A thought on the Tea Party....

[radiojake]

It seems that one of the overwhelming sentiments of the Tea Party movement is an un-wavering belief in the Constitution and the ideas expressed by the founding fathers, and a desperate bid to return to a time of a more 'pure' America - The way America is today, it would seem, is antithetical to what was once a great nation - A nation which spawned the 'American Dream' - A nation that everyone aspired to be like.


Point number 4 on the Contract from America is; (according to Wikipedia)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century....

My thought is as follows; I would have supposed that when the US first became a nation and the founding fathers put forward their vision of the mighty nation, there were a number of (important) differences than today.
Firstly, the slave labour market meant that lots of money could be saved by 'hiring' slaves to build infrastructure and work the fields - Nothing brings economic progress like free labour.
Secondly, The US was yet to expand to their western edge - There were countless lands to usurp from the Indigenous Americans - Manifest Destiny implied the idea of limitless growth (and for a long time, this probably not only seemed plausible, but downright believable)

What is my point? Well, today we are clearly no longer in the 18th Century; There is no more land to steal from the Indigenous Americans, there are no more slaves to toil in the cotton fields. Re-applying a 250 year old text to today's conception of reality will not bring back days of unlimited growth - Let's face it - America's biggest problem seems to be the idea that it can perpetually live large and ignore then consequences... The Tea-Party seems to be the last resort to throw back to a time when these consequences were still a long way from being dealt with -

[Night Strike]

The only "'pure' America" Tea Partiers wish to return to is the one that had a limited federal government, not the one of only white males like your posts implies. Bringing up anything about returning to slavery shows that you (and anybody else who believes it) either have no clue what the Tea Party is about or are trying to purposefully mischaracterize them.

[radiojake]

The only "'pure' America" Tea Partiers wish to return to is the one that had a limited federal government, not the one of only white males like your posts implies. Bringing up anything about returning to slavery shows that you (and anybody else who believes it) either have no clue what the Tea Party is about or are trying to purposefully mischaracterize them.

I didn't say they were advocating slavery - I am sure that is not the case - But wanting to return to an economic succesful parallel that was only made possible by slavery and the 'unlimited' usurption of land that was available at the time.

[saxitoxin]

I didn't say they were advocating slavery - I am sure that is not the case - But wanting to return to an economic succesful parallel that was only made possible by slavery

That's an intriguing question! Ol' Sax is a history buff of the 1800's, including the U.S. revolutionary period and the French revolutionary period. I thought the best way to determine the efficacy of assessment presented by this theory is to evaluate those who might commonly be considered "founding fathers" of the U.S. and their own positions on slavery which was made quickly possible thanks to Google (thanks Sergey!).

If "X" wants to return to an ideology proffered by the so-called "Founding Fathers", do the so-called "Founding Fathers" proffer an ideology dependent on slavery?

I count, in the senior civilian revolutionary leadership: *
- 17% slaveholder
- 65% non-slaveholder
- 17% other

I count, in the senior military revolutionary leadership: **
- 17% slaveholder
- 83% non-slaveholder


*President of the Continental Congress: John Hancock (non-slaveholder)
First of the Committee of Five: Dr. Franklin (slaveholder, then non-slaveholder, then abolitionist)
Second of the Committee of Five: Thomas Jefferson (slaveholder)
Third of the Committee of Five: Ambassador Livingston (non-slaveholder)
Fourth of the Committee of Five: Roger Sherman (abolitionist)
Fifth of the Committee of Five: John Adams (abolitionist)

**Commander of the Armies of Congress: Gnssmo. George Washington (slaveholder)
Deputy Commander: Maj.-Gen. Artemas Ward (non-slaveholder)
Chief of Staff: Baron von Steuben (non-slaveholder)
Aide to the Commander: the Marquis de Lafayette (non-slaveholder)
Quartermaster-General: Maj.-Gen. Nathaneal Greene (non-slaveholder)
Senior Naval Officer: Adm. John Paul Jones (non-slaveholder)
(for these purposes I didn't include foreign fighters operating under foreign commanders; von Steuben and Lafayette were included as they were under U.S. command and, subsequently, were granted U.S. citizenship and took-up residence in the United States - I also did not include Benedict Arnold since he defected and doesn't really meet any common definition of a "Founding Father")

[silvanricky]

Whoa Nellie, whadawegothere?

