4 Senate "Democrats" prove they absolutely hate the poor

[J. J.]

Again, this does not affect the over 99% of estates that are less than $2 million for individuals or $4 million for couples.

And if you do inheirit some farm or something that doesn't have significant liquid assetts, there are these things called mortgages.

There has not been shown to be a single case of a family farm that had to be sold due to the estate tax. Obviously most family farms aren't worth $2-4 million.

The Washington Post list 138 examples, in one year.  I doubt that there are too many more 1,600+ family farms that are inherited one year/  Currently there are about 897,000 farms, excluding another 834,000 where the farmer is part time (he owns another business).  Of the 897,000 about 150,000 are small, in terms of sales.  Now, not every farmer dies every year, but that number is between one and two percent.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html

[sarcasm]
I love the philosophy of borrowing money to pay taxes on money that is tied up in equipment and used to pay the working man!  Oh, that's a good Democratic way to keep the economy flowing, and provide employment! [/sarcasm]

Even in practical terms, it may not be possible; many farmers borrow to buy seed in anticipation of selling it at the harvest.  They have used up their credit.  Less than 25% of all farms gross more than $50,000/year.

And this does look at small, non-farm businesses, where one third are sold.

Let's face it, the inheritance tax is anti-farmer and anti-small business.

[J. J.]

Here a couple of examples, including ones where people donate their land to keep it from being developed.

http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=73&ck=D2DDEA18F00665CE8623E36BD4E3C7C5

http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=506

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/oct/22/519546883.html

http://www.pilipacific.org/conservation_options/consr_options.html

Let's see, the New Democratic Party hates open spaces, the farmer and the working man.

[TomC]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

They would if they knew that less than 0.5% of estates were affected instead of getting all of their information from the so called media and other Republican propaganda organizations.

[J. J.]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

They would if they knew that less than 0.5% of estates were affected instead of getting all of their information from the so called media and other Republican propaganda organizations.

Agreed, but that still does not protect those small family businesses (about one third) and farms (about one tenth) that fall under the tax.  The small business numbers were particularly shocking.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

They would if they knew that less than 0.5% of estates were affected instead of getting all of their information from the so called media and other Republican propaganda organizations.

Agreed, but that still does not protect those small family businesses (about one third) and farms (about one tenth) that fall under the tax.  The small business numbers were particularly shocking.

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

[dazzleman]

It is possible that some of these things may be supported by a majority of liberals, although even that is debateable. Obviously Connecticut and New York Democrats are more liberal than those in Michigan, that's true, and there are local differences.

But even if a majority of liberals did support them, liberals are still only about half or less of the Democratic party as a whole, so I think my statement that a majority of Democrats don't support these things still holds true.

Most Democrats certainly don't support a middle class tax increase, I certainly don't think the majority would support busing, the majority wouldn't support going soft on criminals (I guess it depends on how you define "soft" of course, but I'm not seeing any major push to decrease criminal sentences or anything like that..most Democrats don't even support complete elimination of the death penalty even if you consider that position as being soft on crime, which is of course itself debateable given the moral implications and other considerations involved).

Affirmative action is a policy which has strong support within a small part of the Democratic party, and certainly is not actively supported by most within the party; it's certainly not something that I've heard anyone seriously propose increasing.

Obviously some poll numbers on these things would be nice to see as I'm not aware of any recent such polls, but I think the things I've said are reasonable.

Connecticut Democrats are not as bad as New York Democrats, except for the inner city ones.  New York City Democrats are the worst around here, like the most virulent strain of a deadly disease.

Eric, you may or may not be right that most nominal Democrats don't support the destructive policies that I outlined.  But that seems to be irrelevant, since support for these policies is the official position of the party.  Affirmative action is a great example; it seems that the small segment that you talk about has a total grip on the party on this issue, and quite a few others.

