Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 359 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
December 11th, 2012 06:41 PM
the dems hate farmers....
December 11th, 2012 06:44 PM
On this board you have personally turned more than that against farmers...
December 11th, 2012 06:49 PM
the dems hate farmers....
December 11th, 2012 07:03 PM
a good friend of mine is married into a family with a large farm and this issue is concerning to them...he believes they have already passed down ownership and the grandfather who was the primary owner technically owns nothing...
December 11th, 2012 07:13 PM
Won’t this also adversely impact many small business owners and their employees?
December 12th, 2012 12:32 AM
If they're truly small then they will fall under the exemptions and avoid it completely. If not then it could but, if they plan it shouldn't impact them by much. I am no expert on this but I speak as a small business owner. So for instance they could set up an IDGT(Intentionally defective grantor trust) where as the name suggests, the shares are intentionally assigned a lower value at set up. You then allow these shares to grow while still passing on the growth to the heirs as long as they fall below the exemptions. You could plan them better with the possibly new exemptions that are up for vote and still pass on more or less everything to your heirs.
Some of the loopholes used by the 0.01% are freezing the value of the assets in an IDGT, hence escaping the appreciation which surprisingly is allowed by the code.
If you own land and donate it you could use its appreciation towards estate tax in your favor.
Fortunately as smart as the Feds are, the businessmen in this country are even smarter.
December 12th, 2012 03:33 AM
It doesn't take much land now days to be worth 1 million dollars. My Grandpa is worth well over that with land and cattle, but when he passes, i bet he doesn't have $10000 in cash. If this happens, we will have to put most of his cattle on the market, and sell some land. He probably owns 800 acres and runs 300 or 400 head of cattle. Pretty small time for these parts.
December 12th, 2012 11:32 AM
work all your life so the govt can take 55% of your life savings over $1 mil.....yeah.....that seems fair/right
December 12th, 2012 11:39 AM
I would imagine that smart estate planning can eliminate most of the tax consequences...but I have been out of the loop for too long to know for sure....
December 12th, 2012 11:45 AM
i don't think my parents have ever looked into any estate planning other than going to an attorney for a will...
if nothing is done about the exemption limit.....they'll have to do something....
they have around $1mil cash and another $4mil in land
December 12th, 2012 11:54 AM
It is a touchy subject to address with a parent...
We always kind of beat around the bush with my parents and we waited too long..then one day we found out they were incompetent and I had to tiptoe (semi legal lol)around with an attorney friend of the family to get a POA in place...
It was a ****ing nightmare...and still is...gawddamn American Express is still a pain in the ass to this day and I have given them everything but my first born to get them to drop the account...
December 12th, 2012 11:56 AM
i think it would be pretty easy to convince my dad...
if i tell him owebama is going to get $1.65mil of his life savings.......
December 12th, 2012 11:58 AM
December 12th, 2012 11:59 AM
Between this, being raided for reusing seeds, being raided for selling raw milk and organics without permits... we might as well all just eat the poison they serve us at McDonalds and wait on our shitty health care to buy us insulin and heart disease medication... Every day I grow more and more sick of the bull shit in Washington...
December 12th, 2012 12:02 PM
Here we are discussing estate taxes and this pops up...
And I like philanthropist George Soros...****er made his money hedging currency and is known as the man that Broke the Bank of England...he made over a billion dollars screwing with the pound.... lol
WASHINGTON - A coalition of three dozen ultra-wealthy progressives, including billionaire Warren Buffett, former President Jimmy Carter, philanthropist George Soros and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, launched a new effort Tuesday to press members of Congress and the White House to raise the estate tax in order to provide additional revenue for the federal budget.
"A substantial estate tax can provide revenues at a time when our federal government badly needs revenues … and the estate tax will do this without an adverse effect," Rubin said on a conference call organized by the progressive group, Responsible Wealth.
So far, negotiations between the White House and congressional Republicans surrounding the "fiscal cliff" have largely focused on added revenue from higher tax rates for top income levels. But as the December 31 deadline nears, alternative revenue streams are attracting renewed attention.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, raising the estate tax by just 10% could produce more than $250 billion in added revenue over the next ten years. In contrast, raising the tax rate on the top 2 percent of earners would only produce around $100 billion in the same period, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Members of Responsible Wealth, including Bill Gates Sr., Abigail Disney, and Richard Rockefeller, believe that a progressive estate tax is both sound fiscal policy and a personal civic responsibility for wealthy Americans whose families benefited from government investment at all levels of their businesses. "My grandfather Roy and his brother Walt both made their fortunes because of the American system, because there was funding for infrastructure, roads, highways, and regulations," said Disney. "I have no desire to compound my already significant advantages, especially not on the backs of the middle class."
Members of Responsible Wealth have proposed a plan that goes well beyond the one put forth by President Barack Obama, which calls for raising the current estate tax by 10 percent, to a maximum of 45% of an estate's value above a $7.5 million exemption per couple.
Responsible Wealth's proposal would lower that exemption to $4 million so more estates qualify for the tax, and would include a gradual increase in rates on the very largest fortunes -- up to as much as 55%, members said. Exact details of the increase have yet to be nailed down. The group hopes it will find congressional support for the plan, and said talks with the White House are in the works.
Winning congressional support for such a progressive plan might be tougher than it sounds. The estate tax has long been a thorny issue on Capitol Hill, where it is universally reviled by Republicans who label it a "death tax." A number of Senate Democrats from farm-heavy states also oppose estate taxes, which they say interfere with farmers' ability to pass family farms to the next generation.
Three of those Democrats, Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (Mont.) are up for reelection in 2014, which is likely part of the reason the White House hasn't made a bigger deal out of the estate tax.
Another part of the reason is that polls show that Americans generally favor repealing the estate tax, although polling percentages can shift significantly based on how certain questions are phrased. There is also widespread confusion over how many people might actually be eligible for the tax, with more people believing they could be eligible than actually would be.
Currently only around 4,000 people in the United States are affected by the estate tax policy. In 2011, around 3,200 people paid estate taxes, and of those, only 50 were family farms or small businesses.
December 12th, 2012 12:03 PM
yup.....farmland in the midwest can go for $10k/acre.....so the govt lets you exempt 100 acres......very generous of them...
December 12th, 2012 12:08 PM
the wealthy will always find loopholes...and never pay anyway....
if i were a conspiracy theorist....i would think the wealthy are using this as a way to get their hands on land/businesses that would otherwise never be available..
December 12th, 2012 12:12 PM
We can put in a plan to avoid that tax planning...
Once you hit 50 million in assets everything but 1 million goes to the government...they are so smart they can start over...we screwed over the GM bondholders so we should be able to do away with a simple will or trust....
December 12th, 2012 12:22 PM
And as you well know not all farm ground is created equal!
but it sounds like its treated equally.
December 12th, 2012 03:18 PM
hate to go off on a tangent....but are you sick of raids to stop music/movie pirates/clothing? would you be ok with joe blow opening a factory and start making iphones? or viagra? or pepsi?
December 12th, 2012 03:28 PM
Monsanto is the devil and is trying to kill us all...
The following users like this post:
December 12th, 2012 03:34 PM
Joe blow can make anything he wants in a free market and if it is as good as pepsi people will buy it.. I am guess you enjoy your GMO seeds and governments subsidies enough you feel threatened by farmers markets and organics? Comparing organic food to an iPhone is not really apples to apples ...
December 12th, 2012 04:01 PM
you're like oh for 4 today in comprehending posts......
December 12th, 2012 04:13 PM
Those GMO seeds took many years and millions of dollars to develop...if some other company wants to spend the time or money to develop their own strains then they are more than welcome to get after it....but they cannot steal Monsanto's work and profit from that theft...
If someone made an exact duplicate of the i Phone, not by their own development, but by theft of their product design then I would expect Apple to fight vigorously to stop the product from coming to market...
If Aurora took years and millions of dollars to develop and patented an Aurora branded 100" 3D tv that cost a hundred bucks at your local retailer I would imagine you would be rather upset if I copied your entire design and undercut your cost by 25% since I had no R&D costs....
