotic wasteful governments should have it?

Perhaps farmers should incorporate and have a CEO that can retire and a new one hired. This way the farm can't be handed down and also can't be taken by the Gmen unless it is run into the ground via poor management.

If John Sr. earned the money and is taxed on it, and John Sr. gives this money to John Jr., JJ should pay tax as it is unearned income. What did JJ do to earn the money? Potentially nothing. How is this double taxation? Same thing as winning the lottery. Do you see people bitching about paying the taxes when they get lottery winnings (something for nothing)? No, they just plan to pay the Gmen their share.

We're not talking about the masses of people, we are talking about the very wealthy. Handing down land, and specifically farmland, is one thing and there should be some kind of exception. If you hand down a farm and no cash is available at all, what kind of job did the owner of the farm do? All companies need some level of cash on hand. Perhaps this should be enough to pay the tax and proper planning should have been the focus. If over a lifetime you get a couple of bad years of weather, that's the risk you take with farming.

I say tax the money and the non-land, non-farm equipment OR tax the farm and farm equipment at a much lower rate.

Wow....people supporting DOUBLE taxation. This class warfare is pathetic....

Just remember liberals...those numbers your politicians keep getting lower and lower...First Obama was after millionaires and billionaires....Now, he's after $200K and up....As the spending continues to bankrupt this country, the taxes will drop to lower and lower brackets.

Then, the liberals will be whining and whining. What they are going to do to the rich will eventually be done to you.

All companies need some level of cash on hand.

Yeah, but no company has 55% of it's value in cash or even close to that amount.

When government starts demanding more and more of its citizens' wealth, any citizen, it is time for a new government. What the governments in this country are really doing is enslaving citizens in order for those who control governments to use their slaves (citizens) to do the governments' bidding.

Slavery by proxy is still slavery. This is the reason conservatives like me detest government intrusion in our personal life.

We are getting closer and closer to many cliffs, not just a fiscal cliff.

For all the people on this board who call for higher taxes, you've been clear about that. What are you willing to cut that affects you (can't say the military if you don't serve or work for a defense contractor, can't say the mortgage deduction if you don't own a home, etc.) What are YOU willing to give up since you are so willing to penalize others.

OK big talkers, let's hear what you are willing to pay and sacrifice. You're up to bat...

Has anyone actually calculated the U.S. Federal Government spending as a % of GDP? It's around 22%. How much to other countries compare? I think you may be surprised if you did some research rather than just parroting "we have a spending problem"

Also federal spending is going down and not up. Have a look at http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If the link doesn't come through, it's www dot usdebtclock dot org.

Debt is going up, but Fed spending and deficit is going down.

Here's another cute thing you will notice on that website. The U.S. workforce is 143,793,794, but the U.S. taxpayers is 114,873,930. Does this mean there are about 30,000,000 people not paying taxes that are part of the non-farm workforce?

GERONIMO!!!!!!!!!! Last one off the fiscal cliff is a rotten Republican!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it will hurt. Yeah, money will be tight. It might even mean I'll have to delay my retirement again. But the END of the GOP will be worth it. If they allow the country to go off the fiscal cliff while they try to protect the wealthy then they will have committed political suicide and I say good riddance. The pain will be worth it if the Republican Party is marginalized into total impotence. Maybe then we can re-instate the Fairness Doctrine and get rid of FOX and Limbaugh, et al, as well.

GERONIMO!!!!!!!!!!

Forget all the "but the rich" comments - what is most important, and most confusing, is why the government (or you) believe you are ENTITLED to wealth earned by others? In any OTHER capacity that is called "theft". If I have a flat screen TV and you don't think I deserve that so you come take it that is "theft" but if the GOVERNMENT takes the assets from a family that is somehow acceptable because they don't "deserve it"?

What kind of warped world do we live in where a family takes their hard earned money, invests time and money (and sacrificing starting a family, buying a bigger home, taking vacations or even having days off, and risking their OWN life savings) to start a business and 40 years later because they were successful you think it appropriate to TAKE it from them upon their death so they can't give their families the fruits of their hard work?

How do you justify theft? How do you justify stealing a family's assets because one of the family members died? How can you go to sleep at night thinking that is acceptable?

Pro,

I respect your position, but the assets are not the family's assets, they are the assets of the rightful owner.

Think of families as tiers. The husband and wife are one as they create the wealth together (assuming we are not talking about women or men looking for sugar daddies or mommies). The passage of title should pass from her to him or vice-versa without any taxation as they did the work and had the gumph to create the wealth.

But when the title passes from parent to child, the child may not have done anything to earn that gift. Hence unearned income and taxed as such.

At the same time, we have to maintain a fabric of fairness. Here's an example. Let's say me a my close friend grow up together. We work equally hard at our jobs. His parents win the lottery and croak the next day. He gets the lottery earnings tax free. Is that fair? What did he do to earn the winnings without paying tax?

You see, it's about the perception of fairness, not fairness itself. If my friend has to pay tax on the lottery winnings, I would perceive it fair. The Gmen don't take it all, he keeps more than 60% and is set for life. I may not like it, but it's fair. If he gets to keep all the lottery winnings, that surely isn't fair. He didn't buy the ticket. He didn't earn the right to receive it without having to pay tax on it. Is it no income to him that he didn't have before? He rightfully should pay tax.

I don't like taxes but any government cannot work without funding as money is one of the things that is common to all people that trade.

There is one way to make entitlement money back without cutting it-

Make it taxable.

