ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .



Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.



Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.

On May 20, 3:17Â*pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. Â*The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Â*Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.
..
..
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

Another day, another dollar.
///What!?, a dollar? You must have got a raise in pay! All I get is
fifty cents a day!///

Plans in Place to Evacuate the Gulf.
http://www.stevequayle.com/index1.html

T'AINT GOING TO HAPPEN!,,, says ME!
cuhulin

On May 20, 4:04Â*pm, "Sid9" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...



On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. Â*The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Â*Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. Â*This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

I am not familiar with *the* "family farm" story, whatever that may
be.

Not at my fingertips, and assembling it from scratch, with all the
variations and permutations, would be a daunting task - although I am
pretty sure it has happened to some of our ranching families here in
Alameda County; and I have seen claims from smaller mainstream
environmental groups in years past that were it not for this law,
small timber owners who had previously practiced sustainable forestry
would not have been forced to sell still-decent habitat to operations
that practiced clearcut logging. Imagine - an environmental group
campaigning for the wealthy?

This is not a hard scenario to imagine. I can imagine myself being in
that position.

It would be fairly easy to craft a law that applied specifically to
these situations without allowing tremendous abuses. I am not going to
make a big deal of this; suffice it to say that I think preservation
of the last remaining open space lands we have is more important than
whether somebody who is wealthy gets a tax break when their parents
die. YMMV.

Bruce Jensen

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...



On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral
and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited
by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Restore the inheritance tax back
to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

I am not familiar with *the* "family farm" story, whatever that may
be.

Not at my fingertips, and assembling it from scratch, with all the
variations and permutations, would be a daunting task - although I am
pretty sure it has happened to some of our ranching families here in
Alameda County; and I have seen claims from smaller mainstream
environmental groups in years past that were it not for this law,
small timber owners who had previously practiced sustainable forestry
would not have been forced to sell still-decent habitat to operations
that practiced clearcut logging. Imagine - an environmental group
campaigning for the wealthy?

This is not a hard scenario to imagine. I can imagine myself being in
that position.

It would be fairly easy to craft a law that applied specifically to
these situations without allowing tremendous abuses. I am not going to
make a big deal of this; suffice it to say that I think preservation
of the last remaining open space lands we have is more important than
whether somebody who is wealthy gets a tax break when their parents
die. YMMV.

Bruce Jensen
..
..
Imagination is wonderful.

How about some facts, statistics about the "family farms". etc that were
lost to the inheritance tax?

There were huge exemptions.

Republicans took care of the wealthy...as usual and conned the ordinary
schnook who thought he might have a taxable inheritance.

Best con job in recent history!

On May 20, 4:04Â*pm, "Sid9" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...



On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. Â*The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Â*Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. Â*This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

Here is at least one website that mentions this effect. If I can, I
will look for others with more substantial details. It is not hard to
imagine this happening; as I mentioned family ranches here in Alameda
County and some sustainable timber lands have been lost to inheritance
tax.

http://www.klt.org/tax.htm

Bruce Jensen

On May 20, 5:14Â*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 20, 4:04Â*pm, "Sid9" wrote:





"bpnjensen" wrote in message

....

On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. Â*The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Â*Restore the inheritance tax back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. Â*This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

Here is at least one website that mentions this effect. Â*If I can, I
will look for others with more substantial details. Â*It is not hard to
imagine this happening; as I mentioned family ranches here in Alameda
County and some sustainable timber lands have been lost to inheritance
tax.

http://www.klt.org/tax.htm

Bruce Jensen

From http://www.saveland.org ~

"Donating conservation land to a land trust is a wonderful way to
share its beauty with future generations. The donation can even be set
up in a way that allows you to continue to live on the land or to
receive a life income.

Doing nothing to protect it may doom your land to development. Why?
Estate taxes are one reason. Federal taxes can be as high as 55% of a
property's fair market value, virtually forcing heirs to sell it. And,
of course, future owners may be compelled by ever-increasing property
values—or simply by a lack of appreciation for the land—to sell it for
development."

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 5:14 pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 20, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" wrote:





"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...

On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you
don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made
enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth
as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral
and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success
exhibited by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Restore the inheritance tax
back to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally
has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other
nonproductive,
non-habitat land. This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

Here is at least one website that mentions this effect. If I can, I
will look for others with more substantial details. It is not hard to
imagine this happening; as I mentioned family ranches here in Alameda
County and some sustainable timber lands have been lost to inheritance
tax.

http://www.klt.org/tax.htm

Bruce Jensen

From http://www.saveland.org ~

"Donating conservation land to a land trust is a wonderful way to
share its beauty with future generations. The donation can even be set
up in a way that allows you to continue to live on the land or to
receive a life income.

Doing nothing to protect it may doom your land to development. Why?
Estate taxes are one reason. Federal taxes can be as high as 55% of a
property's fair market value, virtually forcing heirs to sell it. And,
of course, future owners may be compelled by ever-increasing property
values—or simply by a lack of appreciation for the land—to sell it for
development."
..
..
So far you've provided no statistics.

"...Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made
him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and
wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth,"
he said.

Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American
Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm
lost because of estate taxes...."

Find the complete article he

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0408-02.htm

The same applies to family owned businesses.....biggest con job ever on most
Americans

GOOGLE "farms lost to the inheritance tax" or any such.

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On May 20, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message

...



On May 20, 3:17 pm, dave wrote:
ZNUYBV wrote:
On May 19, 11:30 am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On May 19, 8:59 am, dave wrote: ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
wrote:
One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't
stop
and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough
money."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral and Unamerican.
Nonsense. Restricting people's freedom to acquire as much wealth as
they want (unless obtained through criminal activity) is immoral
and
Unamerican, and reeks of the typical jealousy of success exhibited
by
the Communist liberal/"progressive" left.

Family dynasties are Unamerican.
You mean like the Kennedys?

The Kennedy's got their wealth honestly. The Kennedy's inherited
their wealth.

Inherited wealth is the worst kind. Restore the inheritance tax back
to
Ronald Reagan era levels.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won;r argue the basic point, although I have my reservations...but
assuming this is correct...

With one cautionary note -

When people are land-rich and money-poor (forest owners, ranchers,
farmers, wetland owners, other fundamentally responsible stewards), a
large inheritance tax frequently forces the inheritor (who legally has
no choice) to rapidly liquidate the good land to pay the tax bill -
sometimes farmland, sometimes natural habitat or even de facto
wilderness, and this turns it into subdivisons or other nonproductive,
non-habitat land. This unintended consequence has been repeated
countless times, and some provision should be made to forestall this
problem.

.
.
Got any statistics for this claim?

This sounds like the "family farm" story.

Here is at least one website that mentions this effect. If I can, I
will look for others with more substantial details. It is not hard to
imagine this happening; as I mentioned family ranches here in Alameda
County and some sustainable timber lands have been lost to inheritance
tax.

http://www.klt.org/tax.htm

Bruce Jensen
..
..
These look like exemptions and benefits given to prevent what you claim is
happening