>>>>>>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.

Ok.
I was suggesting rounding up the wretchedly poor of the world and letting them vote on how big an estate is "too much" for you to leave to your kids.
They get to split up whatever is taken away from your family.

So, you are ok with it if they decide to confiscate the estate and leave your kids with less than $100 each?
You know, in the name of fairness.

I would wager you have a family trust, right?
It is the prudent thing to do.