further evidence that nuts don't fall far from their trees

[dragonsdaddy]

please defend this as best you can.

http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM

[Favpack]

please defend this as best you can.

http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM

Well - I'll take a flyer and opine that you think the guy's comment that "Jesus wouldn't turn the other cheek against terrorists" is pretty out there.

I've listened to that particular speech of Obama's in its entirety - and he's actually got some good points in it. Though it is painfully hard for some to see -- there actually are Christians that vote democratic.

This one could get fun.

[pied]

please defend this as best you can.

http://www.youtube.com/v/4FCNKwHRCQM


Not really sure I get the point of this. Curious, do you follow Leviticus/Deuteronomy literally?

As far as the Sermon on the Mount, do you disagree that our Department of Defense or any Department of Defense would survive if we lived the way described?

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

[Favpack]

The combination of a political/religious debate has me jittery with anticipation. If we could throw in sports this could be the mother lode.

[Favpack]

Not really sure I get the point of this. Curious, do you follow Leviticus/Deuteronomy literally?

As far as the Sermon on the Mount, do you disagree that our Department of Defense or any Department of Defense would survive if we lived the way described?

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.


FWIW - I did hear a conservative (and a pastor no less) on the radio yesterday suggest it was Christians' job to show mercy, but a government's job to protect at all costs.

I don't fully agree with that - but it is the view of many conservatives.

If you want to hear an excellent third perspective - google Pastor Greg Boyd and see what he says. He espouses a view of religion and politics that makes pretty good sense to me.

[pied]

FWIW - I did hear a conservative (and a pastor no less) on the radio yesterday suggest it was Christians' job to show mercy, but a government's job to protect at all costs.

I don't fully agree with that - but it is the view of many conservatives.

If you want to hear an excellent third perspective - google Pastor Greg Boyd and see what he says. He espouses a view of religion and politics that makes pretty good sense to me.

I see that, and probably felt that way for many years. There's the whole render unto Caesar part. The more I thought about it, the more I figured that in the USA, we kind of are Caesar, right? I used to like my religion and politics separate, but think that God kind of wants to be involved all the time, not just when I think it's convenient.

Don't think I have the answers ar many for that matter, but as I grow in my faith what aren't the answers seem to be more clear.

[Favpack]

Assuming this link still works, if you have a chunk of time and want to see three totally divergent religious views on politics - listen to the dialogue between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne. Colson - the conservative, but passionate Christian who did hard time for Watergate, Boyd - the true Libertarian - and Colson - the dreadlock wearing, street-living author of Jesus for President.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/evangelical_politics/

[Redhoss]

Things of the Bible always have to be taken in context.

For those who think that Jesus would ignore those who mean us harm, I'll remind you that as he was giving instructions to His disciples about travel, he told them to make sure they had their swords as they would encounter thieves.


Disarming those who would cause us harm is very Biblical.

[Firebird]

Things of the Bible always have to be taken in context.

For those who think that Jesus would ignore those who mean us harm, I'll remind you that as he was giving instructions to His disciples about travel, he told them to make sure they had their swords as they would encounter thieves.


Disarming those who would cause us harm is very Biblical.

Is it? I know the verse you refer to, but I can recall plenty of stories of martyrs and the suffering church. Those were the people who were closest in time to the Apostles (many martyrs themselves) and Jesus. I can't recall too many that fought back or "disarmed" their tormentors. In fact, I can recall some harsh words from the Man himself when one of his followers dared unsheath his sword.

Not that the Bible should guide foreign policy, but if you think it should.....

[DragonFan0316]

Is it? I know the verse you refer to, but I can recall plenty of stories of martyrs and the suffering church. Those were the people who were closest in time to the Apostles (many martyrs themselves) and Jesus. I can't recall too many that fought back or "disarmed" their tormentors. In fact, I can recall some harsh words from the Man himself when one of his followers dared unsheath his sword.

Not that the Bible should guide foreign policy, but if you think it should.....

Are we talking just new testiment here? Because I seem to remember reading "an eye for an eye" in the old one. Jesus did believe in peace but I also think he taught there was a time and a place for destruction when guided by rightious indignation. This was represented in his behavior at the temple.

[Firebird]

Are we talking just new testiment here? Because I seem to remember reading "an eye for an eye" in the old one. Jesus did believe in peace but I also think he taught there was a time and a place for destruction when guided by rightious indignation. This was represented in his behavior at the temple.

