You and I have worked hard all of our lives, to build our businesses, our homes, our farms, all to provide a better life for our families. We have scrimped and saved so that we could pay our own way, and not be a burden to our children or to society. And when we are gone, we would like to leave the fruits of our labor to our children.

Sounds admirable, doesn’t it? Well, not to the supporters of the Death Tax! No, they want to punish us for our hard work by taking the majority of what we leave behind and giving it to the government.

And does the government really need the revenue from the Death Tax to fund vital programs for our nation? No! According to the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, which studied the pros and cons of the Death Tax, its costs “far exceed” any benefits. Even the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, has said about the Death Tax, “this tax isn’t necessary—it’s just evil—because it takes away the American Dream from too many American families.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has already promised that when the Senate returns one of their first acts will be to vote on whether to make this repeal permanent. That means we only days to act! That's why we must act now to get this message to our Senators. They must make the repeal of the death tax permanent.

Most of us believe in that American Dream: through hard work and courage, we can prosper. The Left, however, believes that it is somehow “unfair” for you to accumulate more assets than other people. The fact that these assets are the result of hard work and sacrifice on our part does not matter to the Left. They can’t simply redistribute our wealth while we are alive so they hide in waiting until we die and use the Death Tax to take our assets. They simply do not want our children and grandchildren to inherit anything but a few old photos. Photos, which would remind them of the home they were forced to sell to pay the Death Tax.

You and I want to be able to pass down our family home or the business we have worked so hard to build (often with the help of our children). We do not want our children to be forced to sell our home or business simply to be able to pay unneeded taxes to the government.

To send letters now to our US Senators requesting they support the "Repeal The Death Tax Permanency Act." Click Here or copy and paste this link http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=GCAL&hotissue=15

IMO 100% of anyone's belongings should be taxed and redistributed after one's death.
This would be the real fulfillment of what you call "the american dream" : people would only benefit from what they've earned throuph personal work, they would not be rich just because mommy and daddy let them plenty of money.
That would also settle many family conflicts about inheritage.

Originally posted by astrapol2
IMO 100% of anyone's belongings should be taxed and redistributed after one's death.
This would be the real fulfillment of what you call "the american dream"

Relax.

All this "death tax" scaremongering is just a huge strawman by the Rightwing elites who want to protect their MEGA-millionare friends..

Particularly false and laughable is the claim that --"they want to punish us for our hard work by taking the majority of what we leave behind and giving it to the government.

Here are the myths.........and the facts.


Myth 1: Repealing the estate tax wouldn’t significantly worsen the deficit because the tax doesn’t raise much revenue.



Reality: Repealing the estate tax would add trillions of dollars to the deficit.

Permanently repealing the estate tax would cost roughly $1 trillion over the first ten years of extension, 2012-2021. This cost includes $745 billion in lost revenue and $225 billion in increased interest payments on the national debt. (The official ten-year cost estimate is much lower: $290 billion. But that estimate is misleading because it covers an earlier ten-year period, 2006-2015, that captures only the cost of four years of extending repeal.)

Given the current fiscal situation — and, more importantly, the looming budgetary challenges posed by the baby boomers’ retirement — it would be extremely unwise for the federal government to forgo such large revenues.


Myth 2: The estate tax forces estates to turn over half of their assets to the government.


Reality: The few estates that pay any estate tax at all generally pay less than 20 percent of their assets in estate taxes.

Roughly 99 percent of estates pay no estate tax at all. Among the few estates that do owe taxes, the "effective" tax rate — that is, the percentage of the estate that is paid in taxes — averaged about 19 percent in 2003, according to the IRS, far below the top estate tax rate of 50 percent that these estates paid.

Why is the effective tax rate so much lower than the top tax rate? Estate taxes are due only on the portion of an estate’s value that exceeds the exemption level, not on the entire estate. For example, at today’s $1.5 million exemption level, a $2 million estate would owe estate taxes on $500,000 at most. In addition, a large portion of the estate’s remaining value can be shielded from taxation through available deductions (for charitable bequests and state estate taxes paid, for instance).

It’s also worth noting that the effective estate tax rate will fall below 19 percent over the next few years, as the exemption level rises and the top estate tax rate declines.


Myth 3: Many small, family-owned farms and businesses must be liquidated to pay estate taxes.



Reality: The number of small, family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax is small — and shrinking rapidly.

