I'd vote for him

[Amianthus]

What I meant was that the rate on the inheritance tax is ZERO.

And as I said, there are many, many ways to avoid the inheritance tax: incorporating the farm, for example. But this year it is unnecessary.

Perhaps you should read up:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/inheritance-tax3.htm

Also, the Federal estate rate ranges from 18% to 45% (Page 4):
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i706.pdf

[Michael Tee]

<<Farm for sale: . . . >>

Yeah right, just a small, typical family farm of 1,500 acres.  Farmed by sharecroppers too poor to afford a mule.  Seems a mite small fer me, Ami - - got ennathang bigger?

[Plane]

<<For something that doesn't exist, I wonder why the IRS has a form for it, including a tax table. Form 706, also publication 950.>>

You need to look at the Instructions for Form 706, which state:

<<The applicable exclusion amount for estates of decedents dying in calendar year 2009 is $3,500,000. >>

I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.

That is a very small farm.

If the farm were worth six million you would only need to give up half of it.

[Plane]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.

Farm for sale: http://www.landandfarm.com/properties/parks_bottom_farm.asp

Especially if equipment is included, it's pretty easy for a farm to get over that value. A combine harvester runs close to half a million by itself.

Sigh******

How I wish I could manage such a purchase.

The modern method is to get a degree in agriculture so that the bank will beleive in you , borrow the land price and a two year operateing capitol , then spend decades paying mostly intrest.

Eventually of course handing it over to the government as if you had done nothing .

Thanks so much Government , what makes you hate family traditions of farming with such rabid vigor?

[Amianthus]

Yeah right, just a small, typical family farm of 1,500 acres.  Farmed by sharecroppers too poor to afford a mule.  Seems a mite small fer me, Ami - - got ennathang bigger?

A farmer farming corn makes about $100 per year per acre. So, this farm of 1,500 acres would have an income of around $150,000.

Sound like a big operation to you?

Anything much smaller than that is considered a "hobby" farm around here (not a real farm, just something for the guys up from the cities to get their hands dirty with on the weekends). You seem to think an acre is a lot of land - my yard is 3 acres.

[Michael Tee]

When the Province of Upper Canada (Ontario) was founded, around 1790, the farm lots surveyed for distribution were 200 acres each.  200 acres in the late 18th century were probably one-thirtieth as productive as 200 acres would be today, yet they were expected to be family farms supporting farm families much bigger than today's families. 

A small farm is under 200 acres, the usual distribution between two sons of the original settler was half-lots of 100 acres each and nobody bitched about getting "only" 100 acres - - that TOO could feed a farm family at production levels way below modern agricultural land productivity.

An auto mechanic makes 36K per year.  Your "small farmer" farming "only" 1500 acres makes more than FOUR auto mechanics do?  His family lives better than the families of FOUR auto mechanics???  Sorry but 1500 acres is NOT a small farm, nor is the owner a "small farmer."

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-auto+mechanic

[Amianthus]

Minnesota has over 6,200 farms that are 1,000+ acres in size.

Here is a report from the University of MN showing that it requires 850 acres of corn production to feed and house an average farm family of 3.3 persons.

But, of course, you know more than the people who study these things...

Also, comparing modern farms to those from 200+ years ago is a bit facetious.

[Michael Tee]

<<Minnesota has over 6,200 farms that are 1,000+ acres in size.>>

The real issue is how many are under 200 acres.

<<Here is a report from the University of MN showing that it requires 850 acres of corn production to feed and house an average farm family of 3.3 persons.>>

Irrelevant when the issue is how many are going to be affected by an inheritance tax that doesn't touch anything under $3.5 million.  Even using your own figures for a 1500 acre farm, this is roughly half the size and would come in at well under $3.5 million.

<<But, of course, you know more than the people who study these things...>>

Of course.

<<Also, comparing modern farms to those from 200+ years ago is a bit facetious.>>

Sure it's facetious, because modern farms are so much more productive.

[Amianthus]

The real issue is how many are under 200 acres.

Oh, there are quite a few "hobby" farms in that size range. They are not "real" farms, however. They do not earn enough money to feed a family if they are that small, so they're not a "family farm" - they are not full time farms and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Hell, I have "crops" on my property, are you gonna start calling it a "farm" now?

Irrelevant when the issue is how many are going to be affected by an inheritance tax that doesn't touch anything under $3.5 million.  Even using your own figures for a 1500 acre farm, this is roughly half the size and would come in at well under $3.5 million.

From the farm listing I posted earlier:
Cropland Acres :         525.00 acres

So, only 525 acres are cleared for crops, and it listed for over $3.5 million. Quite a bit over $3.5 million. With no equipment. (The equipment would also be added in to the value of the inheritance and, as I stated earlier, a combine harvester is approaching $0.5 million alone.)

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, there are quite a few "hobby" farms in that size range. They are not "real" farms, however. They do not earn enough money to feed a family if they are that small, so they're not a "family farm" - they are not full time farms and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. >>

Nonsense.  I believe they are in many cases the original "family farm" that never was any bigger than 200 acres.  Furthermore, I believe that if a family farm of 200 acres could have fed the current farmer's ancestors a hundred years ago, those same 200 acres could probably feed the farmer's family today.  Moreover, unless the settlers of Minnesota got a helluva lot more land than the settlers of Upper Canada, I'll bet that your 1500 acre farm was assembled from about a half-dozen family farms over the decades and represents both the success of the capitalists who assembled it and the failure of the settlers and their descendants whose families lost their family farms to the assemblers.

<<So, only 525 acres are cleared for crops, and it listed for over $3.5 million. Quite a bit over $3.5 million. With no equipment. (The equipment would also be added in to the value of the inheritance and, as I stated earlier, a combine harvester is approaching $0.5 million alone.)>>

It's a big farm and the fact that the owners allowed only about a third of it to be cleared for crops indicates that these were wealthy investors, not a farm family eking out an existence from the soil.  The more you write about this place, the less it looks like a small family farm.

[sirs]

Someone's been watching far too much Little House on the Prairie

[Amianthus]

Furthermore, I believe that if a family farm of 200 acres could have fed the current farmer's ancestors a hundred years ago, those same 200 acres could probably feed the farmer's family today.

Yeah, if all they did was fend for themselves. Of course, this leaves out the possibility of saving for college, providing health care for the family, paying self-employment taxes, etc.

Are you under the mistaken impression that food costs per capita in the US have stayed stable over the last century?

[Amianthus]

Moreover, unless the settlers of Minnesota got a helluva lot more land than the settlers of Upper Canada, I'll bet that your 1500 acre farm was assembled from about a half-dozen family farms over the decades and represents both the success of the capitalists who assembled it and the failure of the settlers and their descendants whose families lost their family farms to the assemblers.

"Although not necessarily fraud, it was common practice for the eligible children of a large family to claim nearby land as soon as possible. After a few generations, a family could build up a sizable estates.[citation needed] [20]  Working a farm of 1,500 acres (6.1 km2) would not have been feasible for a homesteader using 19th-century animal-powered tilling and harvesting. The acreage limits were reasonable when the act was written."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act

[Michael Tee]

<<Are you under the mistaken impression that food costs per capita in the US have stayed stable over the last century?>>

No, I'm under the impression that yields per acre have increased exponentially over that time.

[sirs]

Does Tee know something about Farming we don't.  An acre of corn is still an acre of corn, last I checked