I am middle class. My wife and I make a combined (about) 50k a year. I have ZERO problem with EVERYONES taxes going up, as long as there is a cut in spending to get the deficit down. I am not talking about taking SS or Medicare from the old. They actually need those programs. What we need to do is cut defense spending, and limit the amount of time a individual can collect entitlement benefits. 2 Years worth of benefits payable in a 15 year window. People have difficulty in their lives I get that, and they need a helping hand. Problem is anymore, people just stay on entitlement.

I'm not on the left, or the right. I'm on the side that makes sense. I just wish others would learn to think for themselves and stop listening to a damned donkey or elephant to tell them how to do things.

Norm,

For government workers, specifically congress and POTUS, I'm willing to cut:

• lifetime health benefits
• competitive salaries with private sector workers
• exorbitant number of days off
• pensions
• the number of congressmen (do we really need as many as we have 500+?)

I'm willing to cut fraud, abuse and waste in such programs as VA, Medicare payments and wherever else we can find sloths sucking up resources.

I'm willing to cut most forms of medicare and SS to those that are so rich they could buy the government if it was for sale. On a side note, SS should be considered insurance that you may never need just like car insurance and term life insurance. It's called a safety net because it catches you IF you fall.

Let me think about the rest.

I don't like taxes but any government cannot work without funding as money is one of the things that is common to all people that trade.

Estate taxes are not about funding in the slightest. It's about setting people back to be "fair".

Additionally, we are generally talking about non-liquid assets here. I think it's possible many people against the estate tax could begrudgingly make concessions for taxation of liquid money. If my dad ran a business and, while still in good health, dies suddenly, is it fair that the government then demands that I come up with 55% of my dad's business or be forced to sell it? And you realize that I'd just be selling to a richer man or a corporation, thereby helping someone else accumulate wealth...

...which estate taxes are supposed to be preventing, right? Eesh. Seems like government creating the very problem it is trying to prevent.

I agree with you Let and Pro. Case in point is a caller I heard on the radio last week. She said that the wealthiest (along with money they left for their children via inheritance) should have to pay their fair share. She was not only adamant about that but stuck on it. To her, fair share is even OVER what is being proposed right now.

Where does the insanity stop? When does a person become responsible for their OWN self, even to a degree. Look at the government's handling of accounts set up for specific purpose yet squandered simply because they ' need the money elsewhere'. Why are they getting more money when there is not one piece of information on how they plan on cutting spending.

In reality, virtually no one ever has to sell the farm to pay estate taxes.

Tiggle: But where I disagree with you is the asset has already been taxed. Any INCOME created by that asset is taxable but the asset itself has already been paid for with after tax dollars. For example, let's say a father bought a piece of property in 1950 for $10,000 and now it is worth $100,000. When the father dies and gives this property to their children the VALUE of the property should not be immediately due. Now I can compromise and agree that the BASIS PRICE should transfer. In other words the children assume a $10,000 basis price (the price of the land at purchase) then when they SELL the land pay income tax on the difference (or capital gains). I think that is fair. In this case would be MORE taxes. But let me give you an example that DOESN'T make sense.

Say the same scenario but the father bought the property in 1995 for $80,000 cash. Now it's worth $100,000. A 55% tax would be $55,000 on that property. THAT wouldn't be fair. They actually LOST money on that purchase. So as a compromise I am okay with an heir receiving the basis price value (whether it be property, art, or stocks) but don't force an heir to pay a tax at the time of death - they might have to actually sell the asset just to pay the tax. Collect the tax when it becomes income through a capital gain.

BTW, your example of lottery tickets I don't see the connection. If a person wins the lottery they pay taxes on the winnings because it is "income". I don't see anybody saying taxes on INCOME shouldn't be paid. This discussion is about assets. When the selling of the ASSET becomes income (through capital gains) I am okay with that but to pay taxes on the ASSET itself is unfair.

And I don't want to get into a whole other discussion but also keep in mind if families understand their ASSETS will be taxed upon death they will do what is actually damaging to this country - they won't accumulate assets. As they get older they will reduce the size of their business so as not to "burden" their children with a huge tax bill so that creates unemployment and a decrease in business investment. Secondly, they will spend their money on non-assets instead like trips to Europe, cruises, or buy land and simply put others on the title so there won't BE an estate. Or they will buy precious metals (gold, silver, etc.) that are easy to physically transfer to heirs without any record or transaction. Say a person has $500,000 in gold and silver and tells their family if anything happens to them take that gold/silver out of the safe before any lawyers and accountants are called in. Call it "nonsense" but it already occurs (I have seen it) and will get much worse with this type of estate tax.

End result an INCREASE in the estate tax will actually create a DECREASE in tax revenues anyway. Families will go out of their way to make sure of that. End result is higher unemployment and lower business investment so they can redirect their "wealth" to the families with less estate tax effect.

BTW: Wrong. Selling family farms to pay taxes happen all the time BECAUSE their only valuable asset IS the farm and don't have a lot of cash. I personally know two people involved in an inheritance that had to sell the family farm to pay taxes. As a matter of fact an article came out today that stated over 500,000 family farms would be threatened in 2013 by this estate tax alone. That is a half a million farms. It happens all the time.

It's about time the Greedy Dirtbags pay up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Probusiness. No it really doesn't happen all the time. For one thing, if the child is going to continue farming he can take up to 14 years to pay any taxes. Right now,(assuming the farmers has planned for this) you can have a farm worth up to 15 million and pay no estate taxes. Once you get to that level, farmers usually have enough assets to pay any taxes. In 2001,when the estate tax actually was at 55 percent, the American Farm Bureau “could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.”

'Double taxation' is mentioned as a bad thing, although nobody seems to have a problem with it for the middle class. How many things do you use or buy that you pay some sort of tax on? Sales tax comes to mind, various excise taxes (these are on things you'd never dream of), road taxes (think gasoline), the list goes on. Yes, you can deduct property taxes and state income taxes off your federal taxes, but many of these other taxes are 'hidden' in the overall price of the item or service. Now, I'm not going to snivel about whether or not these taxes are 'fair' or not, they were all put into place for some reason and the vast majority of them are likely supporting some public interest.

But we're talking about the accumulation of wealth here, not whatever taxes you paid while earning the money as wages or building your business. How about a 0% tax rate? And no, this isn't on the bottom 10 or 20%, but on the uberrich...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/14/opinion/la-oe-kinsley-column-20120614

This is what the republicans are hiding; sure, you can claim that 'you don't see the money until you sell' but that doesn't mean that wealth doesn't exist. And don't even think for a second that this wealth isn't used to create more wealth. The estate tax is the only means of taxing this income with current tax laws, or are you RWNJs really advocating that the rich should get a free pass?

And if capital gains are your main source of income (as is the usual case among the rich), explain why the tax rate is capped at only 15%? I pay that on my piddling $60K a year, Romney paid a lower rate than I did, and it would have been lower yet if he hadn't 'voluntarily' not taken a deduction. Anybody want to bet Mitt hasn't filed an amended return now that the election is over?

I'm sick of the rich thinking they're a privileged class that somehow deserve special rules. And I don't want to hear that blather about how they're 'job creators'; they had the Bush tax rates for over 10 years, where are the jobs? And don't bring up the deficit; the GOP didn't add that caveat when they pushed these rates through, if you have to add it now that means they were lying then.

You paid tax accumulating your savings. How much more does the government want. Hee in PA. the inheritance tax to a non-blood relative, such as a daughter-in-law is 15%. So add 15% to 55% and you get 70%and the daughter-in-law gets virtually nothing (30%), but, you already paid taxes on that money, so in reality the government gets it all.

ProBusiness

Forget all the "but the rich" comments - what is most important, and most confusing, is why the government (or you) believe you are ENTITLED to wealth earned by others? In any OTHER capacity that is called "theft".

There's the GOP philosophy in a nutshell; any money they have to give up, they consider theft. Carried to it's logical conclusion, that explains why they hate government. Well sorry, but that's not how it works. Oh sure, you'll come on and say that there's 'certain' things that have to be left to government and if pressed, you might grudgingly admit that there are some unfortunates who may need help. But you worship a dog-eat-dog economic model that only rewards the survival of the fittest ironically called 'Darwinian' (given the GOP disdain for his ideas).

One thing everyone can agree on; government costs money. Where the problem comes in is a phrase in the constitution that is rarely if ever mentioned by the GOP; "promote the general welfare". This is the basis for nearly all services to US residents (note that I didn't say citizens; nowhere is it mentioned that this is restricted to only them) and the part the GOP has the problem with. You label anything that doesn't fit your narrow definition as 'theft' regardless of how the majority feels about it.

Be honest; any family owned farm or small business that the owner wants to pass on to their children, that can be done with little or no cost with proper prior planning. As you pointed out, if you can't plan for your own or your childrens future, you don't deserve that wealth.

If you are intelligent enough (or maybe lucky enough) to have accumulated an estate with a value in excess of the taxable amount ($3million) you should be smart enough to hold your assets in trusts and off-shore entities which will not be subject to the estate tax. The Kennedys, Waltons, Kochs, Rockefellers, Johnsons, Duponts, and others learned that long ago. The estate tax is a tax on stupidity.

BTW 3110--I am not sure how your math works. The current exemption is $5 million. If a farmer dies with a farm worth $15 million, his estate/beneficiaries will owe estate tax on $10 million of assets. At the current rate, that is $3.5 million.

With a $1 million exemption and a 55% rate, the damage would be $14 million x 0.55 = $7,700,000 in estate tax. I think it is safe to assume that there are not many farmers (or any kind of small business owner) with that kind of liquid cash. It is ludicrous to say that this has no impact on small business and farms. That business will be forced to sell, obtain debt financing, or take out huge amounts of life insurance, all of which are costly.

As I age, if I cannot leave it to my sons and grandson, I will be spending a lot of it.

Exactly what you should do rather than hoarding it for your future progeny.

On the other hand your begrudging the government of it's due says you obviously don't have a clue how much it costs to maintain a decently sharp edge on the guillotines. It's not like we want the 1% who would even be affected by the estate tax to suffer.

I agree with Joe, I am unaware of any "exemptions" for farms or this "14 year payoff" payment schedule. I am not in a position to say you are wrong but not sure where that came from. Besides, I know two people who this has happened to. One received an unexpected inheritance from an uncle and the niece's family has a "little bit of money". They had lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents involved and was forced to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Not one of the lawyers, accountants, or real estate agents mentioned a "14 year payoff schedule". That's not to say it doesn't exist but if it DID I would think ONE of the professionals working with her would have told her.

And CrazySteve: Did you actually READ what you typed? You actually said "There's the GOP philosophy in a nutshell; any money they have to give up, they consider theft.". Then whose money is it? Everybody owns their assets. If you tell me I must give my assets to someone else what DO you call that? If I have two cars and you believe I don't deserve two cars and take one to give to someone else is that theft? Yes. If I have $100 in my pocket and you believe that I should give $50 to someone else and threaten me with a gun to take my $50 isn't that theft? Yes. And when the federal government threatens a person with jail time if they don't give the government money isn't that theft? Yes.

