Business & Investing
Sponsored by

Estate Tax and Biden Presidency

10,283 Views | 162 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by I bleed maroon
30wedge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I bleed maroon said:

Casey TableTennis said:

Most business structures do not have a finite "lifespan". Every human does. This is an inherent advantage for corporations to over time gain scale that families can't, especially with estate tax laws in place. Why should corporations be favored over small businesses?

I would prefer to see self reliance legislated rather than punished.
I think that's a valid observation, but doesn't every small business / family farm have the opportunity to incorporate to gain these same advantages? In fact, small businesses have several advantages over larger ones - why not capitalize on them?
Are you suggesting incorporating a small business/family farm is going to save on estate taxes merely because it is in a corporation?
I bleed maroon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
30wedge said:

I bleed maroon said:

Casey TableTennis said:

Most business structures do not have a finite "lifespan". Every human does. This is an inherent advantage for corporations to over time gain scale that families can't, especially with estate tax laws in place. Why should corporations be favored over small businesses?

I would prefer to see self reliance legislated rather than punished.
I think that's a valid observation, but doesn't every small business / family farm have the opportunity to incorporate to gain these same advantages? In fact, small businesses have several advantages over larger ones - why not capitalize on them?
Are you suggesting incorporating a small business/family farm is going to save on estate taxes merely because it is in a corporation?
Nope. It does allow much more flexibility in ownership structure and capital management, though. It may facilitate early distribution of equity to better manage tax planning, but you should consult an advisor, if you're interested.
gigemhilo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I bleed maroon said:

30wedge said:

I bleed maroon said:

Casey TableTennis said:

Most business structures do not have a finite "lifespan". Every human does. This is an inherent advantage for corporations to over time gain scale that families can't, especially with estate tax laws in place. Why should corporations be favored over small businesses?

I would prefer to see self reliance legislated rather than punished.
I think that's a valid observation, but doesn't every small business / family farm have the opportunity to incorporate to gain these same advantages? In fact, small businesses have several advantages over larger ones - why not capitalize on them?
Are you suggesting incorporating a small business/family farm is going to save on estate taxes merely because it is in a corporation?
Nope. It does allow much more flexibility in ownership structure and capital management, though. It may facilitate early distribution of equity to better manage tax planning, but you should consult an advisor, if you're interested.

30Wedge has a pretty good grasp on the concept. Thats why they asked.
_mpaul
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You either believe in freedom and liberty, or you don't. If you do, the estate tax is a horrible idea. (All taxes are an infringement on liberty, but a necessary evil.) For the most part, some dead guy or gal earned that money by trading his or her heartbeats and making sacrifices in life. The government has decided to posthumously steal those heartbeats (after already taxing them once as income or capital gains) and redistributing them to everyone else, presumably because the dead guy can't complain, and the number of dead guys in this situation is small enough that they really can't lobby against it.

The estate tax exemption somewhat tracks the average net wealth of members of Congress. That should tell you all you need to know.
culdeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why can't we create a Generational Skipping type trust for land owners, with special basis rules for farmers/ranchers that produce consistently?

That seems to solve most of the horrible issues with the estate tax, mainly that family farms and other small business operations struggle to stay ahead of generational issues.

I think we know who is really against this though, factory farming and corporate infrastructure interests who control sides of both parties. They want to be able to buy up land at pennies on the dollar.

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax. The current system as it's set up is deflationary.
Gap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
Casey TableTennis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but I sure haven't seen many trust baby farm kids. Having estate taxes (levels and asset type exemptions/exceptions/discounts) can make sense if a primary goal of estate tax legislation is to have inheritance recipients be generally productive members of society.

You can shoot holes through this with specific and general examples, just playing devils advocate.
culdeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
topher06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
culdeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
topher06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
culdeus said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
Should Bezos be untaxed while Joe Upper-Middle-Class gets hit, simply because Bezos owns stock in the company he works for? Is this really just about farm versus non-farm?
ag94whoop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
topher06 said:

culdeus said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
Should Bezos be untaxed while Joe Upper-Middle-Class gets hit, simply because Bezos owns stock in the company he works for? Is this really just about farm versus non-farm?


The problem is your using literally the wealthiest man in the world as a comparison. He probably would find some loophole anyway. People that rich never get touched. It's the families with generational growth and earnings that get nailed. And the problem is liquidity. A stock portfolio or cash asset can be pie-cut to pay taxes a LOT easier than a family farm or ranch. Dividing up property to pay taxes never works, and often kills the potential profits of the very entity they are trying to protect.

I'm not saying one is more important than another, but liquid assets are significantly less affected in operational continuance than fixed and land based assets. If a family farm needs 500 acres to be profitable and is squeaking by, selling off 200 acres to pay inheritance taxes essentially kills the business as a whole. Then guess who gets it? More big corporations.
Idk3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The government loves big corporations because they can control them so much easier by just influencing a few CEOs and BoDs, as they control a lot more people.