It seems that one of the overwhelming sentiments of the Tea Party movement is an un-wavering belief in the Constitution and the ideas expressed by the founding fathers, and a desperate bid to return to a time of a more 'pure' America - The way America is today, it would seem, is antithetical to what was once a great nation - A nation which spawned the 'American Dream' - A nation that everyone aspired to be like.


Point number 4 on the Contract from America is; (according to Wikipedia)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century....

Perhaps you missed Rubio's speech after winning the Florida senate seat when it comes to this being the 2nd chance to do what they said they would in the first place. By the way, the founding fathers never envisioned the people being taxed on their income in the first place.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century...

Not even close, they enumerated powers to each branch of the federal govt., and made sure that any powers not specifically prohibited by it were reserved to the states.

My thought is as follows; I would have supposed that when the US first became a nation and the founding fathers put forward their vision of the mighty nation, there were a number of (important) differences than today.
Firstly, the slave labour market meant that lots of money could be saved by 'hiring' slaves to build infrastructure and work the fields - Nothing brings economic progress like free labour.

The slave trade was set up by the founders to expire by 1808. It was the South that fought to preserve it as an institution. If it was so economically beneficial then you need to explain why the founders only tolerated it for their time being with the hopes of eliminating it, while also belonging to anti-slavery societies.

Secondly, The US was yet to expand to their western edge - There were countless lands to usurp from the Indigenous Americans - Manifest Destiny implied the idea of limitless growth (and for a long time, this probably not only seemed plausible, but downright believable)

Yes, because indigenous Americans never usurped land from each other prior to the colonies or westward expansion. They also never ever abused the land, and there were recycling centers all over the place. They never chopped down trees or burnt vegetation. All was at one.

What is my point? Well, today we are clearly no longer in the 18th Century; There is no more land to steal from the Indigenous Americans, there are no more slaves to toil in the cotton fields.

Damn it, why can't we just have more land to steal and slaves to take advantage of! Oh yeah, that would just be dandy! That's exactly what people who are concerned about simplifying the tax code really want.

Re-applying a 250 year old text to today's conception of reality will not bring back days of unlimited growth

Because disregarding it has worked so well

Let's face it - America's biggest problem seems to be the idea that it can perpetually live large and ignore then consequences...

America's biggest problem is the idea that government can perpetually live large and ignore the consequences of huge debt with interest, and unsustainable entitlement programs.

The Tea-Party seems to be the last resort to throw back to a time when these consequences were still a long way from being dealt with -

The Tea Party may be the last best hope to put pressure on a Republican Party which promised to protect us from entitlements, excessive government regulation, and a government which refuses to control its spending habits.

[thegreekdog]

RJ - Do you think your OP is a bit of a straw man? Do you really think the Tea Party people are arguing for a return to free labor and unfettered conquering of indigenous people? I'm a Tea Party person and I kind of want to get paid for my labor and I'm content purchasing real estate from others (rather than giving them small pox).

[Phatscotty]

RJ - Do you think your OP is a bit of a straw man? Do you really think the Tea Party people are arguing for a return to free labor and unfettered conquering of indigenous people? I'm a Tea Party person and I kind of want to get paid for my labor and I'm content purchasing real estate from others (rather than giving them small pox).

Radio Jake is way off here. But he is doing it politely so we will hold hands and get through this

[MarshalNey]

RJ, your idea shows some good original thought, but not enough self-criticism- rather self-congratulation, or at the very least loaded sarcasm.

To put it another way, the thesis- that the Constitution was a plan that was based off of an economic system of exploitation that is no longer (or perhaps never) valid- shows healthy skepticism, but this is not tempered by sound premises.

Actually, your assumptions appear unfounded in their current form.