You see here is the difference. When a person has a say in how to run the country and approves of the distribution of costs then it is a voluntary payment. But the minute the person no longer has a say in the matter it is theft. I don't want to open up a Pandora's Box but THAT is the reason why landowners were the only ones initially allowed to vote (up until 1790). Only white adult property owners were allowed to vote. That was by design because only those who PAY the taxes should be the ones ALLOWED to vote because it is their money being spent. And if those PAYING the taxes decided how it was to be spent it was then "voluntary".

Now that obviously could be changed to women and other races but the point is only those WITH wealth should be allowed to vote. That way they are voluntarily paying taxes for the betterment of the country. But when (like it is now) where we have 50% of the population paying no income taxes then they can decide how much to take from the wealthy AND how it is spent. So now those PAYING the taxes have no say what it is spent on or how much. THAT is theft. And their only decision now is how to limit the amount of theft.

CrazySteve and PatrioticAmerican: What government benefits/entitlements are you willing to sacrifice that would directly impact you and mean you have to pay more or give up? You've been quite clear about how the rich (and would you please define "rich" so we know exactly who you're talking about) should pay more and pay dearly, but what are YOU willing to give up? How much more are YOU willing to pay?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Joe, a married couple can leave $10 million. There are also special provisions for farmers that include a special provision that allows farm real estate to be valued at farm-use value rather than at its fair-market value, an installment payment provision, and a special deduction for family-owned business interests.

See ProBus? It never happens because BTW said so. Why is that so hard to understand?

You can't win against someone who has their mind made up. No logic gets through. Tiggle is another one - Norm asked a a direct question and Tiggle self assuredly answered a different question.

Mendy: I guess I stand corrected? :)

As long as somebody SAYS so I guess that makes it true?

Anyone who is very wealthy and paying taxes deserves to be paying those taxes.

There are enough opportunities within the tax code to avoid paying very much, if any taxes.

If you are not intelligent enough to take advantage of those opportunities, yet still have very high income and wealth, you do not deserve to keep your money.

Only the true middle class and stupid wealthy people pay taxes.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel....

Matt-1145746

How else are we able to advance as individuals, as a country, if we cannot build on the wealth of our ancestors?

Name some people who have truly 'built on the wealth of their ancestors'. Show me the Rockefeller, Ford, and Vanderbilt children that have created new businesses and jobs that rival what their parents or grandparents built.

All great fortunes are built initially by one person (think Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sam Walton), it's extremely rare that a decendent outstrips them. And once that business is built, it's nearly always sold off via stock and becomes a publicly-held corporation. So only the stock that is still held by the founder is subject to estate tax, the company can't be 'lost'.

Even one of the Rockefellers is calling for an increase to 'prevent the rise of a hereditary aristocracy' and he should know.

The exemption on the estate tax for 2012 is 5,127,000. There are not many family farms worth that much. AND, it is not double taxation. It is considered income to the person who inherits it, who has never paid taxes on it.

"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell

Name some people who have truly 'built on the wealth of their ancestors'. Show me the Rockefeller, Ford, and Vanderbilt children that have created new businesses and jobs that rival what their parents or grandparents built.

Everybody on your side, Crazy Steve, takes these couple extreme wealth examples as proof that somehow the rest of us are all wrong. You know who benefited from the wealth of his ancestors? My grandfather. He received a chunk of land in Philadelphia that he later sold. Guess what he did with that money. Raised 6 kids who got to see the country on road trips. Paid for half of them to go to college. Purchased and conserved 125 acres of land that is only timbered in the most careful of ways. Now my aunts and uncles who went to college don't have student loans to pay off. Their money can now be used to do things like help their kids live a healthy life, go to college, start businesses, etc. My dad started and since stopped a photography business, my uncle is an attorney in the music business and employs help such as secretaries, everyone (except the crazy one) has been able to purchase their own, modest house. It's activities like these that enhance economies and quality of life in a country. The government can't do anything so efficient as that.

THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that every single person of every massive inheritance then goes on to create something even bigger. I am saying that people regularly and efficiently build wealth off the wealth of their ancestors. The estate tax is a punishing way to create equality by setting families back out of some kind of supposed fairness instead of concentrating on incentives for more people to do the same.

In the natural order of things, death is final. If someone wants to pass their property on to someone else, it should be done before meeting one's maker. There is no advantage to a capitalist economy is allowing the dead to speak via a will.

Give it away before one dies. As in nature, what's left after one dies, should revert to the world at large. The artificial creation of "life" via a construct called an "estate" is just a mechanism for those to timid to make the risky bet of giving one's wealth away while keeping enough to keep body and soul together. That timidity should not be rewarded by allowing the dead to speak.

Capitalism is based on an economy of living people. The state-sanctioned inheritance of property via the death of someone else does not enhance the personal responsibility that capitalism is designed to promote. In fact it encourages laziness and irresponsibility in the allocation of ones goods.

GreenT- what a load of crap! What are you smoking? (or are you 17?)

Please let me know how one "gives it away while still alive" when they die due to a sudden heart attack or an accident in their 50s? We don't all die in a hospital bed with our loved ones around us

HAH! I believe I struck a nerve...

And CrazySteve: Did you actually READ what you typed? You actually said "There's the GOP philosophy in a nutshell; any money they have to give up, they consider theft.". Then whose money is it? Everybody owns their assets. If you tell me I must give my assets to someone else what DO you call that? If I have two cars and you believe I don't deserve two cars and take one to give to someone else is that theft? Yes. If I have $100 in my pocket and you believe that I should give $50 to someone else and threaten me with a gun to take my $50 isn't that theft? Yes. And when the federal government threatens a person with jail time if they don't give the government money isn't that theft? Yes.

Yes, I did read what I typed. And you're ignoring it's meaning, twisting back into something it's not. I'm not the one 'taking' your money, it's going into the government coffers. You make it sound like a government agent is going to collect this, then go stand in the street and hand it out to passerbys. And the government does have the right to take you money; it's called taxes.

You see here is the difference. When a person has a say in how to run the country and approves of the distribution of costs then it is a voluntary payment. But the minute the person no longer has a say in the matter it is theft.

Here's the rest of the GOP agenda. You do have a say; it's called a vote. But unfortunately for you, your views aren't all that popular right now (still can't get over that you lost, can you...) and the majority sees things differently. Once the votes are counted, we're all supposed to pull together and 'promote the general welfare' but instead we get temper tantrums and inflammatory rhetoric from the losers. Do I like how the government spends all it's money? Nope, but I'm adult enough to realise that I don't have control over every last bit and move on. If something gets my attention, I contact my congressional reps and voice my opinion (and that's all it is). You should try this...

CrazySteve and PatrioticAmerican: What government benefits/entitlements are you willing to sacrifice that would directly impact you and mean you have to pay more or give up? You've been quite clear about how the rich (and would you please define "rich" so we know exactly who you're talking about) should pay more and pay dearly, but what are YOU willing to give up? How much more are YOU willing to pay?

Norm, glad to answer. First, go back to the pre-Reagan tax rates; after 30+ years, it's pretty clear 'Trickle down' doesn't work for anybody except the top 20%. In fact, let's go back to the tax rates of the last decent republican president we had, Eisenhower. Next, means-test social security and remove the cap on income. Stop pouring money into the Military-Industrial complex (something else that Eisenhower was right on). I'll give up my self-paid health insurance and let's go to a single-payer system, even if it costs more.

And you want me to define 'rich'. Well, seeing how the poverty line for a family of four is under $25K per year, I'd say that anyone making double or triple that will be comfortable. At ten times that amount, you could buy everything you need with ease, and could buy most anything else you desire as long as you stay away from huge yachts and mansions, hand-built cars, and jet airplanes. But I'll be generous and add another $50K to that and say that that's the rich line. That's for a family of four; knock $50K off for every person less.

Asked, answered....

TO: Letusreason who wrote:

"If you worked hard all your life. If you were prudent with your money, and saved for retirement. If you invested intelligently. And you successfully accumulated some wealth. You are an evil greedy capitalist..."

No one has said that except for some idiots who never paid taxes in their life and are now faced with the same thing the rest of us get every year A TAX BILL!

Why Republicans keep trying to include themselves in the "Top 2%" is just crazy, but the symptoms are similar to all the other crazy stuff they make up.

If paying taxes pisses you off that much, welcome to the club.

The rest of us have to pay taxes, and now so will you.

You think that's unfair? Again, join the club.

TO: crisp-2520004 who wrote:

'"then they get millions and millions of UN-WORKED for dollars" But it's OK for the govt to confiscate those dollars to give to those who haven't worked for it."

What the heck are you talking about?

Some of the whinney complainy folks haven't paid taxes in so long you forgot why we have taxes in the first place!

Republicans love to go to war, so you have to pay for it.

All these other "luxuries" we have as Americans also has to be paid for, and I am happy as hell that the tax dodgers who never paid a penny in taxes your whole lives finally have to pay like everybody else!

As for the Estate Tax, I think 55% is waaay too much. Even 25% is too much.

Estate Tax, if you're going to tax someone for dying and leaving their money to their family, shouldn't really be anything over 5%.

When Meg Whitman was running for Governor of California she was for repealing the estate tax. Why?

She said that 1% of Californians were paying 80% of the estate tax. she felt that there was no reason to single out the 1%ers for a special tax.

The flip side of this is that 1% of Californians own 80% of the wealth! That means that 99% of us are trying to get by on just 20% of the wealth.

The whole reason the estate tax was set up in the first place is to prevent all of the money from collecting in the hands of the 1%, which it will inevitably do in a capitalist system. A hundred years ago they had already deen how bad that is for the economy as a whole.
It looks like we need to learn that lesson all over again.

The estate tax needs to be raised not lowered or else most of the money will be sitting in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts instead of circulating through the economy creating jobs.

You know who benefited from the wealth of his ancestors? My grandfather. He received a chunk of land in Philadelphia that he later sold. Guess what he did with that money. Raised 6 kids who got to see the country on road trips. Paid for half of them to go to college. Purchased and conserved 125 acres of land that is only timbered in the most careful of ways. Now my aunts and uncles who went to college don't have student loans to pay off. Their money can now be used to do things like help their kids live a healthy life, go to college, start businesses, etc. My dad started and since stopped a photography business, my uncle is an attorney in the music business and employs help such as secretaries, everyone (except the crazy one) has been able to purchase their own, modest house. It's activities like these that enhance economies and quality of life in a country. The government can't do anything so efficient as that.

Matt, was your grandfather a multi-millionaire? Are your parents and aunts and uncles the same from what they got from him? If the answer is no, then this really doesn't apply. As has been pointed out by both sides, proper estate planning can legally eliminate or sharply reduce the tax bite, which it sounds like he did. But if you're sitting on ten million or more, how much money do you need? And you bring up a good point; if the money is spent, it's circulating in the economy, helping all the people whose hands it passes through. But when these large amounts are locked up among the few, that societal benefit is lost.

That's one of the major problems with our current economy; when 95% of the wealth is held by 20% of the population, there simply isn't enough money circulating for the bottom 80% who are trying to 'get by' on 5%.

