Prince Harry of Santa Barbara County

A1Janitor said:
I prefer government become fiscally responsible. It’s double taxation. All that wealth was subject to income taxes already.
Click to expand...
.
Agree with @A1Janitor … start working and saving @nature boy and you’ll change your tune …

Another thing … the Fed Funds Rate should “Naturally” be in the “6.5% to 7.5%” range … and “Stay there” …. No more “Free Money” …

With the “Cost of Money” being naturally where it should be … “6.5% to 7.5%” … the cost of servicing debt will weigh “Heavily” on fiscal responsibility … from the Individual, to the Community & Businesses, to the States & Corporations, all the way up to the U.S. Government.

No more Free Money …
.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to ask a serious question here, and I'm NOT trying to start a fight or anything like that. I find discussions here on the SAF are more "open and honest and less emotional" on the whole than elsewhere.

That being said, what does this mean: "...And they don’t pay their fair share of taxes..."

What does that REALLY mean? I hear that phrase SO often at work and elsewhere and I'm stumped. If the tax laws of the USA are applied to everyone, then how does one "not pay their fair share of taxes?"
 
flieger83 said:
I'm going to ask a serious question here, and I'm NOT trying to start a fight or anything like that. I find discussions here on the SAF are more "open and honest and less emotional" on the whole than elsewhere.

That being said, what does this mean: "...And they don’t pay their fair share of taxes..."

What does that REALLY mean? I hear that phrase SO often at work and elsewhere and I'm stumped. If the tax laws of the USA are applied to everyone, then how does one "not pay their fair share of taxes?"
Click to expand...
I was taught by a CPA/Tax lawyer professor with Ivy League chops that your fair share of taxes is the least amount of taxes calculated pursuant to tax law.
 
I would prefer a VAT tax with some exclusions for necessities like food, energy etc....so it doesn't become regressive. If I have the money and want to purchase a $100k car then that's fine and the taxes are collected immediately based on my spending. If I live a material life then my taxes go up accordingly. No tax forms needed. Pay as you go.
 
nature boy said:
I like the death tax for everyone. Anything in the estate over $500,000 should be taxed at 55%-70%. In 1981 anything over $175,000 was taxed at 70%. In today's dollars that $175k is about $600k. I'd be okay with 2001's amount of $1 million, but at the 1981 rate of 70%- no exceptions or doubling if married, just whack the whole estate at 70%. The old tale from 20 years ago about farmers losing their generational family farm, was BS. The farm bureau couldn't cite one example of a lost farm due to estate taxes.


www.nytimes.com

Talk of Lost Farms Reflects Muddle of Estate Tax Debate (Published 2001)

Article on reality of estate taxes, which is far different from mythology in which family farmers have become icons for abolition campaign; IRS analysis for 1999 finds that almost no actual working farmers owe anything in estate taxes, Iowa State economist Neal Harl has never found case in which...
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

taxfoundation.org

Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014 | Tax Foundation

Table: Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014 Year Estate Tax Exemption Lifetime Gift Tax Exemption Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Maximum Estate Tax Rate Maximum Gift Tax Rate Source: Internal Revenue Service, CCH Inc.; Julie Garber’s “Annual Exclusion from Gift...
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org
Click to expand...
I don't have specific articles but your assertion does not pass the reality test. Land within a few hours drive of major metro areas is very expensive. I've known family farmers when I lived in New Hampshire and here in New Jersey with farms of over 200 acres. In the town that I lived in until 2018, 1 acre lots for houses were approaching $100K and there were farms within our township. Even if the per acre of the farmland was one twentieth of the $100K, at $5K per acre, that 200 acre farm is worth One Million so when the parents (farmers) die and they pass it to their kids, the tax bill that you advocate is $700K. I don't know what people the farm bureau checked with but unless they are VERY wealthy, the choices are to either sell the property or take out a very large mortgage on the property which was wholly theirs until that time. Farming is a legendarily low margin business and that mortgage would be a tough nut to take off of the top on a continuing basis.
 
OldRetSWO said:
I don't have specific articles but your assertion does not pass the reality test. Land within a few hours drive of major metro areas is very expensive. I've known family farmers when I lived in New Hampshire and here in New Jersey with farms of over 200 acres. In the town that I lived in until 2018, 1 acre lots for houses were approaching $100K and there were farms within our township. Even if the per acre of the farmland was one twentieth of the $100K, at $5K per acre, that 200 acre farm is worth One Million so when the parents (farmers) die and they pass it to their kids, the tax bill that you advocate is $700K. I don't know what people the farm bureau checked with but unless they are VERY wealthy, the choices are to either sell the property or take out a very large mortgage on the property which was wholly theirs until that time. Farming is a legendarily low margin business and that mortgage would be a tough nut to take off of the top on a continuing basis.
Click to expand...
Spot on with upstate New York farms.