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

Last year only 340 estates in the entire nation that consisted primarily of a farm or business worth less than $5 million were subject to any estate tax at all, according to estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And in 2009, when the estate-tax exemption level rises to $3.5 million, the Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 50 such estates will be subject to any estate tax.


Myth 4: The estate tax is best characterized as the "death tax."



Reality: The estate tax would more appropriately be called an "inheritance tax," as it ultimately affects only the heirs of large estates.

Today, the estates of less than 1 out of every 100 people who die owe any estate tax whatsoever, because the first $1.5 million of the value of any estate ($3 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax.

Further, the exemption level is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple) in 2009 under current law. At this level, only 3 of every 1,000 people who die will have an estate large enough to owe any tax.

That is why repealing the estate tax, which some people describe as "killing the death tax," has been described more aptly by others as the "Paris Hilton tax cut" after the daughter of hotel magnate Conrad Hilton.


Myth 5: The estate tax unfairly punishes success.



Reality: The estate tax affects only those most able to pay, and the funds it raises are used to support a range of programs that benefit the nation.

The estate tax is the most progressive component of a tax code that overall is only modestly progressive (particularly when regressive state and local taxes are taken into account). The money it raises funds essential programs, from health care to education to defending the nation. If the estate tax were repealed, then other taxpayers — presumably those that are more numerous and less well-off than those paying the estate tax — would have to foot the bill for these programs, or the benefits and services provided would have to be cut.

Like other Americans, the very wealthy benefit from public investments in areas such as defense, education, health care, scientific research, environmental protection, and infrastructure, and they rely even more than others on the government’s protection of individual property rights (since they have so much more to protect). It seems fair that people who have prospered the most in this society help to preserve it for future generations through tax revenues that derive from their estates. Indeed, as President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1906 that "the man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."


Myth 6: Eliminating the estate tax would encourage people to save and thereby make more capital available for investment.



Reality: Eliminating the estate tax wouldn’t dramatically affect private saving, and it would greatly increase government dissaving (i.e., deficits).

A recent Congressional Research Service report found that the estate tax’s net impact on private saving is unclear — it causes some people to save more and others to save less — and that its overall impact on national saving is likely quite small. "[I]f the only objective [of eliminating the estate tax] were increased savings," the report concluded, "it would probably be more effective to simply keep the estate and gift tax and use the proceeds to reduce the national debt."

The reason is simple: while repealing the estate tax might lead some people to save more, it also would lead the government to borrow more to offset the lost revenue. Government borrowing "soaks up" capital that would otherwise be available for investment in the economy. In the case of repealing the estate tax, the added government borrowing would more than outweigh any added private saving, leaving the economy no better off, and quite possibly worse off.


Myth 7: The estate tax constitutes "double taxation" because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.



Reality: Large estates have substantial amounts of "unrealized" capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold. Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value, especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Originally posted by astrapol2
IMO 100% of anyone's belongings should be taxed and redistributed after one's death.
This would be the real fulfillment of what you call "the american dream" : people would only benefit from what they've earned throuph personal work, they would not be rich just because mommy and daddy let them plenty of money.
That would also settle many family conflicts about inheritage.

Astra, this blew my mind you would not want your kids to get your belongings, or maybe even a family business? No cookies for you, your a big bad mean guy that beats up mouses :D

Originally posted by astrapol2
people would only benefit from what they've earned throuph personal work, they would not be rich just because mommy and daddy let them plenty of money.

The implication here is that there are a bunch of teenagers sitting around doing nothing because they've inherited lots and lots of cash. On average, most people's parents die when they (the children) are already well established on their own and in their 50s or 60s. The Paris Hilton's of the world are getting money from their still-living parents.

Originally posted by astrapol2
IMO 100% of anyone's belongings should be taxed and redistributed after one's death.
This would be the real fulfillment of what you call "the american dream" : people would only benefit from what they've earned throuph personal work, they would not be rich just because mommy and daddy let them plenty of money.
That would also settle many family conflicts about inheritage.
This is nothing short of socialist bullshit. They tax your ass on what you make, spend, and sell. The least they can do is offer you a concession for your family. Our government righteously fucks each and every one of us while Uncle Sam squeezes our tits until they turn purple. I say screw the poor. If they can't pay for themselves, then why should they be made MY responsibility??? On that note, if I have to foot the bill, then I say lets round them up and shoot 'em. If it comes between them and my money, I vote we burn their bodies in the wintertime to keep warm. If I had worked all my life and saved a tidy little sum - I'D WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE IT. I want the government out of my savings account, period. They already taxed me on it once, and I'll be damned if I'll give them a second or third chance to do it again.

