" So sorry that you have to pay taxes on your two million plus dollar inheritance . Oh,it appears though that you can make 3.5 million in 09 though without paying inheritance tax. I would guess that the majority of the people in this community would cry their hearts out for the poor soul who has those kind of money woes. Just in case some of you dont know, no tax untill you reach 2 million dollars would be required to be paid. If memory serves correctly, the median wage I saw printed in this paper for coles cnty was $27000. Just the kind of elitist half truths Ive come to expect from the JG/TC. "

" AMEN C. Grizwald!!!!

Amen!!! "

" Indeed, C. Grizwald! Rock on! Farmers already get enough slop from the government trough in the form of subsidies -- to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for some farmers -- and now we are to exempt them from inheritence taxes?? Puh-lease.

I had a friend who used to tell this joke: "you know why the bill on those seed company caps that farmers wear is curved? It's from all that sticking their heads in the mailbox waiting for their government checks." Enough is enough! Farmers have bootstraps, too -- pull yourself up by them! "

" With the price of land as high as it is at this time, these taxes could affect even the smaller family farms that are prevelent in this area. This not only affects the heirs who have been forced to sell the land to pay the taxes, but can affect the neighborhood. Just look at the old Scott farmstead and the falling buildings. Do you think that the Scott family would have let them fall in? I do not think the farm was sold for taxes, but it was sold to an investor, not unlike farms that must be sold for taxes.

Furthermore, these taxes can kill small businesses. Why should the participating heirs in a profitable small business be forced to sell just to pay taxes, when taxes have already been paid on the profits?

At this time, with the current tax structures, small business owners and farmers are paying some of the highest tax rates in this country, while those who make the area average of 27,000 (I do not know that this figure is accurate) pay zero in federal taxes. (For those that do not understand taxes, FICA and MCare do not count as everyone must pay those.)

The only thing that hard work (mental and physical) bring the self employed are higher taxes. The estate tax should be eliminated. "

" Myth: Many family farmers and small business owners are forced to pay the estate tax.

Reality: Most family farms and small business owners do not meet estate tax eligibility thresholds.

The USDAs Economic Research Service reported that the average farm household net worth
ranged from $576,400 for small farms to $1.5 million for very large family farms. The estate
tax already exempts $2 million of all estates, and the exemption level rises to $3.5 million by
2009 (double for couples). The New York Times has reported that the American Farm Bureau
could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax.

FairEstateTax.org

This article seems to be nothing more than an example of emotional pandering to the membership. I suppose it's to show that the Farm Bureau is doing something with their dues.

Talk about an attempt to turn a non-issue into a an issue. "

" Why is it that all farmers wear ball caps with really curved bills? Because they are so use to peaking into their mailbox and looking for government checks and the bill of the cap gets curved like the mailbox. No, I am not cussing the farmer, but its the facts. "

" Fact: After 2010 the estate tax can come roaring back. With land prices at or above $5000 per acre, a modest 600 acre farm could be worth 3 million without considering buildings or equipment. If you are going to show your knowledge then at least use realistic figures. Multi generational farms require more land than 600 acres to support all of the families involved. Granted, one would hope that these farmers would make purchases to relieve pressure from this threatening tax.

After 2010, if the increased exemption is repealed and the tax reverts back to 1 million dollars (very possible), then this could affect many ordinary citizens due to rising balances in retirement accounts, home values, life insurance, and other increasingly valued asset (yes, the stock markey will recover). It may not affect many of the posters on this site, but it will affect millions of people who have worked hard, stayed out of consumer debt, and built valueable assets. "

" I believe that a lot of these clowns who advocate inheritence taxes are the same ones who for the same reasons want to see the government stick it to the rich (whoever they are). I believe it all boils down to class envy or jealousy. If they have it and I don't then take it away from them. Kind of like the redistribution of wealth preached by Obama and his lemmings. Regardless of the fact that people who have or their ancestors have worked hard to produce the wealth that they have acquired. Jealousy can eat you alive. "

" Yes, eliminate the estate tax. That's an important issue when the Republicans are already running up a $10 trillion or $11 trillion national debt with their tax cuts for the wealthy.
And I certainly want to make sure that heirs who never lifted a finger to earn any money are showered with many, many millions. Heaven forbid that Paris Hilton or Cindy McCain ever have to do any work. The very thought of such a horror keeps me up nights. "

