Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
Doh, I forgot about payroll tax. Payroll and Income both are @40%, corporate around 10%, and the final 10 is comprised of the estate tax, excise taxes and everything else. Color me newly informed.
At the very base of the issue, it is unfair taxation. It is double taxation. But at the same time, I really don't care, I just accept it as it has always been around and always will be around.
I don't follow. You mean that the employer has to pay one sort of tax on wages before, and the employee has to pay another sort of tax after pay day?Doh, I forgot about payroll tax. Payroll and Income both are @40%, corporate around 10%, and the final 10 is comprised of the estate tax, excise taxes and everything else. Color me newly informed.
At the very base of the issue, it is unfair taxation. It is double taxation. But at the same time, I really don't care, I just accept it as it has always been around and always will be around.
In the Neth's employers have to withold taxes on wages too, but legally speaking they do so on behalf of the employee. The employee only has to pay taxes over his wages at the end of the year if it turns out that not enough taxes were withheld in the first place - usually that's the case when he has other sources of income besides his job, so that he ends up in a higher tax tier.
Double taxation is usually understood (here, at least) to refer to a cross-border situation where different tax regime cause a good or service to be taxed twice for the same reason. Lemur's post, while correct, is also rather obvious when you think about it. Every coin and bill, except those recently printed, have changed ownership lots of times and each transaction has been taxed. The "death tax" may sound unfair to people, but at the core it's still about a transfer of money and assets from one person (now dead) to another. There are good arguments against the tax, but not that it's double taxation
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I don't follow. You mean that the employer has to pay one sort of tax on wages before, and the employee has to pay another sort of tax after pay day?
In the Neth's employers have to withold taxes on wages too, but legally speaking they do so on behalf of the employee. The employee only has to pay taxes over his wages at the end of the year if it turns out that not enough taxes were withheld in the first place - usually that's the case when he has other sources of income besides his job, so that he ends up in a higher tax tier.
Double taxation is usually understood (here, at least) to refer to a cross-border situation where different tax regime cause a good or service to be taxed twice for the same reason. Lemur's post, while correct, is also rather obvious when you think about it. Every coin and bill, except those recently printed, have changed ownership lots of times and each transaction has been taxed. The "death tax" may sound unfair to people, but at the core it's still about a transfer of money and assets from one person (now dead) to another. There are good arguments against the tax, but not that it's double taxation
Yes, an employer has to pay the government a tax for each head he employs, and then the employee turns around and pays a tax for each dollar he earns.I don't follow. You mean that the employer has to pay one sort of tax on wages before, and the employee has to pay another sort of tax after pay day?
In the Neth's employers have to withold taxes on wages too, but legally speaking they do so on behalf of the employee. The employee only has to pay taxes over his wages at the end of the year if it turns out that not enough taxes were withheld in the first place - usually that's the case when he has other sources of income besides his job, so that he ends up in a higher tax tier.
Double taxation is usually understood (here, at least) to refer to a cross-border situation where different tax regime cause a good or service to be taxed twice for the same reason. Lemur's post, while correct, is also rather obvious when you think about it. Every coin and bill, except those recently printed, have changed ownership lots of times and each transaction has been taxed. The "death tax" may sound unfair to people, but at the core it's still about a transfer of money and assets from one person (now dead) to another. There are good arguments against the tax, but not that it's double taxation
This is why I am so amused by the left wingers who don't understand business very well, and think an employer should basically be paying for everything related to that employee (insurance etc); there really are people who think that way. Where anyone comes up with the idea that healthcare is the job of the persons employer is just beyond me....
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
Where anyone comes up with the idea that healthcare is the job of the persons employer is just beyond me....
Blame World War II.Where anyone comes up with the idea that healthcare is the job of the persons employer is just beyond me....
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
Yes, an employer has to pay the government a tax for each head he employs, and then the employee turns around and pays a tax for each dollar he earns.
Is it intended for pensions? I know that our equivalent is used for that.Yes, an employer has to pay the government a tax for each head he employs, and then the employee turns around and pays a tax for each dollar he earns.
