>>>>>>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.

I am sure you are generous and kind, that was not the issue.

I was perhaps too subtle, or too un-subtle.

Being generous with your own property, money, and time to charities and noble causes is a good thing.

Demanding that those on the economic rungs above ours give much higher percentages of their wealth - I can't see how that is a good thing.

What gives us the moral right to demand such a thing?