Premise 1: The Constitution was an economic plan.
-- Hmmm, I really don't think this was the case, for the most part anyway. Rather, it was a political plan that came about as a compromise between different philosophies, economies and cultures. I hope you see the difference. Limited federal government, with economic power given largely to state and local governments, is not an economic plan per se- just a plan that determines who has the authority to determine the economy. De-facto communism (certain 'utopias' and religious communes), free market anarchy, and mixed economies existed side by side in pre-Civil War America, and to a lesser extent until the twentieth century. Today, the economy is largely viewed in national terms because economic authority increasingly resides with the federal government.

Premise 2: The early economic plan of America was based largely off of exploitation.
-- A better premise, I think, but perhaps still not accurate. Slavery actually was not more efficient than technology, either monetarily or in terms of productivity. Since the slave trade was halted under the Constitution shortly after the turn of the nineteenth century, slaves were not 'cheap labor' but actually very, very expensive and valuable labor. Slave auctions saw slaves sell for hundreds of dollars- the equivalent of a modern day car purchase. For this reason, few slaveholders owned more than a dozen slaves.

As for the taking of land from the native Americans, this again did not pay immediate dividends except where the gold and silver rushes were concerned. The land settled was often remote and hostile. It was settled more for potential rather than actual worth.

The idea here, is that while human atrocity occured, the economy of early America was based off of hard, back-breaking labor by its citizens as well. "Robber baron" and the idea of a ruthless businessman obtaining obsene wealth off of the backs of exploited masses is more an icon of post-Civil War times (read: era of increasing Constitutional irrelevance). The "Southern planter" of pre-Civil War is largely a myth in that this leisure class was actually a very small percentage of slaveowners and did not constitute the economic backbone of Southern culture, but rather its political nucleus.


There are other assumptions, but I must go to bed and have little time to spend on good topics such as this

Thanks RJ for the interesting argument, hope to see more.

Marshal Ney

[thegreekdog]

RJ - Do you think your OP is a bit of a straw man? Do you really think the Tea Party people are arguing for a return to free labor and unfettered conquering of indigenous people? I'm a Tea Party person and I kind of want to get paid for my labor and I'm content purchasing real estate from others (rather than giving them small pox).

Radio Jake is way off here. But he is doing it politely so we will hold hands and get through this

Here's my entire beef with the Tea Party haters - the majority of Tea Party haters don't actually argue for bigger government, fiscal irresponsibility, or anything else that is the antithesis of what the Tea Party people stand for. Instead, they argue about things like whether the Tea Partiers are racist, whether they support outdated provisions of the Constitution, or whether the Tea Party person running for Congress in Delaware is a witch or not. I see no difference between these things and accusing the president of being born in Kenya or being a card carrying member of the Communist Party. They are all dishonest arguments. So, I kind of respect more the people like Player who argues about the actual issues and not whether Rand Paul is going to shut down the world economy (i.e. MSNBC).

[Phatscotty]

It seems that one of the overwhelming sentiments of the Tea Party movement is an un-wavering belief in the Constitution and the ideas expressed by the founding fathers, and a desperate bid to return to a time of a more 'pure' America - The way America is today, it would seem, is antithetical to what was once a great nation - A nation which spawned the 'American Dream' - A nation that everyone aspired to be like.


Point number 4 on the Contract from America is; (according to Wikipedia)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century....

My thought is as follows; I would have supposed that when the US first became a nation and the founding fathers put forward their vision of the mighty nation, there were a number of (important) differences than today.
Firstly, the slave labour market meant that lots of money could be saved by 'hiring' slaves to build infrastructure and work the fields - Nothing brings economic progress like free labour.
Secondly, The US was yet to expand to their western edge - There were countless lands to usurp from the Indigenous Americans - Manifest Destiny implied the idea of limitless growth (and for a long time, this probably not only seemed plausible, but downright believable)