" TQ: But someone earned it so they could leave it to their children. It should be up to the earners to give it to whomever they want. The problem isn't that government doesn't have enough money, the problem is those on both sides of the aisle who earmark it on pork to pad their own pockets. All raising taxes does is give congress more money to blow on self enhancing projects. "

" Hmmm, I have a farm, it's not very large, and it is worth a decent amount of money - funny though, to get that money I have to SELL MY FARM! You people are so negative and think that all farmers are getting rich off of government subsidies - have you seen the cost of farm equipment? Did you have to replant your crop 1 or two times last year? Granted, there is money in farming, but the majority of SMALL FARMERS are not getting rich. "

" You know who was a HUGE fan of the inheritance tax? Thomas Jefferson.
Americans today agree that hard work ought to be rewarded, but inheritance of great wealth and power works against this American value. Jefferson hoped to replace a permanent aristocracy with what he called a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue, but he recognized this meant giving the children of each generation an equal start.
Jefferson argued that the best way to prevent an aristocracy was to limit inheritance. In a 1789 letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson wrote that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" and "the dead have neither powers nor rights over it" -- that is, the dead should not control the opportunities of the next generation. Every child deserves a fair chance.
The estate tax's critics claim that it violates property rights, but how can the dead have a right to property? The right to property emerges from labor, the nation's founders believed. With death, that right returns to society. "The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society," Jefferson told Madison. "

" If you buy enough life insurance, your estate will have all the liquidity it needs to pay your estate taxes - no matter how many acres you own - without paying a dime to the Feds for Estate Taxes. Hmmm, does the Farm Bureau sell life insurance? "

" Farms and small business, should not be personally held assets. Place them in a family trust, or incorporate the business. Upon the passing and estate transfer, only transfer the job, not the entire estate. Individual risk is reduced, beyond if estate taxes might be owed on it unexpectedly. Control of the trust or company, can be willed, and only the responsibility for decisions is transfered. I don't think it is expensive, or terribly complicated to do mostly on their own.

A trust can be maintained, and just sublease the farming to the chosen heir, or even another farmer, if farming heirs aren't ready to take on the whole farm. There are many ways to protect assets better, the farm bureau should be leading individual protections not subject to fluctuating law support. The farm bureau, should not be focused on limiting taxes collected, on unprotected transfers of large estates.

If its a farm, company, or mansion. If it is an open transfer of bulked assets, and in that large of scale, taxes should be collected. Two million is too high. Anything over a quarter of that, should be sheltered, or taxed. Transfering 500k or even 100k tax free, should be more than adequate.

How the heck did we get from any estate being taxed, to as long as its under 2 or 3 million? What is the tax rate for farmers selling ground for all this development, for inflated prices and raising the prices of a regular farms land in the process? Are they Tax exempt on their capital gains?

These out of line prices, have raised the price of land. Likely also raised every local farms taxes in the process. Fluke prices, should not be counted in assessing other properties values. It inapropriately inflates prices and taxes. "

" Why don't all you anti-farm people have a ....nothing, for lunch? "

" If we do not protect these farmers and farmland, we are merely hurting ourselves and our future generations to come, especially here in Illinois. When I was younger, I used to laugh at how many cornfields we had, back when Clinton was president and our economy was booming. People were so happy and the middle class was huge. Things were affordable. Now, we are scared of losing our cornfields to corporations and our economy is sagging. Farmers can barely stay afloat. Why, oh why, did people vote in Bush? "

" TQ: I question your opinion that Thomas Jefferson was a fan of inheritance taxes. Look at his quote:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Thomas Jefferson "

" Now sapient you should know better than to question the question. The question is always right. Pretty soon the question will come in and twist it all around to fit the quesions own purpose. We need arrogant to come in and explain it all. Where are you arrogant? "

" Good quote, Sap. But I think the evidence shows that Jefferson nevertheless supported the idea of an inheritance tax so that merit would outweigh aristocracy in the republic.
In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..." "

" The Question says: the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...

So, Tom was a socialist? Hmmmm. I'll have to think about that one.

Oh, before I go ponder that one ... exactly who determines what *dangerous to the State* actually means???? "

" Oh good lord, this is the Farm Bureau pushing for cheap political points with their wealthier members. "

" I think that the government needs to eliminate the capitol gains exemption from house sales. This is the closest that average folks come to realize the taxes paid by farmers and small business owners. Can you imagine the uproar if homeowners had to pay capitol gains taxes on the sale of their appreciated house?

As I stated earlier, after 2010 the estate tax exemption drops back to a million dollars and will start to bite the average middle class taxpayer, who have saved and built a modest nest egg. "

" Oh, before I go ponder that one ... exactly who determines what *dangerous to the State* actually means????
----
Well. according to Jefferson, it's not the people who have a modest amount of money, but it may well be the people who way too much money, enough to subvert democracy and the republic. "

" And Jefferson was not a socialist, Gringa. He was an anti-aristocrat. He was absolutely opposed to the creation of a permanent American aristocracy based on inherited wealth. "

" Question says: Jefferson was not a socialist. He was an anti-aristocrat. He was absolutely opposed to the creation of a permanent American aristocracy based on inherited wealth.

I've tried to look up *anti-aristocrat* and found nothing. On the other hand, socialism is loosely defined as an intermediate stage in economic theory between capitalism and communism in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

What's the difference between power and money being held by individuals and power and money being held by the proletariat (central government)? Socialism. No matter how you state it, Question, when the government redistributes wealth from the people to the central government, it's either called socialism or it's called communism - depending on how far down the road to ruin we've come at the time the whole process is labeled.

As to what's going on in DC right now (literally), that $700-billion bailout is called socialism. You can call it anti-aristratic or whatever you want, but however you label it, it's not capitalism. "

" It's not socialism at all, Gringa. It is the very definition of FASCISM.
A takeover by an authoritarian/totalitarian alliance of the government and the wealthy corporate elite is the definition of FASCISM, not socialism. A cool trillion dollars in the tax money of poor and middle class people is being handed over to CORPORATIONS. That's fascism. "

" Like I said (and you're wrong about this by the way), call it what you will. It's not capitalism.

Ha, what we need right now is a 28th Amendment requiring the separation of corporate and state. LOL. "

" Websters definition of the absence of law and order, fits the direction republican policy has taken things. Reduced government, reduced oversight, and reduced taxes, all fall into increasingly being more in that definition. The evident reprocussions, that come from persuing those directions, also fit well. The word that definition follows is Anarchy.

Anti socailist to the extreme, is anarchy.

Markets and trade, needed expanded. Sacrificing consumer product safety, and other protections in the process, is a large part of what allowed jobs, to become the biggest export expanded, in that process. Free for all except the end consumer economics, is anarchy.

It was partly Clintons fault, for not recognizing what nafta was lacking. Bush ran with the lacking ball, and cut back in oversight and responsibly taxing, even more.

Oversight and regulation, is not communism. Running any business, with no accountabiliy, or liability, is bad business. Proper protections, and changes could have been made by someone with a masters in business, who has been in charge of all appointed posts, for the past eight years.

If a business modeled on the Bush economic principles, were to exist outside of government it would still, currently be illegal. Feds are flocking to failed finance companies, like a swarm of locust. Why is it only after these Enron based business principled entities, become public failures, this happens. Oversight, reduces the need to regulate in hindsight.

From kids toys, drug companies, and finance, to the food supply, and many other areas, improper implementation of oversight and regulation of these constantly evolving issues, was completely ignored. Inflated values of homes and farms, is going to find prices in the basement, very soon. The worst is not over.

That the road to recovery of the 90's, got detoured to the road to ruin, in less than eight years, falls on the Bush administration, and its policies. State and local governments, have fallen into the same plans, and are just scaled back trap doors, waiting to drop out from under the taxpayer, one after the other. Death taxes are going to be the least of the issues faced by farmers, and citizens alike, in the very near future. Anywhere they can brace for the long haul, of years of rough weather ahead, they need to batten down the hatches, and make ready for sailing through a storm of aftermath, likely never before seen. If not next season, very soon, farms are going to be casualties like never before. A likely drought following a flood, is going to compound issues. Economic realities are uncertain. Best to err on the side of caution, until this storm is in our wake. Money market issues will likely translate over to comodoties markets, and prices will be a casualty. "