When my father died 3 years ago ther government was only taxing moneys in excess of $350,000.

Guess who is going to gain from repealing the death tax?

No where in the tax code is there anything called a "death tax".

It is referred to as an inhweritance tax. If you inheret more than $350,000 from someone you have to pay tax on moneys above that amount.

Originally posted by Echo2
It is referred to as an inheritance tax. If you inheret more than $350,000 from someone you have to pay tax on moneys above that amount.

That's incorrect.

The fact is that the first $1.5 million of the value of any estate ($3 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax.

Also, Prae's admonition to --"Round up the poor and shoot them instead of taxing my stuff TWICE!!"-- is a bit off target.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold.

Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value, especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The implication here is that there are a bunch of teenagers sitting around doing nothing because they've inherited lots and lots of cash. On average, most people's parents die when they (the children) are already well established on their own and in their 50s or 60s. The Paris Hilton's of the world are getting money from their still-living parents.

Precisely, that supports my point.
I understand people want to help their youngest kids, but what is the point of inheriting at 50 or 60 ?
People from rich families already have enough privilege - education, housing, etc...
I agree that a certain amount of money should be transmitted to the relatives of people who die, but taxing heavily inheritages abocve a certain amount seems one of the fairest things to do in a rational society. Otherwise, the rich will only get richer, generation after generation, without deserving it.

The Government should get zero of that money!

The government has already taxed everythnig the person made

when it was income. So what if the person made great choices

and accumilated lots of money. Don't make their family pay even

more.

Originally posted by gmsisko1
The Government should get zero of that money!

The government has already taxed everythnig the person made


Not quite correct.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold.

Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value, especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold.

Even then, you don't have to pay ANY taxes on a the gain from the sale of a house if the gain is less than $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples).

When you sell your own home, and make a profit, you do not pay taxes on that profit. Why should their kids pay taxes when the person dies?




Originally posted by Freethinker
Not quite correct.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold.

Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value, especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Do away with the IRS and the arcaic practices we currently employ. That would be a general improvement. A system that is too old and complicated and time has come.
Big Brother get your hand out of my pocket..NOW !
I don't approve of the way most tax money is spent..IE..Iraq..
Billions on war but can't afford national healthcare ?

Time to rethink and apply something new..maybe a consumption tax ? (http://www.fairtax.org/)

jim's op/ed (http://opinionsandreasons.blogspot.com/) :@@:

Billions on war but can't afford national healthcare ?

It is not the government's job to take care of your health. If you cannot pay for it, sad but tough, you have to miss out. If you did not have the funds to pay for a car, you would be turned away. Same goes for sugery. Hospitals are places of business too.

However, it is the government's job to take care of the defense of the country. Iraq is allowing us to take down a hostile country in the middle east, find and destroy various terrorist cells, and position us for the oncoming conflicts of the future in that area of asia. They are protecting us in that manner, but the freedom of the iraqis and a democracy in the islamic parts of the world is a plus.

I have more than a passing knowledge of inheritance taxes and I can confirm most of what FT is stating (pinched from This Site) (http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/estatetax.htm) in his myths vs. reality post is in fact true. Particularly the parts about unrealized income being taxed for the first time at death. Anyone with half a brain and a lawyer with a pulse can get out of paying most of their inheritance taxes. I firmly believe you shoudl be able to take care of your family. I don't believe you should be able to set them up as de-facto American royalty until the end of time.

It's your money, you should be able to do what you want with it.
Besides, does anyone actually suffer from repealing the inheritance tax? Barring any new taxes to take it's place, of course.

Personally, I see the repealing of the death tax as just another way to limit government spending.

The problem isn't repealing the death tax, the problem is not reducing government spending when taxes are reduced.

they have to stop spending more than they make sometime. debt catches up to everyone, even the government.

they have to stop spending more than they make sometime. debt catches up to everyone, even the government. Homey: at the rate we are going most or our taxes will soon be devoted to simply paying interest. You know, on the EIGHT TRILLION (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) we owe. We can't really just stop paying that, it's non-discretionary spending.

Republicans for the last 2 decades have been insisting that cutting revenues is the only way to stop spending, yet they have had a golden opportunity to stop such spending in the last 5 years and they have showed us NOTHING. GOP cannot stop its own pork-fiesta...although it sure does like to cut off its own revenues. As a staunch fiscal conservative, it's enough to make me puke.