I would add the time value of money/inflation.

This wealth tax discourages investment. VAT encourages investment and savings.
 
OldRetSWO said:
I don't have specific articles but your assertion does not pass the reality test. Land within a few hours drive of major metro areas is very expensive. I've known family farmers when I lived in New Hampshire and here in New Jersey with farms of over 200 acres. In the town that I lived in until 2018, 1 acre lots for houses were approaching $100K and there were farms within our township. Even if the per acre of the farmland was one twentieth of the $100K, at $5K per acre, that 200 acre farm is worth One Million so when the parents (farmers) die and they pass it to their kids, the tax bill that you advocate is $700K.
Click to expand...
If you live where I live and do what I do, you would know Neil Harl. Iowa State University is hardly a bastion of left wing progressivism. I have heard him speak several times over the past 30 years.

Estate tax doesn't force farmers to sell land: Harl | Department of Economics

Neil Harl, emeritus professor, was quoted in the article "Farmers and the Estate Tax Myth" in the September 20 Daily Yonder.
www.econ.iastate.edu www.econ.iastate.edu

If you want to move up the academic food chain, into the private sector and further to the right on the political spectrum, this is what Gary Cohn said about the issue. Moreover, every one of my clients--all but one of which either farm or own feedyards--would agree with both Neil Harl and Gary Cohn.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/only-morons-pay-the-estate-tax-says-white-houses-gary-cohn.html
 
cb7893 said:
If you live where I live and do what I do, you would know Neil Harl. Iowa State University is hardly a bastion of left wing progressivism. I have heard him speak several times over the past 30 years.

Estate tax doesn't force farmers to sell land: Harl | Department of Economics

Neil Harl, emeritus professor, was quoted in the article "Farmers and the Estate Tax Myth" in the September 20 Daily Yonder.
www.econ.iastate.edu www.econ.iastate.edu

If you want to move up the academic food chain, into the private sector and further to the right on the political spectrum, this is what Gary Cohn said about the issue. Moreover, every one of my clients--all but one of which either farm or own feedyards--would agree with both Neil Harl and Gary Cohn.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/only-morons-pay-the-estate-tax-says-white-houses-gary-cohn.html
Click to expand...
I don't disagree on who is paying estate taxes NOW. My comment was about lowering the estate tax start point to $700K. I fully agree that lots of folks with $10M and higher estates use trusts and other tools to beat the death tax but folks at the $1M and lower line are much less likely to have trusts or other financial arrangements set up to avoid the taxman.
 
After reading Natureboy's post, and then reading the article by cb7893, I learned some things. First, Natureboy's numbers are woefully destructive fiscally. Second, I then read Dr. Harl's comments...very informative (a fascinating gent, with a JD, and Ph.D.). A few observations...this was six years ago and the estate taxes for a "family-owned farm" (not a corporation, LLC, etc.) were only due for farmers with estates of greater than $5.49 million ($10.98 million for a married couple). For 2023, the estate tax threshold is $12,920,000.00 for single and I'm guessing double that for married couples (I can EASILY be wrong about that part).

Does that mean the “family farm” can’t be lost? No, but it’ll take a bigger farm to get slapped by Uncle Samuel (and it shouldn’t be). Still, if the family has one of those really large farms and if it's kept "in the family" and it’s a risk, then those would be the farms that would commonly form family corporations, using the tax code and established legal mechanisms that allow for a transfer of land and equipment to their heirs before death, among other legal actions. All in the tax code.

Lastly, reading all I did caused me to ask myself some questions that I had not considered. "Why should the government be able to take away a large part of an inheritance that has already been taxed? Why should it be able to penalize the family and potentially destroy a livelihood, because someone died? And why would it want to do that?

Great discussion thoughts.
 
Not an expert in estate taxes … but I think the exemption of 12 million is for an individual. It wouldn’t be double for married.

A surviving spouse receives spouses estate without estate tax for portion they receive.

Happy to be corrected - never specialized in this stuff.
 
A1Janitor said:
Not an expert in estate taxes … but I think the exemption of 12 million is for an individual. It wouldn’t be double for married.

A surviving spouse receives spouses estate without estate tax for portion they receive.

Happy to be corrected - never specialized in this stuff.
Click to expand...
No, you're probably correct...I saw it as for an individual; wasn't sure if it was double for married couples.
 
A1Janitor said:
I prefer government become fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...
You, me and millions of others would love this, but it's rarely done. From 2001-2020, both Republican POTUS's, cut taxes and increased spending. The Democrat POTUS raised taxes and increased spending. It seems to be the only thing the gov't knows how to do (increase spending). To get back to balance- need to increase revenues, and or cut programs. Estate tax hits those no longer with us, they won't miss it.
 
Dr. Strange Love said:
.
Agree with @A1Janitor … start working and saving @nature boy and you’ll change your tune …

Another thing … the Fed Funds Rate should “Naturally” be in the “6.5% to 7.5%” range … and “Stay there” …. No more “Free Money” …

With the “Cost of Money” being naturally where it should be … “6.5% to 7.5%” … the cost of servicing debt will weigh “Heavily” on fiscal responsibility … from the Individual, to the Community & Businesses, to the States & Corporations, all the way up to the U.S. Government.

No more Free Money …
.
Click to expand...
I do work, I do save and I do pay taxes thank you for the same and you're welcome. You and millions of other can and will disagree over the estate/death tax. A bit of a reality check before I continue- Having a life insurance policy doesn't generally get hit with estate taxes, leaving your family house isn't hit with an estate tax (as most folks don't own million dollar homes). Most of us don't have more than a million in assets to leave to heirs upon death (medical bills in your final days/months/years will help to make certain of that). Yet we will argue over death/estate taxes (like we may someday win the powerball and want our yet unknown great-great grandkids to benefit from it??).

Currently, I'm on the side of not wanting to have a permanent wealthy class...Hiltons, Rockefellers, Soros, Waltons, etc...let them enjoy it while they're on this wonderful Earth and then tax them when they're no longer here. Let someone new get a crack at holding onto that wealth for awhile.
Just because someone's Dad or Mom, or great-grandparent was savvy or a genius- doesn't mean the family should get to enjoy the fruits of it for perpetuity. Let them get out there and start working & saving as suggested.
 
flieger83 said:
After reading Natureboy's post, and then reading the article by cb7893, I learned some things. First, Natureboy's numbers are woefully destructive fiscally. Second, I then read Dr. Harl's comments...very informative (a fascinating gent, with a JD, and Ph.D.). A few observations...this was six years ago and the estate taxes for a "family-owned farm" (not a corporation, LLC, etc.) were only due for farmers with estates of greater than $5.49 million ($10.98 million for a married couple). For 2023, the estate tax threshold is $12,920,000.00 for single and I'm guessing double that for married couples (I can EASILY be wrong about that part).

Does that mean the “family farm” can’t be lost? No, but it’ll take a bigger farm to get slapped by Uncle Samuel (and it shouldn’t be). Still, if the family has one of those really large farms and if it's kept "in the family" and it’s a risk, then those would be the farms that would commonly form family corporations, using the tax code and established legal mechanisms that allow for a transfer of land and equipment to their heirs before death, among other legal actions. All in the tax code.

Lastly, reading all I did caused me to ask myself some questions that I had not considered. "Why should the government be able to take away a large part of an inheritance that has already been taxed? Why should it be able to penalize the family and potentially destroy a livelihood, because someone died? And why would it want to do that?

Great discussion thoughts.
Click to expand...
First, Natureboy's numbers are woefully destructive
Click to expand...

Perhaps, I missed it, but could you tell me who the numbers I suggested would be woefully destructive for - the people that are deceased? Or the deceased's entitled children who feel they should receive the fruits of Mommy and Daddy's labor without paying any tax when it's passed on to them?

As to your final paragraph- It's been debated here in the USA for over 246 years. I don't think there will ever be a compromised solution since people find compromise to be a dirty word now in politics. Anyway, some historical perspectives- Ben Franklin wanted PA's constitution to state something to the effect that: concentrated wealth was a danger to the happiness of mankind. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." 1797 John Adams and congress instituted a death tax to raise a Federal navy. Teddy Roosevelt was a big proponent of the estate tax in the early 1900's.

