cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Frequent Contributor

a subgroup

that's always been around the coffee shops and stockyards are the guys who aren't responsible for any of this mess because they've never been for anything. Generally speaking, with the possible exception of guns or the death penalty that's often true.

"Yep, I told 'em....."

 

7 Replies
Frequent Contributor

Re: a subgroup

I think this group generally falls into one of the identified Trump categories- higher income low info white males.

They're generally all in on the agenda to degrade and destroy government. Even if, like the farmer component in there, they are seriously hurting their own prospects.

Generally that guy will be OK with having less as long as people who don't deserve it have less yet.

Honored Advisor

Re: a subgroup

You think this crazy B and her fans are going to let a farmer pass down his 400 acres to his heirs without the masses taking their cut?

Image result for aoc

Senior Advisor

Re: a subgroup

Progressives want your health care, college funds, energy, guns, and meat. And if you complain they label it as hate speech and take that too.

Frequent Contributor

Re: a subgroup

Also generally display a very limited range of empathy for others.

Senior Contributor

Talking about 400 acres

if the goal of the progressive left is to break up large concentrations of wealth ( note, they always leave out their sophisticated trusts under the heading of "hypocrisy"), why is there an estate tax levied on the size of the decedent's estate, and not based on what each child or other heir receives?

For example, the guy that has just one child, and leaves it all to that child, ends up with a large estate passing on. The guy with four kids that divides it up might have each child not getting what the leftists consider " a large concentration of wealth".  So why tax the guy that splits up his empire at all once he dies?

Frequent Contributor

Re: Talking about 400 acres

Right off the top of my head I'd say that the "family farm" is consistent with our traditions and the estate tax exemption ought to approximately equal the value of 160 acres of average tillable land. Currently about $1M, let's say.

For farms and other closely held businesses, something along the lines of the old special use designations can apply- a higher exemption but the basis for capital gains purposes does not get reset. If someone is continuing the business they weren't planning to sell it anyway, right? Need to run it for 10 years or tax is recaptured.

As far as our traditions go, the homestead couple with 10 kids had the same problem with who gets the farm- up to them to figure out.

Back to Don Kraft- I'd say the absolutely bulletproof standard in terms of fair taxation would be- a. no special capital gains treatment in the broader code except for inflation indexing. b. as now, 100% spousal exemption c. upon the death of the second spouse,  all previously taxed wealth is tax free. All built in and untaxed capital gains are taxed as if it is  sale- at the indexed rate. Single $1M exemption.

Only a few percent of estates would even need to file an estate tax return and the vast majority of those would not see a heavy tax hit. Folks with a few hundred acres bought years ago would not. Same with people who happened to own a home in a nice part of CA.

But above something on the order of $10M I'd start scaling in escalating rates from 50-90%. The last thing in the world we need is to be ruled by generations of little Ivankas.

*a broad social benefit to not rewarding short term gains, and not letting inflation be a tax.

 

Honored Advisor

Re: Talking about 400 acres

$10 million is "rich"  $1 million is "rich" $100,000 is "rich".  In a country where the average person couldn`t come up with $400 to fix a broken water heater. 

There`s a hell of a lot more Zulus than Boers.

Image result for democracy wolves sheep definition