My feelings are we got to be the greatest country on earth WITH the death tax so it can't be all that harmful.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
I firmly believe you shoudl be able to take care of your family. I don't believe you should be able to set them up as de-facto American royalty until the end of time.

No one is saying de-facto royalty (please see my signature line). When some people get older, they choose to travel, some buy new cars, some a house in the country.

What if someone chooses to live a spartan and frugal life so they can make their children's lives easier? Isn't that their choice? Isn't that freedom?

The $3 million per couple covers 95% of those people Brooks. As usual with this administration, it's the focus and the handouts to the top 5% that is so sickening.

The percentage of people involved doesn't change the principle behind what I asked. If someone chooses not to live a lavish lifestyle so they can give their children a better life, why is it fair to take that liberty away?

Originally posted by Brooks
The percentage of people involved doesn't change the principle behind what I asked. If someone chooses not to live a lavish lifestyle so they can give their children a better life, why is it fair to take that liberty away?

Is has nothing to do with the government being intent on "trying to take their liberty away".

It has everything to do with people paying their fair share of the tax burden we all have to pay.

As i have pointed out several times, a great deal of the increases in wealth being taxed have never had tax paid on them previously.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income was essentially deferred and ultimately is being --after that person's death-- taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Originally posted by Freethinker

As i have pointed out several times, a great deal of the increases in wealth being taxed have never had tax paid on them previously.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income was essentially deferred and ultimately is being --after that person's death-- taxed for the first time through the estate tax.
Since you're not saying these people cheated, you must mean that there was no way to tax this income under the law, right? then it must not have been "taxable income". What then is the reason for taxing it when it is passed on? If it wasn't taxable income, why is it taxed.

Also, you're really generalizing here. Not everyone who made that kind of money avoided paying taxes.

Where did you get that creation theory?

Originally posted by Brooks
Since you're not saying these people cheated, you must mean that there was no way to tax this income under the law, right? then it must not have been "taxable income". What then is the reason for taxing it when it is passed on? If it wasn't taxable income, why is it taxed.

Also, you're really generalizing here. Not everyone who made that kind of money avoided paying taxes.

Where did you get that creation theory?
Absolutely, Brooks - good post.

Rich people A: rich people who earn their money through hard work and sacrafice, are usually republicans. They work hard and want to keep what is theirs. For this they are demoized by rich person B as uncaring with a dash of racist and homophobe for good measure.

Rich People B: rich people who ineherit their money or get it through little effort (actors) are democrats, and usualy the most loud mouhted bossy democrats there are (barbara streisand). I attribute this to sever guilt for having so much and not doing much or anything to get it. To compensate they turn rabidly liberal and give us the illusion they care more then anyone else, even though they dont.

Originally posted by Travh20
Rich people A: rich people who earn their money through hard work and sacrafice, are usually republicans. They work hard and want to keep what is theirs. For this they are demoized by rich person B as uncaring with a dash of racist and homophobe for good measure.

Rich People B: rich people who ineherit their money or get it through little effort (actors) are democrats, and usualy the most loud mouhted bossy democrats there are (barbara streisand). I attribute this to sever guilt for having so much and not doing much or anything to get it. To compensate they turn rabidly liberal and give us the illusion they care more then anyone else, even though they dont.

Interesting analogy. ALthough braking an entire wealthy populace down to rep or dem doesn't realy make sense. You forgot the rich guys that make their moneey selling coke or killing for hire. WHere does slick willie fall into your description? He comes from a poor background and is very liberal?

How about - there are three types of poor people.
The ones that are to lazy to work and believe the government owes them.
The ones that through circumstances not of their own doing are poor (physical disability, medical conditions, born with mental disabilities).
The ones that planned poorly or made bad investments or fell for a con scam.

Originally posted by Echo2
WHere does slick willie fall into your description? He comes from a poor background and is very liberal?
Reality check for ya, Echo: he wasn't very liberal - he was a middle of the road kind of guy, who had a tendency to swing left occasionally, but not all the time. I can't really say that I liked his social or financial policy all that much, but the man was far from a "leftist".

Rich person: anyone who makes more money than I do.

Originally posted by Brooks
Since you're not saying these people cheated, you must mean that there was no way to tax this income under the law, right? then it must not have been "taxable income". What then is the reason for taxing it when it is passed on? If it wasn't taxable income, why is it taxed.

One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax.

That is, the taxation of this income was essentially deferred and ultimately is being --after that person's death-- taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Meaning of DEFERRED

Pronunciation: di'furd

WordNet Dictionary

Definition; [adj] put off till later.