FWIW I'm not really a high tax proponent, except for the death tax. I'm 100% in favor of cutting expenses too. Starting with let's go back to a per diem for our elected officials. Not have them do a career in politics. They should hold a "regular" job, be a member of society and just go down to DC and vote on matters we elected them for and then come back the next day to work and live amongst us again. Health insurance, salaries, huge staffs- is all fluff on our dime.
 
usna1985 said:
I've only done one thing related to H&M. I canceled my Netflix account when I realized how much of my money was potentially spent on the H&M special (which, of course, I didn't watch). Not missed Netflix at all and saving $16/month. Amazon Prime video works just as well and actually has more things I want to watch.
Click to expand...

Netfix comes free in my cable package (yes, I'm a dinosaur that still has a cable package). Amazon Prime has some good stuff ("Bosch" - no obnoxoius music played in the background at all) but a lotta bad stuff too ("Amazing Mrs. Maisel"? How did that get good reviews?).

Apple has some good stuff too. Paramount has "Yellowstone" above all. Peacock. Lots of streaming services now.

But thank god there's 20 seasons of "Law & Order" reruns, plus their spinoffs, "SUV" & "Criminal Intent", still available.

Not to mention some older stuff like "The Rifleman", "Bonanza" and "Combat!".

I loved "Combat!" as a kid & love re-watchinng it now, but it's worthy of criticisms:

1. Was the US Army of WW2 mostly manned by 40 year olds (like that show's actors seemed to be)?
2. Did it really take five years of fighting to liberate France after D-Day? (the show was aired from 1962-1967)
3. When the show switched to color the fact that it was filmed in the sunny, blue sky greater Los Angeles area became painfully obvious.
4. Wasn't it conveniet for the US viewing audience that everyone in Wehrmacht spoke English?
5. Did every US Army unit in Europe have a Cajun from Louisiana whom could speak French?

While we're on the entertainment topic, how about Alec Baldwin being indicted? Question: If they ever make a movie about the Alec Baldwin trial & re-create the on-set shooting in the movie "Rust", will they use live rounds? Or is it too soon for "Rust" humor?
 
nature boy said:
I do work, I do save and I do pay taxes thank you for the same and you're welcome. You and millions of other can and will disagree over the estate/death tax. A bit of a reality check before I continue- Having a life insurance policy doesn't generally get hit with estate taxes, leaving your family house isn't hit with an estate tax (as most folks don't own million dollar homes). Most of us don't have more than a million in assets to leave to heirs upon death (medical bills in your final days/months/years will help to make certain of that). Yet we will argue over death/estate taxes (like we may someday win the powerball and want our yet unknown great-great grandkids to benefit from it??).

Currently, I'm on the side of not wanting to have a permanent wealthy class...Hiltons, Rockefellers, Soros, Waltons, etc...let them enjoy it while they're on this wonderful Earth and then tax them when they're no longer here. Let someone new get a crack at holding onto that wealth for awhile.
Just because someone's Dad or Mom, or great-grandparent was savvy or a genius- doesn't mean the family should get to enjoy the fruits of it for perpetuity. Let them get out there and start working & saving as suggested.
Click to expand...

The US federal estate tax exemption in 2023 is $12.92 million - per individual. If you estate is woth $130 million & you have 10 heirs, there's no tax. You have to be unbelievably wealthy to have a federal estate tax when you leave this world.

I'm not opposed to inherited wealth. But I've seen a lot of it sqandered by heirs who've been raised in wealth without ever learning how to earn it.
 
nature boy said:
I like the death tax for everyone. Anything in the estate over $500,000 should be taxed at 55%-70%. In 1981 anything over $175,000 was taxed at 70%. In today's dollars that $175k is about $600k. I'd be okay with 2001's amount of $1 million, but at the 1981 rate of 70%- no exceptions or doubling if married, just whack the whole estate at 70%. The old tale from 20 years ago about farmers losing their generational family farm, was BS. The farm bureau couldn't cite one example of a lost farm due to estate taxes.
…
Click to expand...
.
Fun fact … @nature boy’s SAF user emoji picture/image …

2EEA819D-ADCE-4DAA-8909-87BEC6FE00E5.jpeg

It’s a Picture of WWE’s “Ric Flair” … possibly the greatest “Bamboozler” of all time …

Ric knows how to take your money …

Btw … you can go online and buy your very own Ric Flair bathrobes to wear how you choose …

6E3F1C53-5311-4DE9-B8E5-59D24C9C721B.jpeg
.
DD21A8BF-5C48-40DC-A235-5EB85E9E7013.jpeg
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top