Replies

I didn't say a thing about zero-tax, friend. IMO, some form of "windfall" tax on fungible income that is transferred to inheritors is fine. But the death tax, as it exists now, is clearly punitive.

Inheriting land, especially a farm that is a family-owned enterprise, isn't really fungible - the value of the land is dependent on (1) long-term working of it to produce yearly income (which is also taxed) or (2) selling it. Using "market rates" to set the value of the transferred property ups the ante even further.

The same argument can be made for private corporations, including football teams. Money and stock in public corporations, on the other hand, are fungible.

Oh, yeah... I was attemtping to use a little humor to point out your ad hominem attack style, and to try and get you to stop. I see that's not going to be effective, so I'll be more direct: Your attack-laden style is offensive. I try to treat others with respect, and I expect them to do the same for me. To not do so, such as in this case, is childish. Clearly, you're more intelligent than that, but perhaps you would rather be offensive.

Oh, yeah... I was attemtping to use a little humor to point out your ad hominem attack style, and to try and get you to stop. I see that's not going to be effective, so I'll be more direct:

No need, I achieved my desired result: to extract a more thoughtful response on the topic. You're distinction between fungible and non-fungible assets is really quite good.

It's a shame you didn't see the humor in my retort regarding the pet name your wife calls you. That's OK. No personal offense was intended. As far as my "attack-laden style"... let's just say that I'm not shy about defending my position when I encounter responses like " So you want to turn America into a Bolshevik paradise because you hate the Rockefellers and Kennedys?" or "Invoking communism in the name of Jefferson."

It took a little teeth pulling, but I did manage to get a more thoughtful comment from you than the others. Thanks-you.