CrazySteve: Thanks for attempting to answer. The question was, what are YOU willing to give up that you are getting now; how much more are YOU willing to pay NOW? You must be a politician as your answer was a non-answer. And, for what it's worth, $250,000 isn't as much as you might think. If you've got kids, tuition, live in a high cost area, etc. it doesn't go far. Additionally, if you work for the money you work hard and just because Crazy Steve chooses to live a life of poverty doesn't mean the rest of the achievers in our society have to lower their standards to meet yours.

Here's a Crazy Norm idea: get a better job, earn more money, and start to pay into the system you apparently loathe.

You are an expert with tainted money...you know, money that 'taint yours.

I'm willing to cut most forms of medicare and SS to those that are so rich they could buy the government if it was for sale...

Tiggle, they tried to buy the government, but failed to get a controlling interest....LOL!

The question was, what are YOU willing to give up that you are getting now; how much more are YOU willing to pay NOW?

Norm, I thought I did answer. I'll accept higher income taxes and means testing for SS. As to what I need to 'give up', I'm not getting anything other than my SS from the government. Seeing how I'm retired, my kids are gone and my house is paid for, I don't get any breaks on my taxes; how about you? Or are you suggesting that everyone except the 'rich' should 'give back' until everyone is reduced to a minimum-wage equivilent then they'll think about?

This is where the GOP agenda breaks down; you talk about 'entitlements' this and that, but are loath to give details. Of course, that would let the 'class warfare against the non-rich' cat out of the bag, wouldn't it?

Norm - I am willing to give up nothing. Why? because I'm not taking anything from government. The govt takes away from me enough for schools, roads, etc. Social Security has been taken out of my paycheck for all the years I've been working.

The govt's misuse of funds is their own doing. The govt using the tax code to buy votes is their own doing. The govt investing in Solyndra when it is owned by a billionaire is it's own doing. The govt funding the Murtha Airport just to keep a dead guy's legacy going is its own doing. $100K booze flight for Pelosi when she doesn't even drink is its own doing. Building a robot squirrel to see how a rattlesnake reacts is its own doing. The GSA throwing huge parties in Las Vegas.

There are countless other examples where the govt wastes money and abuse. You think you're clever trying to say, "what would YOU personally give up?" But, until you can justify my or anyone elses's taxes paying for this nonsense, then you have no point at all.

And by the way Norm....

And, for what it's worth, $250,000 isn't as much as you might think. If you've got kids, tuition, live in a high cost area, etc. it doesn't go far.

... then you should take your Saint Reagan's advice and 'vote with your feet'...

Paws: I completely agree with you re Murtha airport, Solyndra, etc. What a waste, and there are so, so many other examples we know about and more we don't know about. No disagreement from me. Perhaps eliminating ALL deductions is the answer. Why not a one or two page tax form? The best part is the congressmen and senators can shake the tree all over again for bribes- er, "campaign contributions", wink wink.

As far as your comment about the gov't taking "enough" from you for schools, roads, etc., isn't that exactly what the 2% are saying. I personally pay six figures every year and believe the gov't "takes enough". Unfortunately they spend it faster than I can earn it and pay them so everyone has to give it up. Social Security? Why should the waitress who served Warren Buffett his eggs this morning get her check dinged to pay his SS check this month? The fact you paid in doesn't obviate the fact the program is broke and needs fixed (translate: lower benefits, higher retirement age; not more taxes for benefits that are too expensive).

Crazy Steve: If you are retired and getting free medical from the gov't you are getting a huge entitlement. Are you willing to pay more for that? And why does the fact you are a squirrel mean those who work hard and are good earners should be taxed more for their effort. In your world hard work is senseless; in your world those who achieve should be penalized. Try Cuba or Venezuela, you can vote with your feet, too.

"If Congress doesn’t change the law, next year the top estate tax rate increases from 35 percent to 55 percent and it will be imposed on estates of more than $1 million, rather than on estates over $5.08 million as it now is." Split the baby!

$250K even in a high cost area and with a family is very doable -- avoid expensive cars, expensive private school tuitions and expensive houses.

If you are retired and getting free medical from the gov't you are getting a huge entitlement.

Sorry Norm, but I'm not getting that either, so I don't see how I can 'give it up'. And if by calling me a 'squirrel' you mean I wasn't foolish about managing my money during my working life, well I guess I am.

And if you're paying 'six figures' in taxes every year, how much money do you need? Can't manage your money well enough to 'get by'? What's the matter, can't buy a spare Bentley or Gulfstream? Or are you one of those who can only measure their self-worth by how big your 'pile' is? If you're so emotionally empty that greed is your only motivator, I feel sorry for you (but not enough to give you a break on taxes). If I'm a squirrel, you're Scrooge McDuck....

Crazy: Bottom line is if I earn it the money is mine to do with what I please, not give to you for whatever whim you wish to spend it on. You know, that "tainted money" thing again: taint yours, it's mine and I'll thank you to keep your paws off it.

Good night, thanks for the chat, much fun.

Norm...We apparently agree that SS is broke due to corrupt politicians who converted it to a ponzi scheme. But, the fix is not to cut benefits or to tax the rich. It's for govt to cut that wasteful spending and pay back SS. You admitted that it's a spending problem. SS doesn't have to go broke. It is going broke because the politicians won't make the proper cuts to pay it back.

Did you know the DOD tried to cut spending on tanks and congress REFUSED to let them because it cost their district getting govt money? So, even defense cuts are denied even when the DOD wanted to.

We both know the proper cuts won't happen...even the liberal godfather Obama won't do it.

The middle class will get shafted again and govt is doing the shafting. Liberals have been snowed to think it's the rich not paying. Taxing the rich won't solve it because the govt has no intention of fixing it. Who do you think OWNS the politicians? Warren Buffet. Why do you think HE supports it the tax increase? Because HE will never pay it. At the minimimum Obama will give him a waiver in the tax code like he did McDonalds & Unions in Obamacare.

My point is this...This class warfare nonsense is just a divide & conquer tactic to fool the liberals & conservatives into thinking any of the politicians cares about them. Reality is, the politicians are in cahoots and ALL of them are targeting the middle class and poor. Too bad the American people are too stupid to see what they're doing. They're targeting the 401Ks now and plan to bankrupt it like they did social security. Watch the class warfare when they start promoting that nonsense.

Okay Let Us Reason and ProBusiness and those who agree with them -

Your position is that hard work, being prudent with money, saving for retirement, investing wisely, getting an education, and being healthy are all anyone needs to do to become rich. That just about everyone with great wealth in this country EARNED that wealth all by themselves. That the structure & nature of this society, this nation, played absolutely no role in the wealthy's success. That the wealthy could have been born in say Nigeria or Cambodia, and would have had the same success as they did in the United States.

You also seem to imply that EVERYONE in this country has an equal chance and an equal opportunity to replicate the success of the wealthy. That inborn individual intelligence and personality traits, race, gender, social class, and disabilities don't matter at all. That luck and circumstances and connections don't matter at all. That the wealthy that you idolize are all self-made success stories independent of any of the above listed factors.

Let's take Donald Trump, a "self-made" American success! The fact that he was born to a father who was worth $400 million at the time of his death had no bearing on Donald's success. The fact that his father gave him a job inside a functioning, profitable family real estate business, that Donald later went on to inherit, had no bearing at all. That being able to attend the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania (arguably the number one business school in the U.S. and very exclusive as to who gets admitted) was a self-made achievement, that his father's connections played no part in that. That all the connections & influence his father made as a businessman and passed on to Donald had no bearing at all. That U.S. society itself had no bearing at all, Donald could have replicated his success in Bangladesh or any other country in the world. That the efforts of all of Donald's employees throughout his life had no bearing on his success. That he could have hired people from Myanmar, or any other country, and gotten the same results.

FACT: Not everyone in the U.S. has the same chance and same opportunity to become wealthy. There is no law of nature saying that everyone who tries hard, always succeeds. There is no law of nature saying that everyone is born with the same intelligence & wisdom potential, the same abilities, and into the same circumstances. There is no law of nature saying that luck is spread around equally to every person. There is no law of nature saying that everyone has the potential to be healthy all their lives. In every society, there will be grand prize winners (usually a very minute percentage), good prize winners (usually a very low percentage), status quo/breakeven people (usually the majority), and losers (usually a sizable minority).

Our society, our nation, is built upon principles that try to give every one of its citizens a chance to have a decent life, regardless of their inborn traits and their circumstances. Taxes are needed to build and maintain this society of opportunity, so that it will exist for present and future generations.

When a wealthy person complains about the Estate Tax, what they're really saying is that this society played absolutely no role in their success, and that they don't owe this society a damn thing, and that they only care about their own descendants. They don't take into account that the nature of this society, in combination with luck and circumstances and the help/assistance of others, made it possible for them to supremely succeed. And they figuratively spit upon all the people in American history who worked and sacrificied to build and maintain this society, whose efforts made it possible for the wealthy to get that chance to supremely succeed.

What ingrates! What selfish bastards! If American history had been filled with people like them, there wouldn't have been a United States for long! The Estate Tax exists to keep opportunity alive for future generations. The Estate Tax exists to perpetuate this society. Without an Estate Tax, over time, wealth would gradually be locked up into a very small elite upper class and their descendants, and the rest of America would resemble a third world country, with little or no hope to succeed, because they weren't born into the right family or the right society.

If you will, the Estate Tax is sort of like religious tithing. Believers give back a portion of their income to thank God for the blessings he has bestowed upon them. The Estate Tax is a tithe to this society, for all the blessings it has bestowed upon the wealthy.

SRS, you are a complete FOOL; the government has NO RIGHT to ANYTHING a person worked for when he dies! This whole idea of stealing from families who are successful is disgusting and un-American, but now that we have another idiot socialist who thinks he can benefit politically from stealing their money and handing it to non-working pieces of SH** as Bozobama has done, well, let's just steal all hard-working people's money when they're successful and KILL all job creation! That the Bozobama way and our future if we let this jackass continue down this road!

Paws: You are correct about the divisiveness and corruption so why does the electorate keep reelecting the same bunch of republi-crats? The answer is simple: they're good for our district. Vote them all out and start over; eliminate all deductions and start over. Let the free market reign.

Pro,

The 14-year window to pay estate taxes on farms is amazingly simple to look up:

Generally, Federal estate taxes must be paid within 9 months of the date of death. However, when at least 35 percent of an estate's value is a farm or closely held business, estate taxes may be paid over an additional 14 year period with only interest due for the first 4 years.

Rant: One thing I have to say about our parents, they sure knew how to make their money go further. They were being taxed so very, very much more than anyone is even thinking about contemplating now. And yet in the 50's they, for the most part, were doing pretty okay. What were the tax rates they payed back then? Sure, they would complain. But as long as anyone pays any taxes you will hear complaining.

If you want to live here and use our roads, be protected by our police, public fire departments and military ( esp. military) just pay your taxes like your parents did. When you get to be elderly, then I wont mind you complaining so much ( unless you have so much money that paying your taxes is not affecting you. )

Norm903 - You pay 6 figures in taxes every year?? Oh man. The taxes you pay, I feel so sorry for you!