The following users like this post:
December 12th, 2012 04:18 PM
Can anyone recommend a good farm and ranch estate planner that doesn't cost 500/hr.
December 12th, 2012 04:30 PM
The original problem with the seeds is the seeds... I understand the iPhone but the GMO seeds has always been a problem for me, raiding farms for reusing shitty food seeds is really pissy and the farms having to buy them because there is basically no other choice is even pissier
December 12th, 2012 04:45 PM
Farmers can buy any seed they want...that is not an issue...Monsanto offered a far superior product at a much cheaper overall cost to the farmer...
Now, using the GMO seeds that are produced by the GMO crop is the questionable area...but I would imagine that is explained/documented/boilerplated up front when the original seed is purchased...
December 12th, 2012 04:47 PM
phil...you're pretty damn smart....for a city slicker
December 12th, 2012 04:47 PM
I am sure it is, and honestly as far as soybeans go there are not a great deal of choices... I just hate what farming has become. We have rice farmers in Texas living great lives who have not produced rice in 15 years because of subsidies ... It is sad for all of us.
December 12th, 2012 04:49 PM
that is not true...
don't believe everything you read/hear...
December 12th, 2012 04:50 PM
I read it in the chronicle this morning from a rice farmer. But I will take your word, and you can still be my favorite farmer in the dell.
December 12th, 2012 07:20 PM
Good friend of mine does estate planning. PM me if you're serious.
December 12th, 2012 07:55 PM
The reduction in the estate tax exemption scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2013 was enacted by the Republican House and Republican Senate and signed into law by Bush in 2001 and 2003. The Bush tax cuts were initially scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, and included in that bill was a provision that would reduce the estate tax exemption to $1 million (after the tax was repealed, but only for 2010). It's only because the House, Senate and Obama agreed towards the end of 2010 to extend the effective date of the Bush tax cuts (including the higher estate tax exemption amount, which now equals $5.12 million per person) through the end of 2012.
Obama is proposing that the estate tax exemption amount equal $3.5 million per person (or $7 million per married couple) beginning in 2013. (Some Republicans want to leave the amount where it is and others want the estate tax repealed.) If the amount equals $3.5 million per person beginning in 2013, it would impact a very, very, very small number of estates, and that group would consist of people who are not wise enough to hire an estate planning lawyer to structure the individual's affairs so that the impact of the estate tax is either eliminated or mitigated substantially.
December 12th, 2012 08:15 PM
Last edited by soonerintn; July 20th, 2013 at 01:26 AM.
December 12th, 2012 08:40 PM
There can be a significant amount of appreciation that has not been taxed.
December 12th, 2012 10:02 PM
Last edited by soonerintn; July 20th, 2013 at 01:26 AM.
December 12th, 2012 10:10 PM
If you buy land for $1000 and at the time of your death it is worth $50,000, then the $49k in appreciation is not subject to income tax. Estate tax? Possibly, but not income tax. Also, not sure why you're mentioning property taxes. Different tax regime imposed by a different tax authority.
December 12th, 2012 11:14 PM
December 12th, 2012 11:17 PM
December 13th, 2012 12:59 AM
Its not the appreciation that they're taxing, its the transfer. Granted, appreciation will be built in. And what people are contesting is since it was paid for with a post tax income, shouldn't it be allowed to be passed on to the heirs without any penalties/taxes? But then again people should be complaining against Gift tax as well.
Again, with proper planning most of the issues can be mititgated if not completely eliminated.
December 13th, 2012 06:03 AM
No, the appreciation is being taxed, and it's being taxed at the time of transfer. You're correct in that, in certain instances, amounts that already have been subject to income tax are later subject to estate tax, but that only arises if (i) the total value of a husband and wife's estate exceeds $10.24 million (at least in 2012) and (ii) the couple failed to work with an estate planning attorney.
I agree that the law currently in effect beginning next year that reduces the estate tax exemption to $1 million per estate should be increased. Not sure exactly what that amount should be, but I believe it should be higher than $1 million (or $2 million for a married couple).