What is my point? Well, today we are clearly no longer in the 18th Century; There is no more land to steal from the Indigenous Americans, there are no more slaves to toil in the cotton fields. Re-applying a 250 year old text to today's conception of reality will not bring back days of unlimited growth - Let's face it - America's biggest problem seems to be the idea that it can perpetually live large and ignore then consequences... The Tea-Party seems to be the last resort to throw back to a time when these consequences were still a long way from being dealt with -

Sorry man, none of this accurately relates to anything that I think about the Tea Party. Some parts are close. There isn't really a single thing in there that has anything to do with the Tea Party

[targetman377]

It seems that one of the overwhelming sentiments of the Tea Party movement is an un-wavering belief in the Constitution and the ideas expressed by the founding fathers, and a desperate bid to return to a time of a more 'pure' America - The way America is today, it would seem, is antithetical to what was once a great nation - A nation which spawned the 'American Dream' - A nation that everyone aspired to be like.


Point number 4 on the Contract from America is; (according to Wikipedia)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century....

My thought is as follows; I would have supposed that when the US first became a nation and the founding fathers put forward their vision of the mighty nation, there were a number of (important) differences than today.
Firstly, the slave labour market meant that lots of money could be saved by 'hiring' slaves to build infrastructure and work the fields - Nothing brings economic progress like free labour.
Secondly, The US was yet to expand to their western edge - There were countless lands to usurp from the Indigenous Americans - Manifest Destiny implied the idea of limitless growth (and for a long time, this probably not only seemed plausible, but downright believable)

What is my point? Well, today we are clearly no longer in the 18th Century; There is no more land to steal from the Indigenous Americans, there are no more slaves to toil in the cotton fields. Re-applying a 250 year old text to today's conception of reality will not bring back days of unlimited growth - Let's face it - America's biggest problem seems to be the idea that it can perpetually live large and ignore then consequences... The Tea-Party seems to be the last resort to throw back to a time when these consequences were still a long way from being dealt with -

your concept of America history scares me deeply. I can see your teachers have failed you

[Phatscotty]

It seems that one of the overwhelming sentiments of the Tea Party movement is an un-wavering belief in the Constitution and the ideas expressed by the founding fathers, and a desperate bid to return to a time of a more 'pure' America - The way America is today, it would seem, is antithetical to what was once a great nation - A nation which spawned the 'American Dream' - A nation that everyone aspired to be like.


Point number 4 on the Contract from America is; (according to Wikipedia)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.

So clearly, the founding fathers had it so right that all future laws should be limited to the number of words first set out back in the 18th Century....

My thought is as follows; I would have supposed that when the US first became a nation and the founding fathers put forward their vision of the mighty nation, there were a number of (important) differences than today.
Firstly, the slave labour market meant that lots of money could be saved by 'hiring' slaves to build infrastructure and work the fields - Nothing brings economic progress like free labour.
Secondly, The US was yet to expand to their western edge - There were countless lands to usurp from the Indigenous Americans - Manifest Destiny implied the idea of limitless growth (and for a long time, this probably not only seemed plausible, but downright believable)

What is my point? Well, today we are clearly no longer in the 18th Century; There is no more land to steal from the Indigenous Americans, there are no more slaves to toil in the cotton fields. Re-applying a 250 year old text to today's conception of reality will not bring back days of unlimited growth - Let's face it - America's biggest problem seems to be the idea that it can perpetually live large and ignore then consequences... The Tea-Party seems to be the last resort to throw back to a time when these consequences were still a long way from being dealt with -

your concept of America history scares me deeply. I can see your teachers have failed you

The scary thing is, I remember thinking along similar lines to Jake, oh, say when I was about 19, and in college...

Luckily, I was able to break free of the chains placed upon me by twisted professors. I remember the concept of "old-white slave holders and a document from 1800's is wayyyy outdated" It did not take me long however to research and realize how most of the founding fathers felt about slavery and realized that it could not be ended over night but needed to establish a longer term plan for successful abolition, and it all started with "All men are created equal"...

Those people of that time were born into that world, just like we are born into a world where we put the next generation in debt slavery and yet we ignore it, right? Our founding fathers stood up and said something about it, and then did something about it.

[radiojake]

RJ - Do you think your OP is a bit of a straw man? Do you really think the Tea Party people are arguing for a return to free labor and unfettered conquering of indigenous people? I'm a Tea Party person and I kind of want to get paid for my labor and I'm content purchasing real estate from others (rather than giving them small pox).

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was advocating the return of slavery or further ursurption (well, there is hardly any more arable land left..)I was just using these occurences because they will clearly not happen again, and as examples to why a document drafted during these times may no longer be 100% relevant.

I know my argument was full of holes, I spat it out quite quickly; My basic premise I guess was questioning the rhetoric of obeying the Constitution to the letter - It seems to have taken on Bible-esque characteristics -

So in a less polemic manner, why does a 200+ year old document hold the answers to many of the today's problems? I'm not trying to advocate the complete disregard of it, but I find the appeal of it by many to be interesting...

Also, I was meaning to make the disclaimer in the original post that I acknowledge that my views on the Tea Party Movement are skewed to the point that a; I have had no direct contact with a member - b; I don't live in the US and so the information I receive about US domestic politics is often through international media -

[radiojake]

your concept of America history scares me deeply. I can see your teachers have failed you

Right - Because growing up in Australia requires the full knowledge of American history -- (By the way, I am sure that I would know more American history than you do Australian history... not that this matters at all, but I felt compelled to say it)

[Phatscotty]

your concept of America history scares me deeply. I can see your teachers have failed you

Right - Because growing up in Australia requires the full knowledge of American history -- (By the way, I am sure that I would know more American history than you do Australian history... not that this matters at all, but I felt compelled to say it)

good point. Except you were the one going on about American History.

[Night Strike]

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was advocating the return of slavery or further ursurption (well, there is hardly any more arable land left..)I was just using these occurences because they will clearly not happen again, and as examples to why a document drafted during these times may no longer be 100% relevant.

Actually, if you look at it another way, the Tea Party couldn't be further from wanting to usurp private lands. It's the people who want to expand the government who want to take away the private property of the citizens. Their desire for massive taxes on income is an effort to steal from the hard work of the citizens. The idea that the government deserves 55% of a person's assets when they die is astonishing. How is a dying father supposed to provide for his sons' well-being even after he has gone? This massive estate tax will do nothing other than drive farmers and ranchers, the life-blood of the world's food supply, out of the profession and into the government's hands (probably so the environmentalists can "preserve" the land).

[radiojake]

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was advocating the return of slavery or further ursurption (well, there is hardly any more arable land left..)I was just using these occurences because they will clearly not happen again, and as examples to why a document drafted during these times may no longer be 100% relevant.

Actually, if you look at it another way, the Tea Party couldn't be further from wanting to usurp private lands. It's the people who want to expand the government who want to take away the private property of the citizens. Their desire for massive taxes on income is an effort to steal from the hard work of the citizens. The idea that the government deserves 55% of a person's assets when they die is astonishing. How is a dying father supposed to provide for his sons' well-being even after he has gone? This massive estate tax will do nothing other than drive farmers and ranchers, the life-blood of the world's food supply, out of the profession and into the government's hands (probably so the environmentalists can "preserve" the land).

Yeah, you could look at it like that -

Private property and individualism - an interesting paradigm. Making sure we are disconnected from each other (except through kinship and economic exchange) - Private property is destorted because its primary function is to produce profit - some people abuse this relationship to the detriment of the environment, which then effects others -

[InkL0sed]

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was advocating the return of slavery or further ursurption (well, there is hardly any more arable land left..)I was just using these occurences because they will clearly not happen again, and as examples to why a document drafted during these times may no longer be 100% relevant.

Actually, if you look at it another way, the Tea Party couldn't be further from wanting to usurp private lands. It's the people who want to expand the government who want to take away the private property of the citizens. Their desire for massive taxes on income is an effort to steal from the hard work of the citizens. The idea that the government deserves 55% of a person's assets when they die is astonishing. How is a dying father supposed to provide for his sons' well-being even after he has gone? This massive estate tax will do nothing other than drive farmers and ranchers, the life-blood of the world's food supply, out of the profession and into the government's hands (probably so the environmentalists can "preserve" the land).

Saying it's 55% is rather disingenuous. It's 55% of the excess of 3 million dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax ... tative_tax

[Night Strike]

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone was advocating the return of slavery or further ursurption (well, there is hardly any more arable land left..)I was just using these occurences because they will clearly not happen again, and as examples to why a document drafted during these times may no longer be 100% relevant.

Actually, if you look at it another way, the Tea Party couldn't be further from wanting to usurp private lands. It's the people who want to expand the government who want to take away the private property of the citizens. Their desire for massive taxes on income is an effort to steal from the hard work of the citizens. The idea that the government deserves 55% of a person's assets when they die is astonishing. How is a dying father supposed to provide for his sons' well-being even after he has gone? This massive estate tax will do nothing other than drive farmers and ranchers, the life-blood of the world's food supply, out of the profession and into the government's hands (probably so the environmentalists can "preserve" the land).

Saying it's 55% is rather disingenuous. It's 55% of the excess of 3 million dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax ... tative_tax

And those large farms and ranches have land worth well in excess of 3 million dollars, even though the people working the land only make tens of thousands of dollars a year. Either way though, the idea that the government deserves part of your money just because you die is preposterous. They get to take money from property taxes and income taxes, and then they get to take it again when you die. No wonder why families can no longer take care of themselves: the government has gotten in the way.

[PLAYER57832]

The only "'pure' America" Tea Partiers wish to return to is the one that had a limited federal government, not the one of only white males like your posts implies. Bringing up anything about returning to slavery shows that you (and anybody else who believes it) either have no clue what the Tea Party is about or are trying to purposefully mischaracterize them.

I think the point is that limiting government because you think that is a good thing is reasonable. We can debate it, but its reasonable. However, to claim that we must do anything "because the founding fathers said so" is not reasonable, for the simple reason that so much of what they stood for and believed, such as slavery, was wrong.

I am interested in Thomas Jefferson, etc's ideas because they were brilliant men who came up with fantastic ideas for their time. They absolutely deserve credit and study. However, we are not a time capsule.

Too many people today use "the founding fathers wanted..." as a "show stopper". Yet, fail to acknowledge that, in truth, the founding fathers did not really speak with one voice. Instead, the document, the government they created was a compromise. Ignore that and you ignore what makes our country great.

[PLAYER57832]

And those large farms and ranches have land worth well in excess of 3 million dollars, even though the people working the land only make tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I know more than a few farmers who died poor (I mean truly had trouble paying bills.. and we're not talking extravagent folks) or almost poor, because they wanted to keep their farms intact, in farming. When they died, their relatives then became millionares when they sold the land off to developers. The truth is this hurts us all. (but I will leave that debate for another thread)

Either way though, the idea that the government deserves part of your money just because you die is preposterous.

Of course they do this because its far easier to take money from dead people than living.

I do agree with you, that the cap should be lifted for some privately held businesses, including small farms. However, as a practical matter, all you have to do is create a trust and then you can avoid this type of tax. The people who get caught are those who don't want to cede control to their offspring (though they don't actually have to do that) or who just don't want to bother.

For some reason, missed your full argument above the first time.

How is a dying father supposed to provide for his sons' well-being even after he has gone?

Leave it to his daughter
Seriously, all he has to do is create a trust. It's not free, but its not milions, either. My family did just that years ago, and we have helped others do it as well. The issue is having a family that will work together. Some of these old farmers are, well, rather stubborn. I was not joking about knowing folks who were almost starving (my folks would bring one food regularly), while sitting on millions and millions worth of land. And yes, plenty of people tried to talk them into selling pieces.

This massive estate tax will do nothing other than drive farmers and ranchers, the life-blood of the world's food supply, out of the profession and into the government's hands (probably so the environmentalists can "preserve" the land).

This is absolute baloney. Really, you need to study up on how the government actually gets/got land before you make comments like that.
The real threat to ranching and all small farms are the big idustrial giants who can out-compete the small guys. The estate tax has always been an easier sell, politically, than increasing income taxes and THAT is why it has persisted. Its one of those things politicians love to say they hate, but changing it would mean taxing something else even worse (the first time).

Some people do give land over to the Nature conservancy, other groups to preserve it.

[Night Strike]

And those large farms and ranches have land worth well in excess of 3 million dollars, even though the people working the land only make tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I know more than a few farmers who died poor (I mean truly had trouble paying bills.. and we're not talking extravagent folks) or almost poor, because they wanted to keep their farms intact, in farming. When they died, their relatives then became millionares when they sold the land off to developers. The truth is this hurts us all. (but I will leave that debate for another thread)

That hurts none of us in any way. Notice how the government is nowhere involved in that scenario? If the kids want to sell their share of the property, then that's their right. Besides, the government is going to get a cut of that purchase, so even then it's sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. In fact, the government demanding a piece of the monetary value of the property could have a direct causation for the kids having to sell the property: they can't pay the outlandish money the government thinks they deserve.

Either way though, the idea that the government deserves part of your money just because you die is preposterous.

Of course they do this because its far easier to take money from dead people than living.

I do agree with you, that the cap should be lifted for some privately held businesses, including small farms. However, as a practical matter, all you have to do is create a trust and then you can avoid this type of tax. The people who get caught are those who don't want to cede control to their offspring (though they don't actually have to do that) or who just don't want to bother.

All you have to do is create a trust? How about all you have to do is have a spouse or kids and they automatically get everything you leave behind? Nothing hard about that, and even better is that lawyers don't have to get involved. How much money or time do you think farmers have to go through all the legal burdens the government puts on them? Furthermore, how many farmers actually keep track of all the changing laws and regulations regarding estate taxes? I'm guessing most don't because they're actually out working most of the day and night unlike the rest of us. The government should just get out of private property, especially when a family is already having to deal with the loss of a loved one.

[PLAYER57832]

And those large farms and ranches have land worth well in excess of 3 million dollars, even though the people working the land only make tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I know more than a few farmers who died poor (I mean truly had trouble paying bills.. and we're not talking extravagent folks) or almost poor, because they wanted to keep their farms intact, in farming. When they died, their relatives then became millionares when they sold the land off to developers. The truth is this hurts us all. (but I will leave that debate for another thread)

That hurts none of us in any way.

When the prime agricultural land in the country gets converted to housing tracts, many of which are now vacant, it does hurt us. The market cannot and never will allocate resources or efficiently dictate their use, becuase the "response loop" is just too slow. Make widgets, you can (more or less) stop tommorrow. Plant a crop and you don't have that flexibility. Nor is it anywhere near as easy to "adjust" soil as it is machinery (and note, I am NOT saying machinery is easy to adjust, design, etc!). This idea that all you have to do is throw on a few petrochemicals to boost soil is an illusion, a temporary illusion. Even now, since ethanol is competing with food production, many areas are seeing sharp increases in food prices (not so much us, but elsewhere) and even true limits on food. You cannot simply "plow under" a housing tract once established. Its much more than just clearing the land. You have to replace the microbes, etc.

Notice how the government is nowhere involved in that scenario? If the kids want to sell their share of the property, then that's their right. Besides, the government is going to get a cut of that purchase, so even then it's sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. In fact, the government demanding a piece of the monetary value of the property could have a direct causation for the kids having to sell the property: they can't pay the outlandish money the government thinks they deserve.

You take a valid point, but spin it off into something invalid. Land use cannot be simply left up to market forces. There is no country on earth that has done that successfully, not really and definitely not in the long term.

Either way though, the idea that the government deserves part of your money just because you die is preposterous.

Of course they do this because its far easier to take money from dead people than living.

I do agree with you, that the cap should be lifted for some privately held businesses, including small farms. However, as a practical matter, all you have to do is create a trust and then you can avoid this type of tax. The people who get caught are those who don't want to cede control to their offspring (though they don't actually have to do that) or who just don't want to bother.

All you have to do is create a trust? How about all you have to do is have a spouse or kids and they automatically get everything you leave behind? [/quote] Your SPOUSE does, as do underage children. Adult children, etc, do not.

Nothing hard about that, and even better is that lawyers don't have to get involved.

One big reason this ISN'T the system in place. Who do you think writes the laws, eh?

How much money or time do you think farmers have to go through all the legal burdens the government puts on them? Furthermore, how many farmers actually keep track of all the changing laws and regulations regarding estate taxes? I'm guessing most don't because they're actually out working most of the day and night unlike the rest of us. The government should just get out of private property, especially when a family is already having to deal with the loss of a loved one.

Actually, most farmers are pretty darned smart AND saavy businessfolks -- those that stay in business, anyway. No, they don't keep up on all those laws. Like any business person, they hire attorneys. You want to lay blame for all this complexity, look to attorneys. You will have your answer right there.

[saxitoxin]

your concept of America history scares me deeply. I can see your teachers have failed you

Right - Because growing up in Australia requires the full knowledge of American history -- (By the way, I am sure that I would know more American history than you do Australian history... not that this matters at all, but I felt compelled to say it)

With all respect, certainly that's more of a comment on the general relevance of Australia than Target's academic acumen?

If Australians know a bit about U.S. history, Belgians know a bit about U.S. history, Nigerians know a bit about U.S. history, but Belgians don't know about Australian history, nor Nigerians about Belgian, nor Australians about Nigerian, it's safe to say you are witnessing a "Moons of Jupiter" effect at work. (i.e. The moons of Jupiter are all effected by what happens on Jupiter, but the moons of Jupiter aren't much effected by each other.)

[Night Strike]

And those large farms and ranches have land worth well in excess of 3 million dollars, even though the people working the land only make tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I know more than a few farmers who died poor (I mean truly had trouble paying bills.. and we're not talking extravagent folks) or almost poor, because they wanted to keep their farms intact, in farming. When they died, their relatives then became millionares when they sold the land off to developers. The truth is this hurts us all. (but I will leave that debate for another thread)

That hurts none of us in any way.

When the prime agricultural land in the country gets converted to housing tracts, many of which are now vacant, it does hurt us. The market cannot and never will allocate resources or efficiently dictate their use, becuase the "response loop" is just too slow. Make widgets, you can (more or less) stop tommorrow. Plant a crop and you don't have that flexibility. Nor is it anywhere near as easy to "adjust" soil as it is machinery (and note, I am NOT saying machinery is easy to adjust, design, etc!). This idea that all you have to do is throw on a few petrochemicals to boost soil is an illusion, a temporary illusion. Even now, since ethanol is competing with food production, many areas are seeing sharp increases in food prices (not so much us, but elsewhere) and even true limits on food. You cannot simply "plow under" a housing tract once established. Its much more than just clearing the land. You have to replace the microbes, etc.

Notice how the government is nowhere involved in that scenario? If the kids want to sell their share of the property, then that's their right. Besides, the government is going to get a cut of that purchase, so even then it's sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. In fact, the government demanding a piece of the monetary value of the property could have a direct causation for the kids having to sell the property: they can't pay the outlandish money the government thinks they deserve.

You take a valid point, but spin it off into something invalid. Land use cannot be simply left up to market forces. There is no country on earth that has done that successfully, not really and definitely not in the long term.

What can be left to market forces in your opinion? You argue against the market in every single market discussed on this site. The open market should not exist based on your posts as long as there exists anything unfair for anybody. If land use is not supposed to be left up to market forces, then why do you support the forcing of those lands into industrial uses through government taxation? Removing estate taxes means families can keep their farming lands. Instead, because of the massive taxation, farmers have to sell off their equipment and land just to pay off the government debt. Remove the taxes and all that money can be used to continue and expand the farming. Get government involved and their high prices force people out of business.