In Connecticut, the Democrats are talking about watering down prison sentences for certain offenders.  They fail to realize of course that stiffer sentences for these offenders, which were pushed through by the first Republican governor in 20 years back in the mid 1990s, are what helped bring the crime rate down substantially.  Now that it's down, they want to push it right back up.  Democrats here also refused to enact a Republican-supported ban on school busing in response to a "landmark" (read: liberal) court ruling that the schools in the state were 'unconstitutionally' segregated by race (whatever that means:  apparently, it means that the racial balance isn't what the liberals want it to be, even though they themselves don't put their kids into multiracial schools).

[Sam Spade]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no inheritance tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

Well, gosh, your post totally convinced me that you rich people deserve to not pay a dime in taxes.,

[J. J.]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

Well, actually, the data is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501360.html

Interestingly, it is the same figures that your cite notes.



Now, six years ago, in 2000, 123 farms and 135 businesses had assets over $2 million, but in those six years, assets have increased.  Also keep in mind that the minimums are not indexed for inflation, so as time goes on more will fall under this.

Again we the policy of the new Democratic Party, screw over the farmer and small  businesses.

[opebo]

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Your family pays no income taxes?  Or do you mean that you will pay no inheritance taxes?  Those are different things.  If either or both are the case, would you mind sharing their methods?  Sounds a bit too good to be true..  my progenitors seem to pay lots.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SamSpade, class-warfare is the state of things under the current system.  You're just peeved that someone would suggest that any other class than your own should ever win (or even try to win).

Keep in mind, Sam, that the money currently possessed by your family is not really 'theirs', except through the imposition of force by the State.  Yours is a privilege built upon the death and misery of the working class.  There is nothing 'wrong' with that - and I would suggest that it is reasonable for you to enjoy your wealth all the more knowing of their relative sufferings on your behalf.  But please do not act as though they are somehow unreasonable or beyond the pale when they try to rectify their disadvantages a bit - it just sounds silly.

[J. J.]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

You also have to remember that the businesses effected are only those where the owner dies.  So over ten years that, on average, would effect 1,340 small businesses.

Further, as noted in some of the links, some farmer are donating their land to conservation groups, just to prevent from being developed; they are not in those statistics, but it still takes farmland out of production.  The cannot afford to pay the taxes so they give it away.

Let's face it the new Democrats favor hurting farmers, small businesses, food production, and oppose open spaces.  That's a real winning policy.

And Sam, tell us how you really feel next time. 

[Sam Spade]

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Your family pays no income taxes?  Or do you mean that you will pay no inheritance taxes?  Those are different things.  If either or both are the case, would you mind sharing their methods?  Sounds a bit too good to be true..  my progenitors seem to pay lots.

Inheritance taxes.  I mistyped in the above post.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

Well, actually, the data is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501360.html

Interestingly, it is the same figures that your cite notes.



Now, six years ago, in 2000, 123 farms and 135 businesses had assets over $2 million, but in those six years, assets have increased.  Also keep in mind that the minimums are not indexed for inflation, so as time goes on more will fall under this.

Again we the policy of the new Democratic Party, screw over the farmer and small  businesses.

Well, there's the problem with your data. My data says that those 1659 farms and 485 businesses are the only ones that would have to pay any taxes with a $675,000 exemption. It does not  that they'd be forced to sell them, and may I remind you that the exemption is now $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples?

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

You also have to remember that the businesses effected are only those where the owner dies.  So over ten years that, on average, would effect 1,340 small businesses.

Further, as noted in some of the links, some farmer are donating their land to conservation groups, just to prevent from being developed; they are not in those statistics, but it still takes farmland out of production.  The cannot afford to pay the taxes so they give it away.

Let's face it the new Democrats favor hurting farmers, small businesses, food production, and oppose open spaces.  That's a real winning policy.

And Sam, tell us how you really feel next time. 

No, we support helping them by having universal health care. The high costs of health care are really hurting small businesses.

[J. J.]

Well, there's the problem with your data. My data says that those 1659 farms and 485 businesses are the only ones that would have to pay any taxes with a $675,000 exemption. It does not  that they'd be forced to sell them, and may I remind you that the exemption is now $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples?
regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

We don't have the data from 2006.  What your saying is that if these people had the same assets and died six years later, they wouldn't have to pay it now.  To real problems with that theory:

1.  The value of assets tend to increase over time.  You don't take that into account and the you can't revive the people after six years.  Some might have physical assets, like land, that was worth $1,000,000 in 2000 and it might be worth $3,000,000 today, even though they have not made any improvements to it.