For pensions?? LOL no. It goes into general revenue to be squandered.
@Lemur: Let me rephrase what I am saying here:
I think employee-provided health coverage is great. Freakin Wonderful. Awesome. If a company can do this for its people it will instill loyalty, have a healthier workforce and get pretty good sales when people realize they treat their employees right.
I think requiring employers to provide health coverage is stupid, and in the cases of smaller business, the alternative methods of contributing to employee healthcare plans all turn into a complete money-sink for both the employer and the employee, where the insurance company makes off like a bandit.
I don't see why a company is any more responsible for paying my dental insurance than they are for making my car payment and paying for my funeral. There are probably people out there who would argue that my employer should pay for that, too, as I have heard some suggest that employers also subsidize employees educations
@Lemur: Let me rephrase what I am saying here:
I think employee-provided health coverage is great. Freakin Wonderful. Awesome. If a company can do this for its people it will instill loyalty, have a healthier workforce and get pretty good sales when people realize they treat their employees right.
I think requiring employers to provide health coverage is stupid, and in the cases of smaller business, the alternative methods of contributing to employee healthcare plans all turn into a complete money-sink for both the employer and the employee, where the insurance company makes off like a bandit.
I don't see why a company is any more responsible for paying my dental insurance than they are for making my car payment and paying for my funeral. There are probably people out there who would argue that my employer should pay for that, too, as I have heard some suggest that employers also subsidize employees educations
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
Yes, an employer has to pay the government a tax for each head he employs, and then the employee turns around and pays a tax for each dollar he earns.
This is why I am so amused by the left wingers who don't understand business very well, and think an employer should basically be paying for everything related to that employee (insurance etc); there really are people who think that way. Where anyone comes up with the idea that healthcare is the job of the persons employer is just beyond me....
Left wingers?Yes, an employer has to pay the government a tax for each head he employs, and then the employee turns around and pays a tax for each dollar he earns.
This is why I am so amused by the left wingers who don't understand business very well, and think an employer should basically be paying for everything related to that employee (insurance etc); there really are people who think that way. Where anyone comes up with the idea that healthcare is the job of the persons employer is just beyond me....
Ehm, what? A left winger would say that government should pay for everything, of course, not the private sector... Or, of cours, let the state run the entire economy.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Left wingers?
Ehm, what? A left winger would say that government should pay for everything, of course, not the private sector... Or, of cours, let the state run the entire economy.
A significant segment of left wing, liberal thinkers in this nation have an "us vs them" mentality when it comes to employers and employees. In many cases this is entirely justified. In other cases, it is understandable, because a person who has been "the help" all his natural life will be inclined to side with "the help." But I feel that a lot of liberals, particulalry the young ones, downplay the whole job creation/continuation in terms of smaller business entities; on the flip side, conservatives overplay their hand and every time businesses have to comply to a new law, the sky starts falling.Left wingers?
Ehm, what? A left winger would say that government should pay for everything, of course, not the private sector... Or, of cours, let the state run the entire economy.
The fact that payroll taxes make up an equal amount of revenue for the fed seems as if it is a double edged sword. When employment and GDP is down both of these will drop. As for the estate tax, people will always die, but I would be curious to see what sort of percentage this estate tax would make of the federal coffers based on which filthy rich people died that year. For example, if old man Hilton and old lady Walton died in the same fiscal year, I would be willing to bet that total would be more than 1%
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
A significant segment of left wing, liberal thinkers in this nation have an "us vs them" mentality when it comes to employers and employees. In many cases this is entirely justified. In other cases, it is understandable, because a person who has been "the help" all his natural life will be inclined to side with "the help." But I feel that a lot of liberals, particulalry the young ones, downplay the whole job creation/continuation in terms of smaller business entities; on the flip side, conservatives overplay their hand and every time businesses have to comply to a new law, the sky starts falling.