December 14th, 2012 06:55 PM
No, you're incorrect because if they were just taxing the appreciation, the heirs would get a tax break if the asset was a negative asset(For eg If I bought the AAPL stock at $700 six weeks ago and I die today then my heirs receive that asset at $508). The heirs get taxed regardless of the value(appreciated/depreciated) at the time of transfer provided the total value of that asset is above the current deduction. Again, its the transfer they're taxing with the appreciation/depreciation built in like I suggested in my post.
December 14th, 2012 07:23 PM
I did not state that only the appreciation is being taxed. I stated that appreciation is subject to the estate tax merely to illustrate that it is subject to only one level of tax (i.e., the appreciation is not subject to income tax). Note in my post above that I stated that "amounts that already have been subject to income tax" may be subject to the estate tax, as the point I was highlighting is that an individual's basis (i.e., an amount already subject to income tax) could likewise be subject to estate tax. You are correct that an asset that has depreciated in value could be subject to estate tax, but that is not the point raised by soonerintn, who I was responding to.
December 15th, 2012 03:06 PM
This is what you said after I suggested that its not the appreciation that is being taxed but the transfer:
But thats just semantics, lets talk about why this tax is not only unfair but ridiculous. And I believe that was soonerintn's point to begin with. As a proponent, to which you countered by saying "well there's appreciation that's untaxed". But you forget or ignore that it isnt always the case. Especially in the post financial collapse era where many 401Ks have seen large negative returns for consecutive years that havent been recuperated even in 2012. There are properties that were bought at the height of their market but are now worth half their value. Here's an example:
Let's say Mr Smith a self made man worked hard all his life and AFTER PAYING his income taxes to the tune of 50% or so in CA has saved up $50 million.
He decided to buy a plot of land in hopes of it to appreciate for that entire sum in 2007. That plot of land today is worth $40 million.
He dies today so Mrs Smith inherits that piece of land but has to come up with cash in millions of dollars to actually inherit that land in turn compelling her to sell it. Are you telling me that this is not the very definition of stealing?
To make it simple: If Mr Smith earned $100 over his lifetime, he payed $50 of it in Income taxes. With the leftover $50 he bought land which is worth now $40. He dies and Mrs Smith is looking forward to maybe $20-22 (IF she can come up with the cash). That's almost 75 to 80% taxation and we call ourselves a Capitalistic country! If this is not insane taxation, I dont know what it is.
Now this is a situation where the sum is in millions of dollars so you may not empathize with her as much, but with the new deductions that are looming you can make that case for thousands of Americans for a fraction of that amount. In essence poaching and penalizing hard working productive Americans to subsidize Americans that are not as productive.
The following users like this post:
December 16th, 2012 04:33 PM
December 16th, 2012 05:15 PM
December 16th, 2012 06:21 PM
What a ****ing joke. It was Republicans that were apparently willing to allow Oklahoma farmers to starve during the Great Depression, arguing against accepting New Deal money. I guess an analysis from the Senate Republican Policy Committee is supposed to be impartial.
December 16th, 2012 06:32 PM
Just looked at the article in the link posted at the beginning of this thread. Nowhere is there the mention of the statute that permits farm owners' estates to pay any estate tax owed over a ten-year period. Also, no mention that many (if not most) wealthy people in a similar situation buy life insurance so that, upon their death, the insurance proceeds are used to pay the estate tax. In addition, no mention of any of the other various estate planning techniques utilized to mitigate or eliminate the estate tax. Scare tactics make an article more interesting, I guess.
Last edited by Sinatra; December 16th, 2012 at 07:09 PM.
December 16th, 2012 07:01 PM
if i were....i'd be a poor one
December 16th, 2012 07:08 PM
my dad is 85 years old......how much would $1.65 mil worth of life insurance cost?
i talked to a friend the other day who is an attorney....who also does trusts....from the short conversation....it seemed to me there really is no way to eliminate estate tax.....
what types of "techniques" are you talking about?