This is especially true when areas near existing farmland are developed.  Remember open spaces?  Under what you think is good, that will be all you can do, remember them.

2.  The population is getting older and is approaching death more quickly.  The number of people subject to this tax will be increasing.  It's called "demographics."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, there's the problem with your data. My data says that those 1659 farms and 485 businesses are the only ones that would have to pay any taxes with a $675,000 exemption. It does not  that they'd be forced to sell them, and may I remind you that the exemption is now $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples?
regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

We don't have the data from 2006.  What your saying is that if these people had the same assets and died six years later, they wouldn't have to pay it now.  To real problems with that theory:

1.  The value of assets tend to increase over time.  You don't take that into account and the you can't revive the people after six years.  Some might have physical assets, like land, that was worth $1,000,000 in 2000 and it might be worth $3,000,000 today, even though they have not made any improvements to it.

This is especially true when areas near existing farmland are developed.  Remember open spaces?  Under what you think is good, that will be all you can do, remember them.

2.  The population is getting older and is approaching death more quickly.  The number of people subject to this tax will be increasing.  It's called "demographics."

1. Real estate sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. I will concede that things would be worth about 20% more because of inflation, but that's not a huge difference.

2. The death rate is DECREASING.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html

[opebo]

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Your family pays no income taxes?  Or do you mean that you will pay no inheritance taxes?  Those are different things.  If either or both are the case, would you mind sharing their methods?  Sounds a bit too good to be true..  my progenitors seem to pay lots.

Inheritance taxes.  I mistyped in the above post.

Still, very interesting!  How will they accomplish this feat?

[J. J.]

1. Real estate sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. I will concede that things would be worth about 20% more because of inflation, but that's not a huge difference.

2. The death rate is DECREASING.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html

1.  Property values are not governed so much by inflation, but by location.    Land that was too distant to be developed 10-20 years ago is now right up against the suburbs.  The value of the land shoots up.

Here is a report from those, arch-conservative reactionaries, the Sierra Club [/sarcam]:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/report.asp

This has been a major problem southern and central California, so I'm quite surprised you're not familiar with it.

Here are some examples from states:

http://ianrnews.unl.edu/storyfiles/050324_table1.html

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/NEWS/2001/Nov/landvalue.htm

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=3881415&nav=menu132_3_5

In Iowa, the rate 5.5% increase in six months. 

2.  I though you'd screw it up.  The "death rate" is based on the number of deaths per thousand.  The population has increased, but so has the number of deaths.

In 2000, there were 2,403,351 deaths in the US.  In 2003 (the last data I have) 2,443,908.  The number of deaths is increasing while the "death rate" is declining.  My sources are the 2003 and 2006 World Almanac, pp. 73 and 179 respectively.

Here is an online source from 2002-3.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/finaldeaths03_tables.pdf

You can actually see the number of deaths increasing while the "death rate" drops.

These examples illustrate reasons why we shouldn't trust you.

[Sam Spade]

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Your family pays no income taxes?  Or do you mean that you will pay no inheritance taxes?  Those are different things.  If either or both are the case, would you mind sharing their methods?  Sounds a bit too good to be true..  my progenitors seem to pay lots.

Inheritance taxes.  I mistyped in the above post.

Still, very interesting!  How will they accomplish this feat?

Utilization of trusts and other means and loopholes within the law.  I'm not really at liberty to say exactly what means, but I can assure you that they're entirely legal.

They do pay a decent amount of income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, etc. at present, but there is considerable cash flow and a good amount of cash-on-hand (how much I'm not willing to say). 

When most of your interest is in real estate, most of your concern is in protecting it for the future, whether it be from outrageous property tax evaluations, (a big problem in Texas) retirement, or after your death, or protecting it from lawsuits and protecting your personal liability.