A small family owned businesses has so much more freedom, so they are going to find ways to hurt those families/businesses first and foremost.
Ragoo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
See Joe Ely's song All That You Need. Sub in injury for death and you essentially have the same story.

Additionally, we should 1000% encourage multigenerational family wealth building. In as few as 3 generations a family can amass significant wealth. But many do not because today is more important than tomorrow. So we tax those who work, plan, and save.
OilAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ag94whoop said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
Should Bezos be untaxed while Joe Upper-Middle-Class gets hit, simply because Bezos owns stock in the company he works for? Is this really just about farm versus non-farm?


The problem is your using literally the wealthiest man in the world as a comparison. He probably would find some loophole anyway. People that rich never get touched. It's the families with generational growth and earnings that get nailed. And the problem is liquidity. A stock portfolio or cash asset can be pie-cut to pay taxes a LOT easier than a family farm or ranch. Dividing up property to pay taxes never works, and often kills the potential profits of the very entity they are trying to protect.

I'm not saying one is more important than another, but liquid assets are significantly less affected in operational continuance than fixed and land based assets. If a family farm needs 500 acres to be profitable and is squeaking by, selling off 200 acres to pay inheritance taxes essentially kills the business as a whole. Then guess who gets it? More big corporations.
He could have easily chosen someone worth $25 million but we wouldn't have known that person.

You're right a stock portfolio is much easier to divide and value. But it shouldn't be disadvantaged relative to any other asset class. All of these are just assets. The estate tax exemption helps protect the family farm, business, ranch, real estate holdings, stock portfolio's, etc. And the current threshold ($11.58 million for a single person) is actually pretty high when you think about what classifies as being in the 1% of wealth ($11.1 million). But one asset class shouldn't be tax protected over another just because it's illiquid. Also, there are already special provisions for farms and closely held businesses that spread the tax payments out over time (14 years at low interest rates).

When you think about the family farm, it would have to be worth $23.16 million (i am assuming that the farmer is married or a surviving spouse) or more in order to be taxed. Ignoring the valuation debate (government's value is probably lower than actual value), if we assume the property is worth 30 million (with no debt on the property), only the 6.84 million is taxed @ 40% (if they pay the full statutory rate). Meaning the resulting tax bill on the estate is $2.736 million that can be paid over 14 years. I don't think that's an unreasonable tax bill. Keep in mind, this estate has likely appreciated over decades and there were never any capital gains taxes paid on that value appreciation. In fact, unrealized capital gains accounts for about 55% of all estates that pays taxes per the Federal Reserve. So the argument that all this money has already been taxed is actually incorrect.

The reality is very few farms and family businesses are impacted by the estate tax. In fact, in 2017, only 5500 estates (of 2.7 million) owed estate tax. An of the 5500, only 80 of those were small businesses or farms and this was at the lower threshold (5.49 million per person, 10.98 per couple).



Ragoo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OilAg01 said:

ag94whoop said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
Should Bezos be untaxed while Joe Upper-Middle-Class gets hit, simply because Bezos owns stock in the company he works for? Is this really just about farm versus non-farm?


The problem is your using literally the wealthiest man in the world as a comparison. He probably would find some loophole anyway. People that rich never get touched. It's the families with generational growth and earnings that get nailed. And the problem is liquidity. A stock portfolio or cash asset can be pie-cut to pay taxes a LOT easier than a family farm or ranch. Dividing up property to pay taxes never works, and often kills the potential profits of the very entity they are trying to protect.

I'm not saying one is more important than another, but liquid assets are significantly less affected in operational continuance than fixed and land based assets. If a family farm needs 500 acres to be profitable and is squeaking by, selling off 200 acres to pay inheritance taxes essentially kills the business as a whole. Then guess who gets it? More big corporations.
He could have easily chosen someone worth $25 million but we wouldn't have known that person.

You're right a stock portfolio is much easier to divide and value. But it shouldn't be disadvantaged relative to any other asset class. All of these are just assets. The estate tax exemption helps protect the family farm, business, ranch, real estate holdings, stock portfolio's, etc. And the current threshold ($11.58 million for a single person) is actually pretty high when you think about what classifies as being in the 1% of wealth ($11.1 million). But one asset class shouldn't be tax protected over another just because it's illiquid. Also, there are already special provisions for farms and closely held businesses that spread the tax payments out over time (14 years at low interest rates).