My goodness, you may have to sell one of your several homes if they don't get this thing straightened out! You may end up having to lay off a couple of the servants. This is a very sad thing. Next thing you know, you will have to give up the Bentley and start driving a Mercedes instead.

SRS-798254 - bitter much?

Hal- you should applaud my efforts, they enable your free government cheese...yummy!

Sorry norm903, I understand your pain, I really do. I just have difficulty *feeling it*. BTW- I haven't had public assistance in over thirty years.

Will you listen to the LIBERALS , SOCIALISTS, AND OUTRIGHT COMMUNISTS rant about wealth or rather their lack of it !!! These are the fruits of the Democratic parties labor as they have BASHED inherited as well as hard worked for money !!! What about the guy who quit school at 10 yrs old to work making money for his MOTHER TO KEEP THE HOUSE his other 7 siblings lived in . He even sent back virtually every paycheck he got in the Marines during the Korean war. He had a reupholstering shop , a restaurant/bar/bowling alley, he ran a wood / metal shop, and finally he bought land at a auction and expanded his machine shop while renting out space to contractors of all kinds . This is the man the Republicans say we want to protect from the double taxation of an estate tax! This man is the man the Liberals and Democrats are trying to savage !!! America you get what you deserve when you vote Democrat , so GOOD LUCK !

We never hear a mention of the effect of same-sex marriage on estate taxes. Estates can usually pass to the spouse untaxed. When same-sex marriage is the law (federal and state), a father on his deathbed could marry his son (or grandson, nephew, younger brother, etc.) and pass the estate to his "spouse" upon death. This could roll on for generations and generations.

Same thing works with widow marrying a daughter, etc.

When the conception of children is no longer part of the marriage, there is no reason to forbid the marriage of close relatives. Anyone can pledge to share love, support, care, and assets - the key tenet of same-sex marriage.

mailman8...What.The.Fu..

Butters- agreed. My grandpa was a radiologist, retired Navy Captain (33 years) and have invested wisely all his life. Him and grandma always said to save your scheckles as he did. He is in a home now for alzheimers so he can't make any sound decisions. Now he has a large enough estate that would get clobbered by this tax. Sorry grandpa, you may have lived to 93, lived through and fought many wars but your hard work must not have been hard enough to pay off... our government is PATHETIC!

My Father fought in WWII and still suffers from PTSD...at age 91. His father was murdered shortly after his return and left his wife penniless. My father had to support her and his new family and swore he would never leave his family in that situation. When he came back from the war he had 2 or 3 jobs at time. Saved and bought ranch land and then he (we) were ranchers as well as holding down a regular job for 35 years.

So now Obama wants to take this WWII heroes life savings and give it to some pants-on-the-ground fool with a grill and $10,000 dollars worth of tattoos who has never done a damn thing for himself or this country.

Only a sick, twisted SOB would be OK with that.....

Why so much fuss about the estate tax when it can be avoided by simply passing the money, property, or whatever on to your heirs while you're still living. What??? Trust your heirs with all that you worked so hard for??? Give it to them now???? Can't do that, they might not do what you want with it. Or worse yet, they might not hang around you anymore. Government isn't pathetic and it needs an income too. The wealthy happily endorse "every man for himself" as long as they are exempted from the struggle.

when it can be avoided by simply passing the money, property, or whatever on to your heirs while you're still living.

Because death isn't an expected, imminent event for many people. Heart attacks and car accidents happen to people who are 50.

TO: Letusreason who wrote:

"If you worked hard all your life. If you were prudent with your money, and saved for retirement. If you invested intelligently. And you successfully accumulated some wealth. You are an evil greedy capitalist..."

No one has said that except for some idiots who never paid taxes in their life and are now faced with the same thing the rest of us get every year A TAX BILL!

Why Republicans keep trying to include themselves in the "Top 2%" is just crazy, but the symptoms are similar to all the other crazy stuff they make up.

If paying taxes pisses you off that much, welcome to the club.

The rest of us have to pay taxes, and now so will you.

You think that's unfair? Again, join the club.

This government needs all the capitol it can get it's hands on so they can squander it on things like a tax payer funded Hawaiian (money is no object), Christmas vacation.

Melekalikimaka

What is the deal with you idiotic liberals steadily spouting, "pass what you have on to your heirs while your still living..."??? That is the dumbest statement I've had the displeasure to have read today. First it was, "You didn't built that!", to now, "Yeah, you might have built it, but we (the government) are going to tax the crap out of it!". And counter to your obviously liberal bent "time-2-get-meds", the government is patently pathetic. They have been expermenting with "social engineering" since that idiot LBJ was in office, and just how many of the awesome government programs are run efficiently? I challenge you to name ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT ENTITY that is efficient in what is was created to do. Dismantle, and do away with the Dept. of Energy, which was founded to "eliminate our need for foreign oil". Yeah, how is that one working? Do the same with the Dept. of Education. Beside saddling our future citizens with nearly insurmountable debt, what purpose do they truly serve? Audit the Fed, and keep auditing until, "you can feel the back of their teeth", I'm quite sure many, if not all Americans would be extremely surprised by the outcome of that. Simplify the tax code, and eliminate 60-70% of all taxes. God forbid that we actually get to keep the money that we've earned. Sir Winston Churchill, one of the most astute leaders of the last century said it best,

"For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle." - W. Churchill

I'm against any more taxes.The capital gains tax,the estate tax and property taxes in all states that have them should be repealed.The gasoline tax,a temporary tax from decades ago should be repealed.We should go to the flat tax system with a lifetime cap,raise the cap on social Security and Medicare.All fees and taxes on utilities should also be outlawed.People need more of their money in order to spend it and invest it.that is what makes for a thriving economy.