Gumbo4x4
Note to the ladies who forgot to
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
I get that. But, taxes have to be paid on the increase in value from the time the decedent acquired it till the time the item is passed on. Often this can be quite large. I recently paid taxes on what I inherited from my father, and his total estate was no where near the size to be considered taxable TO THE ESTATE. it was, however, taxable to me. My father inherited land from his father more than 50 years ago, and later purchased some adjacent land from some of his siblings. Cost was under $100 an acre. We sold it for close to $7000 an acre. This increase was taxed to me....the value when it hit my bank account.
The other side of it is that we, as a country, need the revenue to pay for things. I don't want to argue about those "things" because I'm 100% certain you and I don't agree on which expenses are ok, and which are excessive. But, the US has bills...roads, bridges, defense, etc....and those have to be paid. So, if we give a tax "break" to some, others have to see their taxes go up. Just the way it is. What's "fair" often depends on whose ox is being gored. I'm tired of deficit spending in the name of tax cuts. And, you don't cut the "revenue" side until AFTER you cut the spending side.
Taxes are already paid on the increase in value. When the value of the land goes up, so does your property tax. When the value of the products produced by that land go up, so does the income tax.
I used the example of my grandfather's land increasing in value from $10 to $1,000+ per acre during his time of ownership. I guarantee the tax revenue generated by that land in the final year was exponentially higher than it was in year 1. It's not like the land appreciates and everything else stays the same.
And yes, I agree deficit spending is a bad idea. I just feel this particular revenue stream is a bad path.