When you think about the family farm, it would have to be worth $23.16 million (i am assuming that the farmer is married or a surviving spouse) or more in order to be taxed. Ignoring the valuation debate (government's value is probably lower than actual value), if we assume the property is worth 30 million (with no debt on the property), only the 6.84 million is taxed @ 40% (if they pay the full statutory rate). Meaning the resulting tax bill on the estate is $2.736 million that can be paid over 14 years. I don't think that's an unreasonable tax bill. Keep in mind, this estate has likely appreciated over decades and there were never any capital gains taxes paid on that value appreciation. In fact, unrealized capital gains accounts for about 55% of all estates that pays taxes per the Federal Reserve. So the argument that all this money has already been taxed is actually incorrect.

The reality is very few farms and family businesses are impacted by the estate tax. In fact, in 2017, only 5500 estates (of 2.7 million) owed estate tax. An of the 5500, only 80 of those were small businesses or farms and this was at the lower threshold (5.49 million per person, 10.98 per couple).




so what is the point of the tax at all?
thann07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OilAg01 said:

ag94whoop said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

topher06 said:

culdeus said:

Gap said:

culdeus said:

Equity and equity components of liquid assets likely need some level of estate tax.
Why? And why is your class of asset more important than another? The capital that I've create for my hiers is valauble. Just because I've chosen a more liquid asset class, shouldn't make me your target.

And won't investments simply be created to move money to land right near a person's death. I'll just have the person with my power of attorney execute it at the last minute.
That's why the caveat is the land needs to have demonstrable farm type income paper trail. Similar to how Crummey Trusts are structured to get around the UTMA restrictions where you don't want some tattooed up SJW guy taking all your kids annual gifting at age 18.0001. Crummy still requires this type of paper trail or the SJW can walk off with it.

And I would 100% argue that it is a completely different ballgame passing down passive equity vs. income and W2 generating businesses. There can and should be protection for that. Sorry if the gubmnent comes for your stonks.
If estate tax exists, nothing should be categorically excluded outside of a dollar value exemption. The family farm is no different than a stock portfolio.
Agree to disagree here.
Should Bezos be untaxed while Joe Upper-Middle-Class gets hit, simply because Bezos owns stock in the company he works for? Is this really just about farm versus non-farm?


The problem is your using literally the wealthiest man in the world as a comparison. He probably would find some loophole anyway. People that rich never get touched. It's the families with generational growth and earnings that get nailed. And the problem is liquidity. A stock portfolio or cash asset can be pie-cut to pay taxes a LOT easier than a family farm or ranch. Dividing up property to pay taxes never works, and often kills the potential profits of the very entity they are trying to protect.

I'm not saying one is more important than another, but liquid assets are significantly less affected in operational continuance than fixed and land based assets. If a family farm needs 500 acres to be profitable and is squeaking by, selling off 200 acres to pay inheritance taxes essentially kills the business as a whole. Then guess who gets it? More big corporations.
He could have easily chosen someone worth $25 million but we wouldn't have known that person.

You're right a stock portfolio is much easier to divide and value. But it shouldn't be disadvantaged relative to any other asset class. All of these are just assets. The estate tax exemption helps protect the family farm, business, ranch, real estate holdings, stock portfolio's, etc. And the current threshold ($11.58 million for a single person) is actually pretty high when you think about what classifies as being in the 1% of wealth ($11.1 million). But one asset class shouldn't be tax protected over another just because it's illiquid. Also, there are already special provisions for farms and closely held businesses that spread the tax payments out over time (14 years at low interest rates).

When you think about the family farm, it would have to be worth $23.16 million (i am assuming that the farmer is married or a surviving spouse) or more in order to be taxed. Ignoring the valuation debate (government's value is probably lower than actual value), if we assume the property is worth 30 million (with no debt on the property), only the 6.84 million is taxed @ 40% (if they pay the full statutory rate). Meaning the resulting tax bill on the estate is $2.736 million that can be paid over 14 years. I don't think that's an unreasonable tax bill. Keep in mind, this estate has likely appreciated over decades and there were never any capital gains taxes paid on that value appreciation. In fact, unrealized capital gains accounts for about 55% of all estates that pays taxes per the Federal Reserve. So the argument that all this money has already been taxed is actually incorrect.

The reality is very few farms and family businesses are impacted by the estate tax. In fact, in 2017, only 5500 estates (of 2.7 million) owed estate tax. An of the 5500, only 80 of those were small businesses or farms and this was at the lower threshold (5.49 million per person, 10.98 per couple).




Ok, but the original topic of this thread is what is going to happen under a Biden administration who appears to want to pull back the exemption value to something on the order of $1-3.5M (and eliminate the step up in basis), which completely changes the situation.
I bleed maroon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just an observation:

I have always heard that the number of estates affected is a very small number (obviously would get much larger if the thresholds are lowered). So, in terms of solving the problem in terms of the problem for small businesses and farms, why not use or modify an existing program to help those very few who are caught in the situation of having to close a farm or business due to the tax burden?