The fact that payroll taxes make up an equal amount of revenue for the fed seems as if it is a double edged sword. When employment and GDP is down both of these will drop. As for the estate tax, people will always die, but I would be curious to see what sort of percentage this estate tax would make of the federal coffers based on which filthy rich people died that year. For example, if old man Hilton and old lady Walton died in the same fiscal year, I would be willing to bet that total would be more than 1%
Of ciurse they're silly, they're centrists - being silly is part of their job description A significant segment of left wing, liberal thinkers in this nation have an "us vs them" mentality when it comes to employers and employees. In many cases this is entirely justified. In other cases, it is understandable, because a person who has been "the help" all his natural life will be inclined to side with "the help." But I feel that a lot of liberals, particulalry the young ones, downplay the whole job creation/continuation in terms of smaller business entities; on the flip side, conservatives overplay their hand and every time businesses have to comply to a new law, the sky starts falling.
The fact that payroll taxes make up an equal amount of revenue for the fed seems as if it is a double edged sword. When employment and GDP is down both of these will drop. As for the estate tax, people will always die, but I would be curious to see what sort of percentage this estate tax would make of the federal coffers based on which filthy rich people died that year. For example, if old man Hilton and old lady Walton died in the same fiscal year, I would be willing to bet that total would be more than 1%
(and yes, this was just a meaningless jab at how the political centre in America is pushed way to the right, meaning that your "left wing" is my "centre and centre-right")
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
#1 I already know your opinion
#2 Obama is a Liberal Democrat so of course he approves of the estate tax and raising it more
@gaelic cowboy: Although not at the levels being discussed here, the estate tax does actually affect lower earners. For example, my parents home was a gift through an inheritence, which they moved into after they sold their home. If they outright left the home to me in their will, I would be taxed on this home as it has already been gifted once. Of course, there are easy ways around this
@Crazed Rabbit: Hmmm, yeah I see the 1%. So maybe it's a little further down the tier than I expected. For some reason I was under the impression it was below income but above capital gains, I'll keep looking. My argument still stands the same, though, in that past opportunities to kill this tax have been ignored due in large part to there not being an alternate source for the income
You already know my opinion, even though I have never stated it on this forum and do not know you in real life? I guess you are a mindreader then. Congrats. #1 I already know your opinion
#2 Obama is a Liberal Democrat so of course he approves of the estate tax and raising it more
@gaelic cowboy: Although not at the levels being discussed here, the estate tax does actually affect lower earners. For example, my parents home was a gift through an inheritence, which they moved into after they sold their home. If they outright left the home to me in their will, I would be taxed on this home as it has already been gifted once. Of course, there are easy ways around this
@Crazed Rabbit: Hmmm, yeah I see the 1%. So maybe it's a little further down the tier than I expected. For some reason I was under the impression it was below income but above capital gains, I'll keep looking. My argument still stands the same, though, in that past opportunities to kill this tax have been ignored due in large part to there not being an alternate source for the income
Do you have anything to back up Obama supporting raising it?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
No, taxing economic activity, what they buy is better. Taxing wealth and estates is worse than taxing incomes (especially death tax) because it interupts inheritence which is a key pillar of social mobility. Contrary to popular belief, most people cannot change classes in a generation, but families can inherit wealth across generations - you get a white collar job as a clerk, your child gets to go to university.
Wealth tax has no practical effect on the Rich, unless they are deeply unfortunate and it destroys the estate, what it really does is prevent the poor from accumulating wealth.
This is completely incorrect. It would be correct if the estate tax applied to all estates, but it does not. Even when 2013 rolls around and the tax returns in full force, it will only apply to estates over $1m. If you stand to inherit over $1m, your family is not poor. The estate tax only impacts people who (1) grew up in highly privileged families and (2) did not work for the money they are about to receive. Even then, they will still inherit staggering sums of money. A don't have much sympathy for someone who's complaining because they only received $5.05m from their $10m inheritance. Those peoples' parents clearly did not instill in them a work ethic.No, taxing economic activity, what they buy is better. Taxing wealth and estates is worse than taxing incomes (especially death tax) because it interupts inheritence which is a key pillar of social mobility. Contrary to popular belief, most people cannot change classes in a generation, but families can inherit wealth across generations - you get a white collar job as a clerk, your child gets to go to university.
Wealth tax has no practical effect on the Rich, unless they are deeply unfortunate and it destroys the estate, what it really does is prevent the poor from accumulating wealth.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
This is completely incorrect. It would be correct if the estate tax applied to all estates, but it does not. Even when 2013 rolls around and the tax returns in full force, it will only apply to estates over $1m. If you stand to inherit over $1m, your family is not poor. The estate tax only impacts people who (1) grew up in highly privileged families and (2) did not work for the money they are about to receive. Even then, they will still inherit staggering sums of money. A don't have much sympathy for someone who's complaining because they only received $5.05m from their $10m inheritance. Those peoples' parents clearly did not instill in them a work ethic.
I am getting state inheritence taxes mixed up with the "death tax." This is completely incorrect. It would be correct if the estate tax applied to all estates, but it does not. Even when 2013 rolls around and the tax returns in full force, it will only apply to estates over $1m. If you stand to inherit over $1m, your family is not poor. The estate tax only impacts people who (1) grew up in highly privileged families and (2) did not work for the money they are about to receive. Even then, they will still inherit staggering sums of money. A don't have much sympathy for someone who's complaining because they only received $5.05m from their $10m inheritance. Those peoples' parents clearly did not instill in them a work ethic.
If inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, when I filed my state tax return I would owe 10% of the value. If I needed to liquidate some of the estate (to cover the taxes or for whatever reason) and I got a capital gain on its base cost, then I would also have to pay a capital gains tax on top of the 10%.
Each state is different, everyone may want to check their state
http://www.retirementliving.com/taxes-by-state
@Vuk: You are correct. I am a mind reader. Cookie please.
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
@Vuk: You are correct. I am a mind reader. Cookie please.
Some minds are pretty easy to read. I'll be waiting for a more impressive demonstration before I part with any of my cookies. @Vuk: You are correct. I am a mind reader. Cookie please.
Ajax
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump:
I am getting state inheritence taxes mixed up with the "death tax."
If inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, when I filed my state tax return I would owe 10% of the value. If I needed to liquidate some of the estate (to cover the taxes or for whatever reason) and I got a capital gain on its base cost, then I would also have to pay a capital gains tax on top of the 10%.
That's not correct if you're in Oklahoma. Oklahoma currently exempts the first $3m of the estate, with the graduated tax only applying to amounts over and above that. If you inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, you would owe nothing.I am getting state inheritence taxes mixed up with the "death tax."
If inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, when I filed my state tax return I would owe 10% of the value. If I needed to liquidate some of the estate (to cover the taxes or for whatever reason) and I got a capital gain on its base cost, then I would also have to pay a capital gains tax on top of the 10%.
http://www.tax.ok.gov/oktax/forms/45499.pdf
Exemption limits are described on page 6.
I highly doubt if there is any state that imposes an estate tax which does not include a very sizable exemption.
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
Some minds are pretty easy to read. I'll be waiting for a more impressive demonstration before I part with any of my cookies.
Ajax
Some minds are pretty easy to read. I'll be waiting for a more impressive demonstration before I part with any of my cookies.
Ajax
where is my Citizen Kane Clapping gif?
Originally Posted by TinCow:
That's not correct if you're in Oklahoma. Oklahoma currently exempts the first $3m of the estate, with the graduated tax only applying to amounts over and above that. If you inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, you would owe nothing.
http://www.tax.ok.gov/oktax/forms/45499.pdf
Exemption limits are described on page 6.
I highly doubt if there is any state that imposes an estate tax which does not include a very sizable exemption.
Now I feel dirty for not having to pay taxes on my imaginary inheritence, but then I remember I havent paid taxes in 2 years so I feel clean again. That's not correct if you're in Oklahoma. Oklahoma currently exempts the first $3m of the estate, with the graduated tax only applying to amounts over and above that. If you inherited an estate worth 100k tomorrow, you would owe nothing.
http://www.tax.ok.gov/oktax/forms/45499.pdf
Exemption limits are described on page 6.
I highly doubt if there is any state that imposes an estate tax which does not include a very sizable exemption.
Funny, that was a link from my own link.
So I am only on the hook for capital gains/investments. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
Why are these hypothetical people running their multi-million dollar farm entirely as personal property rather than as a business or partnership? There are many ways to structure a family-owned business so that the majority of its assets are not subject to the estate tax. The estate tax is designed to hit personal property, not businesses.Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
I stopped reading after "family farm"
Originally Posted by TinCow:
Why are these hypothetical people running their multi-million dollar farm entirely as personal property rather than as a business or partnership? There are many ways to structure a family-owned business so that the majority of its assets are not subject to the estate tax. The estate tax is designed to hit personal property, not businesses.
Are ownership stakes in such business not hit with the estate tax then?Why are these hypothetical people running their multi-million dollar farm entirely as personal property rather than as a business or partnership? There are many ways to structure a family-owned business so that the majority of its assets are not subject to the estate tax. The estate tax is designed to hit personal property, not businesses.
Originally Posted by :
I stopped reading after "family farm"
Thanks for sharing.I stopped reading after "family farm"
CR
I believe most farms are considered as limited companies or kin now, at least in the UK, which doesn't suffer from the same penalties and actually provides a lot of advantages such as able to get cheaper insurance, etc. Not sure of how it is in the USA, but TinCow probably knows a few recommended legal routes where families don't miss out where farms with large value assets are involved.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
If only family farms that stayed in the family were exempt from all federal inheritance tax ... oh wait, they already are. Estate tax only kicks in if they sell out or do not farm.Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
I know, I know, you're really talking about all family businesses everywhere. But the truth of the matter is that a stake in an LLC or corporation is valued much more flexibly than a hard percentage ownership of real estate. So yes, if your family owns a golf course, you will take much less of a tax hit if you are a partner in the business than if they will you the fairway and clubhouse.
Sheesh, hasn't anyone on this board ever spoken to an estate attorney?
Originally Posted by Lemur:
If only family farms that stayed in the family were exempt from all federal inheritance tax ... oh wait, they already are. Estate tax only kicks in if they sell out or do not farm.
Is that how it works in the US? IIRC in the Neth's inheritance tax over the net worth of shares in a liability company are postponed until you liquidate the company or sell it. And close relatives never pay more than 20% anyway. If the profits of a farm/company don't justify taking a mortgage or some other loan for that amount of tax you have to wonder why said farm/business exists in the first place.If only family farms that stayed in the family were exempt from all federal inheritance tax ... oh wait, they already are. Estate tax only kicks in if they sell out or do not farm.
Tax law is very, very boring over here though so I might not get the whole picture here. Is it any better in the USA? Never been in the position where I inherited anything either (fortunately).
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
Is that how it works in the US?
Basically, if you inherit a farm of any size, and can demonstrate that you are actually working on it as a farmer, there is no federal inheritance tax. Nothing. On the other hand, if your parents leave you half a million acres in Georgia and you've never been there, it's treated as normal real estate. And as others have pointed out, this applies to federal estate tax. Each state has their own thing, although most make similar exemptions for working farmers.Is that how it works in the US?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
Actually the majority of farms in America are well under 500 acre and likely would also be exempt.Tincow -a moderately sized family farm could easily be worth several million dollars. I definitely would not consider kids who grew up farming highly privileged.
The estate tax does break up family businesses and hurt the economy thusly. If you want to target rich families only you'll need to jack up the exemption level past $5million. And if the kids helped build that family business, they definitely worked for that money.
