>>>>>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.

No, I wouldn't. You haven't heard me complaining about paying taxes. Beyond that, we give generously of our money and our time to charity. I know that I've been far more fortunate than many and I live my life accordingly.

Tamar