Solution: US Small Business Administration. If the cash flow of the business can't immediately support the payment of taxes, have the SBA guarantee a medium to long-term low interest loan to pay the taxes and ease the transition. If it's spread over 10+ years, hopefully the business can either grow or cash flow their way past the immediate estate tax hit.

My opinion is that if this is a special situation (such as the estate holds greatly appreciated suburban land, which makes it impossible to earn adequate farmland returns), I may argue that it's better to cash in, pay the taxes, and let basic economics dictate the highest and best use of the land. Many ranchers and farmers have dealt with this through the years - I knew a family that owned the largest farm left in Harris county in the 70s and 80s, and they sold their land off piecemeal to subdivision developers, and had very little to complain about returns-wise. The next generations lost interest in farming, anyway.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Decent solution to part of the problem at hand, though this is mostly for proprietorships. The problem facing small incorporated businesses is buying out the deceased owner or the new owner needing to pay taxes and deciding to sell. In that case, the business should insure the majority owners to cover buyouts or estate taxes.

Best solution is to eliminate estate taxes.
OilAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you research the history of the tax, it was mainly to tax assets that weren't previously taxed (unrealized capital gains).
OilAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. It's kind of gotten off on different tangents at times.

I doubt they roll it back that far. My guess is just rolls off or goes back to the 5mm range that it is scheduled to do in the next few years. If it does, we'll be back at that 80 or so number I quoted. Most mega family farm owners (farms above the old exemption) have other liquid assets that they can sell. A mega family farm as a source of wealth for those families is a low percentage of those families wealth from what I have read. Meaning, they have the capital or other assets they could sell to pay the incremental tax.

OilAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Decent solution to part of the problem at hand, though this is mostly for proprietorships. The problem facing small incorporated businesses is buying out the deceased owner or the new owner needing to pay taxes and deciding to sell. In that case, the business should insure the majority owners to cover buyouts or estate taxes.

Best solution is to eliminate estate taxes.
But then you get people that never pay tax on capital gains.
OilAg01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I bleed maroon said:

Just an observation:

I have always heard that the number of estates affected is a very small number (obviously would get much larger if the thresholds are lowered). So, in terms of solving the problem in terms of the problem for small businesses and farms, why not use or modify an existing program to help those very few who are caught in the situation of having to close a farm or business due to the tax burden?

Solution: US Small Business Administration. If the cash flow of the business can't immediately support the payment of taxes, have the SBA guarantee a medium to long-term low interest loan to pay the taxes and ease the transition. If it's spread over 10+ years, hopefully the business can either grow or cash flow their way past the immediate estate tax hit.

My opinion is that if this is a special situation (such as the estate holds greatly appreciated suburban land, which makes it impossible to earn adequate farmland returns), I may argue that it's better to cash in, pay the taxes, and let basic economics dictate the highest and best use of the land. Many ranchers and farmers have dealt with this through the years - I knew a family that owned the largest farm left in Harris county in the 70s and 80s, and they sold their land off piecemeal to subdivision developers, and had very little to complain about returns-wise. The next generations lost interest in farming, anyway.
It was only 80 small farms or businesses in 2017 (Older threshold) per (https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax). Only 5500 estates paid the estate tax in that year.

I bleed maroon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Decent solution to part of the problem at hand, though this is mostly for proprietorships. The problem facing small incorporated businesses is buying out the deceased owner or the new owner needing to pay taxes and deciding to sell. In that case, the business should insure the majority owners to cover buyouts or estate taxes.

Best solution is to eliminate estate taxes.
I'm all for elimination of the estate tax. You could raise personal tax rates .0001% and still be revenue neutral. But you know how politicians are - previously abolished taxes usually find a way of resurfacing under subsequent leadership (witness the AMT tax or windfall profits oil tax, as examples).

My opinion is that the estate tax debate is a tempest in a teapot. An unholy alliance of socialists, financial advisors, accountants, and life insurers pro-actively support it, while the ultra-right "all taxation is unconstitutional" crowd wants to demonize and abolish it. Meanwhile, most yawn because it just isn't material in the big picture. As I stated, my feeling is that overall taxation policy should be the absolute minimum tax revenues needed to supply the committed needs established in each (ideally multi-year) budget cycle. All taxes are fungible, and the policymakers should treat the various types of taxes as individual levers designed to optimize the mix. If the policymakers swing too far one way or the other, they should be voted out of office.

Which brings to mind the age-old anecdote of the rich guy spending $100,000 in legal and accounting fees to avoid a $10,000 tax bill, just to prove something to "the government". Sometimes, it just ain't worth it. Contribute $90,000 to a candidate who supports your views, and get over it.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.