cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

It sounds like these people

would prefer that their assets didn't appreciate in value if it meant that they might be taxed on their good fortune.

 

If they bought $2000 land and it when to $10,000 per care they might have to pay some capital gains or estate taxes. And then they have had the good fortune to have low interest rates to finance their purchase as well as operating capital. They have been able to depreciate fences and existing tile courtesy of the IRS 1040 as well deduct the cost of financing their investment.

 

Talk about being negative, these folks can squeeze negativity out of the most positive situation. A wise investment, extensive increase in value, low interest rates, High grain prices to retire the debt but no appreciation of the good fortune.

 

All they can see is the tax burden that may be required of them. I guess taxes are worst curse ever put on humanity. Profits are taxed thus lets drive our income to a negative level so that we can avoid taxes. How do these people ever get a dollar to save if tax avoidance is their primary concern?

 

People that buy farms pay for them with after tax income. Then if they have the best of luck and a 500% appreciation in their investment is not something to rejoice about because they might be subject to that lousy 15% CG tax or worse yet ineritance taxes. They folks might really be happy of they lost asset values on the investment. Then they want to take the losses against ordinary income which is taxed a higher rate.

 

There is just no satisfying some folks!

 

 

14 Replies
Honored Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people

That`s just it Don, I don`t give a crap what land is worth beyond the novelty of "$24,000 an acre!!!".  When I do a walk-a-about on my domain I`m thinking "Here`s the farm that`s been in my family for 130 yrs, there`s the 1910 house Great Grandpa built that my babies learned to crawl in.  Here`s the 1st farm my Dad bought and was turned down by the banker as a favor...but made a go of it anyway.  Here`s the farm that was raised on, I fought pirates on the drainage ditch banks, built tree houses, hid in the cornfield when the teacher came to vist, there`s the hill that I set up camp when I was 5yrs old and ran away from home.  There`s the farm my folks bought when they inherited some money from my Grandma in the 70`s, there`s the mudhole that I wiped out and nearly killed myself on my minibike".   See, that land ain`t for sale at any price...well $30,000/a and we`ll talk Smiley Wink  but if the government values my land at $200/acre or $20,000, it isn`t for sale, it`s in tight hands.  Some investor that treats land like a commodity that`s different, go ahead and tax his profits.  To me this land has a soul and I pray that my Grandkids will maintain each acre of it...Did I mention?...I LOVE this land!!!

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people

Tour lust for other people lives is unquenchable. Give all yours first if you think it so just.
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people

Not as much as you love your dollars

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people


@kraft-t wrote:

Not as much as you love your dollars


You love his dollars more then he does.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: way to kick craftys butt

he is a typical demorat wants what ever he is too lazy to work for

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: It sounds like these people

do you love those farm oayts dollars   more than the people who forked them up for you

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people


@hobbyfarm2145365 wrote:

do you love those farm oayts dollars   more than the people who forked them up for you


I just take what the what can you give me stupid politicians hand to me. It's my Obama insurance baby.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people

I sit in amazement trying to figure out some linear political or philosophical continuity or basis to your contributions here lately.

 

All I can come up with is your trying to pin every perceived governmental sin or shortfalling of the  past 80 years onhe Obama administration.

 

Now I agree with some if not many of your concerns, at least to the point where I can't disagree that some of the "paved with good intentions" moves have become boondoggles.  Often because while they were well intended they took on failure because the most clever and actuarially skilled and cynical learned how to play them like a piano...i.e. commodity and other farm payments without community and culture sustaining payment limits.

 

Now I suppose you could pin it on Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush one...go back as far as you'd like if you honestly believed that The President  and his administration could by edict or order wipe out any old program they would like to, or go into the program and summarily alter it in some fashion to make it work better.  But ALL of the programs and initiatives and laws were hammered out by 80 years of Congressional action, and it takes Congress being involved to fix or delete.

 

In your case, you HATE this administration and this President and for that matter most of this Congress for reasons well outside of economic policy or taxation or matters of freedom, liberty or equity.  You constant efforts to bring your hatred and prejudices on to the plain of economics and tax policy and government outside of social and cultural issues are clumsy and tiresome.  All of this stuff that you say you don't like have been problems, some of them very justifiable in needeing

addressing, since you've been a visitor and contributor here..through a number of administrations and Congresses.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: It sounds like these people


@bruce MN wrote:

I sit in amazement trying to figure out some linear political or philosophical continuity or basis to your contributions here lately.

 

All I can come up with is your trying to pin every perceived governmental sin or shortfalling of the  past 80 years onhe Obama administration.

 

Now I agree with some if not many of your concerns, at least to the point where I can't disagree that some of the "paved with good intentions" moves have become boondoggles.  Often because while they were well intended they took on failure because the most clever and actuarially skilled and cynical learned how to play them like a piano...i.e. commodity and other farm payments without community and culture sustaining payment limits.

 

Now I suppose you could pin it on Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush one...go back as far as you'd like if you honestly believed that The President  and his administration could by edict or order wipe out any old program they would like to, or go into the program and summarily alter it in some fashion to make it work better.  But ALL of the programs and initiatives and laws were hammered out by 80 years of Congressional action, and it takes Congress being involved to fix or delete.

 

In your case, you HATE this administration and this President and for that matter most of this Congress for reasons well outside of economic policy or taxation or matters of freedom, liberty or equity.  You constant efforts to bring your hatred and prejudices on to the plain of economics and tax policy and government outside of social and cultural issues are clumsy and tiresome.  All of this stuff that you say you don't like have been problems, some of them very justifiable in needeing

addressing, since you've been a visitor and contributor here..through a number of administrations and Congresses.


So if you think the government is spending is bad it is because of your reasoned thoughtful insight. If I think it is bad it is because I hate this president. OK I can go along with that. But guess what, the spending is going to continue because the people will vote for who ever will give them the most. If the repigs want to get elected they will figure this out and out give the dems. Case and point......the pay roll tax cut. If the repigs are smart they will demand Harry Reid increase to cut tom 4% of earned income instead of the measly 2% they are talking about. Why do the dems demand the working people pay more while Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary.