>>>>Doesn't it seem a shame to destroy family farms with a tax that raises very little money?
>>>
>>>I already answered that it should be set up so that family farms are below the exemption. How many family farms do you think land above the current exemption of $5M+?
>>
>>If we think it is wrong to take a family farm away from the family when the farm is worth $2m, or $3m or up to $5m
>>then why are we forcing more successful families to suffer the loss of the their farm?
>>
>>To raise tax money that is a rounding error in the federal budget?
>>It is simply not a significant source of revenue.
>>
>>So what is the point? Punish the rich?
>
>At some point, it's not just a "family farm." If it's worth $100M and has, say, 100 paid employees, is it still a "family farm"? What, exactly, is a "family farm"? Is it one in which only family members work there? One with a limited number of outside employees?

You have nailed the crux of the issue.
Somebody else gets to decide how much is too much.

You seem comfortable with $5m being "too much"

There are many hard working poor people in the world who would evaluate your families material success and
they would be very happy to vote themselves a piece of it.

A big piece of it.

You would probably disagree.