I guess I missed the part where he killed all the moneychangers. Would make a good movie, though.

[svhorns]

geez this is getting old... don't ya'll have something with substance to talk about...

[DragonFan0316]

I guess I missed the part where he killed all the moneychangers. Would make a good movie, though.

Directed by Quentin Tarratino starring Willem DeFoe once again as Christ.

[Redhoss]

Is it? I know the verse you refer to, but I can recall plenty of stories of martyrs and the suffering church. Those were the people who were closest in time to the Apostles (many martyrs themselves) and Jesus. I can't recall too many that fought back or "disarmed" their tormentors. In fact, I can recall some harsh words from the Man himself when one of his followers dared unsheath his sword.

Not that the Bible should guide foreign policy, but if you think it should.....

That's true. But remember, Jesus wasn't being assaulted by thieves. He was being taken into custody by the Authorities of the time.

The martyrs and suffering church usually occured within communities where the people lived.

As for using the Bible in regard to foreign policy, I think one had better use it and prayer as well. Regarding nations like Iran, there is no way to spread the gospel effectively since it's a closed society and death is likely to those who would try to circumvent Islam. We either serve Father God or our father the devil as humans. I think we can agree who is running Iran and it's our sworn enemy.

The name isn't coming to me but paraphrasing the Hitler event, Evil wins when good men do nothing.

[Favpack]

Things of the Bible always have to be taken in context.

For those who think that Jesus would ignore those who mean us harm, I'll remind you that as he was giving instructions to His disciples about travel, he told them to make sure they had their swords as they would encounter thieves.

Disarming those who would cause us harm is very Biblical.


Red - that scripture has been debated by scholars for centuries. Jesus' actions would suggest he was a Pacifist to the core. He didn't give us insight as to how he thought the Roman government should be run.

The early leaders in the Christian restoration movement were Pacifists to a fault. In fact, one very conservative Christian college was essentially shut down in the early 1900's because it's founders were opposed to World War I.

Let's all be careful we looked beyond the history of our own noses when considering these issues.

[pied]

As are Quakers. (Pacifists that is)


Curious to see the Original Poster's thoughts regarding the ensuing discussion.

[the_phoenix612]

FWIW - I did hear a conservative (and a pastor no less) on the radio yesterday suggest it was Christians' job to show mercy, but a government's job to protect at all costs.

I don't fully agree with that - but it is the view of many conservatives.

If you want to hear an excellent third perspective - google Pastor Greg Boyd and see what he says. He espouses a view of religion and politics that makes pretty good sense to me.

Religion||||||||||||||||||||||Giant, Impenetrable Stone Wall of Death||||||||||||||Government

[Firebird]

Red - that scripture has been debated by scholars for centuries. Jesus' actions would suggest he was a Pacifist to the core. He didn't give us insight as to how he thought the Roman government should be run.

The early leaders in the Christian restoration movement were Pacifists to a fault. In fact, one very conservative Christian college was essentially shut down in the early 1900's because it's founders were opposed to World War I.

Let's all be careful we looked beyond the history of our own noses when considering these issues.

Great post, Favpack. Especially good info on the restoration movement's history of pacifisim. Mentioning that particular bit of our history in most modern churches of Christ will get you a blank stare and sometimes outright hostility.

Not to say that I am in 100% agreement with the pacifist stance, but it's important to seriously consider the judgements of the great men of faith that have come before us.

[Firebird]

That's true. But remember, Jesus wasn't being assaulted by thieves. He was being taken into custody by the Authorities of the time.

The martyrs and suffering church usually occured within communities where the people lived.

As for using the Bible in regard to foreign policy, I think one had better use it and prayer as well. Regarding nations like Iran, there is no way to spread the gospel effectively since it's a closed society and death is likely to those who would try to circumvent Islam. We either serve Father God or our father the devil as humans. I think we can agree who is running Iran and it's our sworn enemy.

The name isn't coming to me but paraphrasing the Hitler event, Evil wins when good men do nothing.

My only question is what part of the Bible we should turn to for foreign policy advice? Certainly, there are moral principles laid out that are applicable to all spheres of human existence. Yet the New Testament, in my mind at least, is a very useful handbook to turn to for how a person ought to live his life. Certain theologians have attempted to answer questions about when and why to wage war or make peace, yet differences of opinion multiply. It takes a lot of "extra" work and logic to get to a Thomist stance on just war, for instance. It's certainly not a near universal tenet of faith, as agreed upon by virtually all orthodox theologians and interpreters. I just don't see "chapter and verse" for making judgements about foreign policy.

I see little of use in the Bible for the nuts and bolts of making decisions of state. It strikes me as rather like using a Ford repair manual to try to fix a computer.

[DragonWatcher]

My only question is what part of the Bible we should turn to for foreign policy advice? Certainly, there are moral principles laid out that are applicable to all spheres of human existence. Yet the New Testament, in my mind at least, is a very useful handbook to turn to for how a person ought to live his life. Certain theologians have attempted to answer questions about when and why to wage war or make peace, yet differences of opinion multiply. It takes a lot of "extra" work and logic to get to a Thomist stance on just war, for instance. It's certainly not a near universal tenet of faith, as agreed upon by virtually all orthodox theologians and interpreters. I just don't see "chapter and verse" for making judgements about foreign policy.

I see little of use in the Bible for the nuts and bolts of making decisions of state. It strikes me as rather like using a Ford repair manual to try to fix a computer.


See this is my main reason why I'm not for using the bible to justify foreign policy. The word isn't absolute, it has been interpreted many different ways by many different denominations throughout history. There could easily be no one correct answer. I for one abhor the idea of ever waging a war in Christ's name. And I fully suspect that Christ would want us to turn the other cheek in the modern day of terrorism, many early christians did the same against the brutal backlash from the roman government itself. I don't think this is what we should do as a country, and in no way do I think our defense department shouldn't issue preemptive strikes to protect its citizens.

The just war theory of thomas is one of the few things I really think he got wrong, his work on the nature of evil though expanding augustinian views I think is one of the most profound things I've ever read.

[pied]

See this is my main reason why I'm not for using the bible to justify foreign policy. The word isn't absolute, it has been interpreted many different ways by many different denominations throughout history. There could easily be no one correct answer. I for one abhor the idea of ever waging a war in Christ's name. And I fully suspect that Christ would want us to turn the other cheek in the modern day of terrorism, many early christians did the same against the brutal backlash from the roman government itself. I don't think this is what we should do as a country, and in no way do I think our defense department shouldn't issue preemptive strikes to protect its citizens.
The just war theory of thomas is one of the few things I really think he got wrong, his work on the nature of evil though expanding augustinian views I think is one of the most profound things I've ever read.

Just taking the two bolded sentences, isn't that precisely what Obama said?

[DragonWatcher]

Just taking the two bolded sentences, isn't that precisely what Obama said?

Yep it is, and it's one of the reason's I like him as a candidate. Anyone who doesn't think Obama understands the christian faith should read the chapter "faith" from the audacity of hope. Stuff like that doesn't come from a pretender. You can tell it's real.

[DragonFan0316]

Yep it is, and it's one of the reason's I like him as a candidate. Anyone who doesn't think Obama understands the christian faith should read the chapter "faith" from the audacity of hope. Stuff like that doesn't come from a pretender. You can tell it's real.

Please, he is a democrat. He will have the power to appoint judges. He talks a good game but who is he really talking too? Middle class america? the 6% of the population that is unemployed? Or is it the third generation on entitlement folks? I love Jesus and God but let's not lose our minds. :rolleyes:

[DragonWatcher]

Please, he is a democrat. He will have the power to appoint judges. He talks a good game but who is he really talking too? Middle class america? the 6% of the population that is unemployed? Or is it the third generation on entitlement folks? I love Jesus and God but let's not lose our minds. :rolleyes:

Being a democrat does not exclude one from being with God. Yes he probably would appoint judges that would uphold a ruling made 40 years ago. But guess what if you appointed conservative judges who overturn RvW then you just appointed activist judges which you conservatives seem to have such a problem with. All I said was the man is a very religious man and it's easy to see from his writings. Try and use something more than innuendo if you want to disprove it.

[DragonFan0316]

Being a democrat does not exclude one from being with God. Yes he probably would appoint judges that would uphold a ruling made 40 years ago. But guess what if you appointed conservative judges who overturn RvW then you just appointed activist judges which you conservatives seem to have such a problem with. All I said was the man is a very religious man and it's easy to see from his writings. Try and use something more than innuendo if you want to disprove it.

I am not judging his faith. And I was being more funny than trying to disprove anything. Loosen up will you. Are you a Round Rock Dragon watcher or a Carroll Dragon watcher? Just checking.

[DragonWatcher]

I am not judging his faith. And I was being more funny than trying to disprove anything. Loosen up will you. Are you a Round Rock Dragon watcher or a Carroll Dragon watcher? Just checking.

My bad then, I misinterpreted it as not humor, i'll attribute it to the overuse of emoticons on the board recently. And its a Carroll watcher, funny thing is football is the only thing I do actually miss from highschool, certainly not the practices but definitely the games

[DragonFan0316]

My bad then, I misinterpreted it as not humor, i'll attribute it to the overuse of emoticons on the board recently. And its a Carroll watcher, funny thing is football is the only thing I do actually miss from highschool, certainly not the practices but definitely the games

See you Saturday. I didn't like the practices either.:)

[dragonsdaddy]

pied, my choice of titles implied a certain amount of o-phobism, which i'll gladly agree. it didn't necessarily speak to this set of quotes, or obama's faith.

one thing that this discussion has accomplished, is that i have read the speech in full. it solidifies what i already knew. obama is a great speech writer, and could /would make a very good preacher or motivational speaker.

he also is capable of glibly entertaining the idea that an already bloated and interminably wasteful government should steal more than a trillion dollars from hard-working people across the country, simply because their parents have died. and he made it seem almost sinful to do otherwise.

"And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate."

such attitudes are likely the tip of the iceberg, and make his kind of liberalism at least as scary to me as his almost total lack of foreign policy experience.

[pied]

pied, my choice of titles implied a certain amount of o-phobism, which i'll gladly agree. it didn't necessarily speak to this set of quotes, or obama's faith.


he also is capable of glibly entertaining the idea that an already bloated and interminably wasteful government should steal more than a trillion dollars from hard-working people across the country, simply because their parents have died. and he made it seem almost sinful to do otherwise.

"And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate."

such attitudes are likely the tip of the iceberg, and make his kind of liberalism at least as scary to me as his almost total lack of foreign policy experience.

Thanks for the reply. I readily admit that I am no tax expert, and do not believe that any inheritance that I am in line for would qualify at these levels.

One thing I am confused about a little, is that this tax in place now, correct?

He is not necessarily promoting the new stealing of a trillion dollars, but the supposed continued stealing of that money. Might be parsing words, but that is a significant difference correct?

Question I guess I would have, if we eliminate the tax frmo this group, what group makes up the difference?

Anyone?

[drgnbkr]

Thanks for the reply. I readily admit that I am no tax expert, and do not believe that any inheritance that I am in line for would qualify at these levels.

One thing I am confused about a little, is that this tax in place now, correct?

He is not necessarily promoting the new stealing of a trillion dollars, but the supposed continued stealing of that money. Might be parsing words, but that is a significant difference correct?

Question I guess I would have, if we eliminate the tax frmo this group, what group makes up the difference?

Anyone?

The inheritance tax is scheduled to be eliminated in 2010. Obama is on record as being against the repeal, and has said it should be raised on inheritances of an undeclared "higher amount". And even though the Bush tax cuts are for all taxpayers, Obama wants to let the "tax cuts for the rich"?? expire in 2009. The tax cuts brought about the lowest unemployment numbers in history and got the economy moving after 9/11. The economy shows 3.3% of growth with the numbers just out today. Recession means 0 or negative growth.

[pied]

drgnbkr-thanks. I have not paid much attention to this to be honest as it would have little impact on me directly. Need to look at this a bit I presume.

[dragonsdaddy]

The inheritance tax is scheduled to be eliminated in 2010. Obama is on record as being against the repeal, and has said it should be raised on inheritances of an undeclared "higher amount". And even though the Bush tax cuts are for all taxpayers, Obama wants to let the "tax cuts for the rich"?? expire in 2009. The tax cuts brought about the lowest unemployment numbers in history and got the economy moving after 9/11. The economy shows 3.3% of growth with the numbers just out today. Recession means 0 or negative growth.

no good liberal politician could ever let any tax expire without a more onerous one to take its place.

[pied]

Perhaps you know, and can save me some time, but where is the money supposed to come from when the tax expires. Are we to assume, lower spending?

[DrEdward]

The inheritance tax is scheduled to be eliminated in 2010. Obama is on record as being against the repeal, and has said it should be raised on inheritances of an undeclared "higher amount". And even though the Bush tax cuts are for all taxpayers, Obama wants to let the "tax cuts for the rich"?? expire in 2009. The tax cuts brought about the lowest unemployment numbers in history and got the economy moving after 9/11. The economy shows 3.3% of growth with the numbers just out today. Recession means 0 or negative growth.

Such a tax has been reduced since the passage of the tax code revisions in 2001, both in terms of the tax rate applicable and to the amount to which such rate is applicable. As I understand it, the federal estate tax is scheduled to be eliminated for but a single year in 2010. In 2011, it is reinstated automatically under current tax law. In 2011, the rate will be reset to what prevailed in 2002 or 55% of inheritied amounts in excess of $1 million. So if you have a bunch of financial assets to pass on to your children and/or grandchildren and you are facing death, it is to their advantage that you time your passing appropriately. Talk about a perverse incentive structure.

[pied]

Dr. Edward-thanks for shedding the light and some more questions that you may/may not be able to answer.

I the tax is to be repealed in '10 and reinstated in '11, is OB proposing it remains in effect that specific year?

Thanks in advance.

[DrEdward]

Dr. Edward-thanks for shedding the light and some more questions that you may/may not be able to answer.

I the tax is to be repealed in '10 and reinstated in '11, is OB proposing it remains in effect that specific year?

Thanks in advance.

The current tax code specifies that the federal estate tax rate will essentially go to zero in 2010. The following year, 2011 and beyond, the rate will be reset to what prevailed in 2002, so far as the rate is concerned. Many would like to see this bit of silliness in the tax code changed. As it stands now, Obama, should he win, or McCain for that matter, need do nothing to have the estate tax kick back in starting in 2011; it will do so automatically. It is only if a change is to be made that new code must be written. So far as I know, Obama decidedly favors taxing such inheritances at a high marginal rate (55%), but he need to do nothing to bring such about. I doubt very much if any plan would call for trying to rewrite the code to place the estate tax back into effect for a single year.

[dragonsdaddy]

Such a tax has been reduced since the passage of the tax code revisions in 2001, both in terms of the tax rate applicable and to the amount to which such rate is applicable. As I understand it, the federal estate tax is scheduled to be eliminated for but a single year in 2010. In 2011, it is reinstated automatically under current tax law. In 2011, the rate will be reset to what prevailed in 2002 or 55% of inheritied amounts in excess of $1 million. So if you have a bunch of financial assets to pass on to your children and/or grandchildren and you are facing death, it is to their advantage that you time your passing appropriately. Talk about a perverse incentive structure.

not that the problem is novel, but timely to my similarly aged friends and acquaintences whose parents and grandparents have been farming and ranching for generations. these "children" will have to sell all or much of the family lands to service the parasitic federal tax code. will we as a nation be better off without farmers and ranchers? it is rapidly becoming a situation whereby open lands will be owned by foreign interests/major corporations who since they never die, can forego the estate tax, and have no qualms about developing it as soon as the price/demand warrants. these are not the good old days for agriculture, or keeping the family farm operational once grandpa dies, even if grandson would like to.

[DrEdward]

not that the problem is novel, but timely to my similarly aged friends and acquaintences whose parents and grandparents have been farming and ranching for generations. these "children" will have to sell all or much of the family lands to service the parasitic federal tax code. will we as a nation be better off without farmers and ranchers? it is rapidly becoming a situation whereby open lands will be owned by foreign interests/major corporations who since they never die, can forego the estate tax, and have no qualms about developing it as soon as the price/demand warrants. these are not the good old days for agriculture, or keeping the family farm operational once grandpa dies, even if grandson would like to.

No argument from me. Most of these assets have been taxes on an ongoing basis while the current generation was alive. For the federal government to step in and place yet another tax on the transfer of property and other assets would constitute yet another case of double taxation and confiscation of over half the value above the threshold amount of the property.

[Firebird]

The tax code certainly needs some work and one of the most vexing trouble spots is agricultural land. I have deep qualms about taxing people for passing down their patch of dirt from generation to generation.

However, I'm also extremely irritated at the massive and wasteful farm subsidies the government hands out and the loopholes that "agricultural use" landowners take advantage of not to pay local property taxes. We give away billions of dollars through these programs, often to people who have never sat on a tractor or cut a calf in their lives.

I would have no problem with lifting the estate tax on ag land, but there would have to be some process by which the inheritor proved he intended to continue using it for agricultural purposes. There would have to be intent to operate a genuine agricultural enterprise, not to build houses and stick a horse or two in the back......which happens all the time.

