Ignoramus18915 wrote:
On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.
Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.
Remember too the reason the tax was removed. Real estate values
grow over time until a family farmer working his inherited section
of land would live hand to mouth and die a millionaire due to land
value. Family farms were going out of the family just to pay the
taxes.

This talk about "family farms" creates a warm fuzzy image in my mind,
of a little farming family with chickens in the barn, growing turnips,
about to lose the barn and chickens, but that is not what is typically
taxed.

Rex, check this out (somewhat dated).

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

``These 440 taxable estates are those for which farm or business assets
made up at least half the total value of the estate. They represent
only 2 percent of all 18,800 taxable estates in 2004.''

``Worth noting is that family-owned farms and closely held businesses
already receive special treatment under current law. '' (I am not sure
if this is true any more)

Now that you mention it, I think there was a separate act for family farms.

Feel free to find other numbers, maybe my source is dated.

I won't contest the figures.
My argument is the validity of the tax in the first place.