What about the effect the estate tax is having on private farmers? Surely they're not part of this evil top 5% but they get hit the hardest. Is that fair to them?

1.5 Million. Each parent. 3 million total. Without any additional shelters. Of which plenty are available. Most private farmers were all run out of business about 20 years ago by Tyson Foods.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
What about the effect the estate tax is having on private farmers? Surely they're not part of this evil top 5% but they get hit the hardest. Is that fair to them?

The number of family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax is small — and shrinking rapidly.

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

Last year only 340 estates in the entire nation that consisted primarily of a farm or business worth less than $5 million were subject to any estate tax at all, according to estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And in 2009, when the estate-tax exemption level rises to $3.5 million, the Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 50 such estates will be subject to any estate tax.

I'm always surprised that the people who fear government getting too powerful, oppressive or overbearing have no problem with them taking someone's money simply because they've died. It just seems to fly in the face of their usual principles.

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm always surprised that the people who fear government getting too powerful, oppressive or overbearing have no problem with them taking someone's money simply because they've died.

a) Nice try [yet again] to spin this thing, but it is not *taking their money because they have died* It is TAXING the money that has never been taxed.

b) It only happens to extremely wealthy people. It won't hurt them to pay taxes like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Freethinker
a) Nice try [yet again] to spin this thing, but it is not *taking their money because they have died* It is TAXING the money that has never been taxed.
And if the estate's assets aren't liquidated, then how come they should be taxed if they're protected in trust? The estate's assets should be unsusceptible to taxation provided an attorney has been retained and the red tape covered legally. If the trust is in a family name, then the assets involved should be tax deferred. IOW, it gets taxed when it's drawn upon. That's the way it always has been, and that's the way it always should be. Do you really think this "death tax" is fair? You of all people bitch incessantly over the gross amount of tax dollars that get misappropriated daily (illegal war, defense contracts, yadda, yadda...), and you want to furnish them with more cash??? Oh, wait a minute, I get it - it's just the wealthy you want to burn...

Viva la Che, right?

They dont have to sell because of the estate tax, but because of pressure put on by the bigger Agricorp companies. This pressure is merely amplified by the estate tax. Which part makes a bomb so destructive, the fuse or the 100 pounds of explosives?

Originally posted by Freethinker
a) Nice try [yet again] to spin this thing, but it is not *taking their money because they have died* It is TAXING the money that has never been taxed.


How do you know if someone's money was taxed or not? And when the death tax is assessed, is that taken into account? This is what I don't get about your argument.

Originally posted by Evakian
Billions on war but can't afford national healthcare ?

It is not the government's job to take care of your health.

but is it OK for the taxpayers to continue paying a salary and providing an office, security and Health Care benefits for for politicians after their term..uh no..I don't think so..
Originally posted by Evakian
However, it is the government's job to take care of the defense of the country. Iraq is allowing us to take down a hostile country in the middle east, find and destroy various terrorist cells, and position us for the oncoming conflicts of the future in that area of asia. They are protecting us in that manner, but the freedom of the iraqis and a democracy in the islamic parts of the world is a plus. [/B]

And NO it's NOT OK for The Commander and Chief nor any of his cronies to falsely lead us into a war and creating the biggest budget deficet in history.
His arrogance is digging a hole so deep we may never be in the black in our lifetimes. :hitout:

a) Nice try [yet again] to spin this thing, but it is not *taking their money because they have died* It is TAXING the money that has never been taxed.

What do you mean? That people have this large, unrealized income that secretly goes into their bank accounts and is only taxed at death? Every cent that they made was taxed already, it doesn't need to be taxed again.

b) It only happens to extremely wealthy people. It won't hurt them to pay taxes like the rest of us.

Wealth shouldn't be punished! We can't apply a completely different set of standards to a subjective group of people whose classification changes with the times. They pay the most taxes out of all of us.

Besides, taxes are at heart an immoral, unethical system. The last thing that we need is more of them.

The number of family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax is small — and shrinking rapidly.

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

Last year only 340 estates in the entire nation that consisted primarily of a farm or business worth less than $5 million were subject to any estate tax at all, according to estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And in 2009, when the estate-tax exemption level rises to $3.5 million, the Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 50 such estates will be subject to any estate tax.

All that proves is that the ammount of opression is shrinking, it is sort of like justifying the holocaust due to the fact that the ammount of Jews keeping Poland warm was shrinkig rapidly.