[pied]

not that the problem is novel, but timely to my similarly aged friends and acquaintences whose parents and grandparents have been farming and ranching for generations. these "children" will have to sell all or much of the family lands to service the parasitic federal tax code. will we as a nation be better off without farmers and ranchers? it is rapidly becoming a situation whereby open lands will be owned by foreign interests/major corporations who since they never die, can forego the estate tax, and have no qualms about developing it as soon as the price/demand warrants. these are not the good old days for agriculture, or keeping the family farm operational once grandpa dies, even if grandson would like to.

Hard to get real data from 05-07 or into 08, but some interesting stuff:





*The number of farms subject to the estate tax, always a minority, has fallen because Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to raise the threshold for estate taxes to $1.5 million, double that for married couples, for last year and this year. With simple planning, couples with children can shield several million more dollars from the tax.

In 2000, when the threshold was $675,000, taxes were owed by 1,659 farm estates, the study found. Had the current threshold been in effect, only 300 farms would have owed any tax.

Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation's 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said.

The study examined who would have paid estate taxes had the current exemption levels been in effect in 2000. It noted that half of all estates left by farmers had a value of less than $987,000, well under the current threshold for owing estate tax. It found that 95 percent of estates left by farmers were worth $3.2 million or less, an amount that a married couple could easily shield from tax.




*Neil E. Harl, an economics professor at Iowa State University whose expertise in estate tax planning for farmers has made him a household name in the grain belt, said many Americans had a false impression that the estate tax was destroying family farming.

He said the Congressional study "adds to the weight of the evidence that this is a myth that has been well spun."

"Farms, in particular," Mr. Harl said, "are not in jeopardy because of estate taxes."




*A Treasury Department analysis found that raising the estate tax exemption level for family-owned farms and businesses to $4 million ($8 million for married couples), as then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed in 2000, would have exempted almost all the family-owned farms and reduced the already small number of family businesses subject to the tax by nearly three-quarters.

[pied]

BO and McCain regarding the estate tax:

Both candidates touched on two key issues for American agriculture: the estate tax and immigration reform.

McCain said the first $10 million of an estate should be exempt from the estate tax with anything above the $10 million level taxed at a 15- percent rate. “It’s outrageous that you can’t pass onto your children and grandchildren the hard -won fruits of your labor,” McCain told the farm leaders.

Obama said he would keep the estate tax exemption at the 2009 rate, $3.5 million for single filers and $7 million for married couples, but pledged to not raise it above that level. He said the $7 million level will exempt 99.7 percent of all taxpayers.

“The truth is a complete repeal of the estate tax would cost the government $1 trillion over the first 10 years at a time when our country has some huge priorities,” Obama said. “To finance that repeal, we’d either have to borrow money or we’d have to raise taxes on families who never even benefit from the estate tax or slash $1 trillion in public services.”

One thing is that the $1 Trillion figure was over ten years.

[dragonsdaddy]

Hard to get real data from 05-07 or into 08, but some interesting stuff:





*The number of farms subject to the estate tax, always a minority, has fallen because Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to raise the threshold for estate taxes to $1.5 million, double that for married couples, for last year and this year. With simple planning, couples with children can shield several million more dollars from the tax.

In 2000, when the threshold was $675,000, taxes were owed by 1,659 farm estates, the study found. Had the current threshold been in effect, only 300 farms would have owed any tax.

Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation's 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said.

The study examined who would have paid estate taxes had the current exemption levels been in effect in 2000. It noted that half of all estates left by farmers had a value of less than $987,000, well under the current threshold for owing estate tax. It found that 95 percent of estates left by farmers were worth $3.2 million or less, an amount that a married couple could easily shield from tax.




*Neil E. Harl, an economics professor at Iowa State University whose expertise in estate tax planning for farmers has made him a household name in the grain belt, said many Americans had a false impression that the estate tax was destroying family farming.

He said the Congressional study "adds to the weight of the evidence that this is a myth that has been well spun."

"Farms, in particular," Mr. Harl said, "are not in jeopardy because of estate taxes."




*A Treasury Department analysis found that raising the estate tax exemption level for family-owned farms and businesses to $4 million ($8 million for married couples), as then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed in 2000, would have exempted almost all the family-owned farms and reduced the already small number of family businesses subject to the tax by nearly three-quarters.
this is good news. i hope these numbers are accurate.