CR
Usually on a farm where this might be a problem they can get around by using a joint tenancy aggrement. Basically upon a father dying the son who is also a tenant would have full control of the farm without it needing to be passed on in a will therby avoiding estate taxes.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Are ownership stakes in such business not hit with the estate tax then?
As a preface, I am not an estate attorney, so I'm not knowledgeable about all the intricacies of the system, particularly about any specific farm exemptions and whatnot. However, there are plenty of ways to structure a business which do not put the assets of the business at risk. In short, what you do is set up the business so that the business itself owns the assets. In the case of a farm, that would likely include the actual real estate, plus the expensive equipment and such. The owners of the business then become employees, and are paid out of the profits like in any normal business. Since the business owners do not technically own the farm (the business does), the estate tax does not apply to those portions of the business when someone dies. If structured properly, the assets that are in each individual person's name would be restricted to liquid assets and personal profits which do not impact the functioning of the business itself.Are ownership stakes in such business not hit with the estate tax then?
Think about it any other business context, and you'll see what I mean. Businesses do not go bankrupt due to the loss of half of their assets every time the business founder dies. Such a situation would, quite rightly, be outrageous and cause major problems for the economy. That's why it doesn't work like that.
On top of all of that, anyone who knows they will have estate tax issues can avoid some of it by simply planning ahead. Each couple can gift up to $26,000 per year to any person without incurring any tax penalties. So, if a family has two children and four grandchildren, they could give away $156,000 per year tax free. And that's assuming each child is not married. If they are all married, that doubles the number of people who can receive gifts, and allows a transfer of $52,000 to each couple, for a total of $312,000 per year to 2 married children and 4 married grandchildren. To ensure the money is handled properly, it can be put into trusts with whatever access restrictions on them that the parents desire. Plan far enough ahead, and a family can easily transfer millions of dollars to their heirs tax-free, all of which will reduce the exposure of their remaining estate to the estate tax as well. If you have so much money that even 10-20 years of structured trusts and gifts won't clear your exposure... well, perhaps you're just really, really wealthy and your heirs aren't at risk of being impoverished by the estate tax.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Thanks for sharing.
CR
Thanks for sharing.
CR
Originally Posted by Lemur:
If only family farms that stayed in the family were exempt from all federal inheritance tax ... oh wait, they already are. Estate tax only kicks in if they sell out or do not farm.
?
Do you wish to continue with snark or will your ignorance about Agbuisness suffice?If only family farms that stayed in the family were exempt from all federal inheritance tax ... oh wait, they already are. Estate tax only kicks in if they sell out or do not farm.
?
I could have explained what the next 5 posts did, but that would take the sport out of it
Thanks, TinCow!
SFTS always seems to know what the answer is....... after the answer is posted.
The estate tax is what it is. I don't particularly like it but we all know it is probably not going to go anywhere. I wonder if in the case of a true small business it would be possible for the US government to distinguish between legitimate businesses and personal wealth. Because as CR said its not unfathomable to imagine a small business worth more than 2-3 million especially depending on its type and location.
The estate tax is what it is. I don't particularly like it but we all know it is probably not going to go anywhere. I wonder if in the case of a true small business it would be possible for the US government to distinguish between legitimate businesses and personal wealth. Because as CR said its not unfathomable to imagine a small business worth more than 2-3 million especially depending on its type and location.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
SFTS always seems to know what the answer is....... after the answer is posted..
SFTS always seems to know what the answer is....... after the answer is posted..
Originally Posted by :
I mean really? Also the hiliraty that there is somehow this massive group of yeoman farmers still out there makes me double over in laughter.I stopped reading after "family farm"
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I mean really? Also the hiliraty that there is somehow this massive group of yeoman farmers still out there makes me double over in laughter.
There are. Plenty of 500-1000 acre farms owned by a single family in comparison to the conglomerates I imagine you picture. And plenty of those farms are worth quite a pretty penny. Anyway theres a federal exemption for them so, meh.I mean really? Also the hiliraty that there is somehow this massive group of yeoman farmers still out there makes me double over in laughter.
As I said my concern is with other things.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO