Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

  1. #1
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Please sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/196850059

    The stated goal: Reducing loopholes and tax fraud.

    The proposed solution: Reducing deductibility for non-cash donations - making only 1/3 of the value deductible

    The Problem: Such changes in tax law will make it IMPOSSIBLE for many people to make conservation easement donations to land conservation organizations. These folks want to preserve their community by making sure there will always be open space, but cannot afford to do so without the deductibility. Unless these folks can conserve their land, it is possible their heirs will not be able to afford the estate taxes, and will be FORCED to sell the land off for development. Resulting in more sprawl, more habitat and open space loss, reducing the beautiful vistas that make our community special

    The solution: People need to get involved, call their congressmen and senators, contact www.nblt.org (call 696 5545) and/or financially support the effort. More info can be found at www.nblt.org or (for media use) www.lta.org.

    Details:

    Joint Committee Proposes Slashing Conservation Incentives
    FACT SHEET

    A recent report by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation recommends dismantling tax deductions for landowners who volunteer to conserve their land—a program that has been essential to private and public conservation efforts.

    Those tax incentives, in place for more than 25 years, have led to voluntary conservation of more than 34 million acres of working agricultural lands, working forests, wildlife habitats, historic landscapes, and parklands.

    Currently, landowners who care about conservation and are willing to protect important resources on their property have several options:

    <sum> They can donate a conservation easement, which protects these resources forever, but allows families to continue to live on and farm the land, and pass the property on to their heirs. Now, they receive a tax deduction for the value of the development rights they give up.

    The Joint Committee proposes: (1) forbidding any deduction for donating an easement if the landowner continues to live on the land; and (2) in all other cases, allowing the donor to deduct only 1/3 the value of their donation. This would effectively eliminate the tax incentives for donations of conservation easements.

    <sum> They can also choose to donate their land, or sell it for less than its value. Landowners who do so qualify for a tax deduction.

    The Joint Committee would slash this incentive, by limiting deductions to the price the landowner originally paid for the property (their "basis"). This would make it extremely difficult for farmers, ranchers, and other residents who have owned their lands for decades to be able to afford to donate.

    At a time when development and sprawl threaten much of what makes our communities livable—clean air and water, open space, parks, and wildlife habitat—private landowners have a critical role to play in conservation. With state and federal budget deficits limiting government purchase of conservation land, one of the best ways to conserve America’s natural legacy is through incentives to private landowners. This approach is working because it encourages voluntary charitable gifts, respects private property rights, and keeps land on the tax rolls.

    Conservationists support reforms targeted to prevent abuse of the existing laws. The proposals of the Joint Tax Committee don’t do that – instead, they punish all donors, fail to identify abusers, and wreak havoc with private, voluntary conservation, at a time when it is needed more than ever

  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    I love loopholes and tax fraud

    I want the government to have as little money as possible. Why do people act like the government owns 100% of everything and that we are only entitled to what it let's us keep?

    More loopholes I say. I would like a big giant 2.5 trillion dollar loophole for eveyrbody to jump through.

    Down with conservation too. Let's get all that empty land homesteaded and give owners unlimited ownership authority again.

    I applaud tax fraud and those lawyers and accountants who help people keep more of their own money.

    Giving the government more money is the equivilent of giving a criminal gang a donation.

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    Down with conservation too. Let's get all that empty land homesteaded and give owners unlimited ownership authority again.
    interesting theory....just where would clean water and air come from if we eliminated conserved land?

    What about the rights of private landowners to conserve their property - rights which (except for those wealthy enough to not need the tax break) will be impeded by the proposed legislation.

    I realize alot of sarcasm in your note, just thought I'd respond.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Unless these folks can conserve their land, it is possible their heirs will not be able to afford the estate taxes, and will be FORCED to sell the land off for development.
    There's also another option here ... have you ever considered supporting GWB's call for a permanent reduction in Estate Taxes, and/or reducing future property taxes by voting for politicians who would cut gov't spending growth on social welfare programs and education (the two major components of most real estate taxes these days) ?

    Like the 'cruel and unusual punishment' argument as applies to murderers who sit on death row for 20+ years appealing their death sentences, some would argue that this high Death Tax and Real Estate Tax 'problem' is in reality a 'self-inflicted' wound !

  5. #5
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    I do support those programs...though I have heard very little about GW's specific proposal, any reasonable reduction in estate taxes (IE that helps everyone and not just those over a certain amount) is good.

    However, it's not a "one or the other " situation, since the estate tax example I used is but one of the many scenarios in which a family might NEED the tax deduction in order to conserve open space which is (by IRS definition dating back more than three decades) good for all citizens. Open land is where we get clean water, clean air, and why people choose to vacation/live/work in certain areas (goes to quality of life).

    For me though...it's about rights. The amount of tax money gained in this proposal is slender at best - and it's gained at the expense of those who could not afford to do the conservation without the deduction (IE the small taxpayer, middle class)

    It's also about the right of individuals to donate as they choose - churches and other chartities are upset because this affects ALL non cash donations. Want to donate stock? Sorry, that's non-cash. A car? Too bad. Do you have a house that you wish to give to the local homeless shelter...good for you, just don't try to take a tax deduction on the value!

  6. #6
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    There is zero sarcasm in my post. I'm dead serious.

    The air and water is polluted because of the lack of ownership for the most part and the government and its allies are the biggest polluters.

    Part of the reason why the water is polluted, especially things like the Hudson River, is because they are "owned" by the government which has no incentive to take care of anything. Best thing to do is to allow somebody to own the Hudson river and then clean it up and commercialize it.
    Other big steps would be ending the energy cartelization and irrationally pricing of the roads, end the government leasing of resources so instead things can be owned. When the government leases a resource instead of allowing ownership, it encourages "over"-drilling/deforrestation/etc leading to many of the pollution problems we are faced with.

    I'm in favor of allodial ownership meaning when peolpe OWN their land, they own their land. They don't have to pay rent on it every year(proprety taxes). THen they could preserve it forevermore if that was their wish. Nothing has undermined propery ownership like the various "enviromentalist" movements. Many people can't even clear brush on their property, leading to all sorts of fire hazards(as I witnessed here in San Diego 2 years ago)

    To reiterate, there was no sarcasm whatsoever in my first post.

    GWB's tax cuts are a mirage at best. He has expanded government by 35%, that will be paid for through taxes, future taxes(bonds) and inflation(the hidden tax).
    Bush also wants to "close loopholes" meaning raise taxes. Most of his other tax cuts never came into effect, they were just rhetoric.

    The only way to fund the operations of the government is through confiscation from the private sector of some sort. The politicial trick is how to con the public into thinking they are not being robbed.

    The estate tax should be abolished, along with the rest of them. Let bureaucrats make their livings on the market like the rest of us. There is no need for a parasitic class.

    GWB = king parasite as were all his predecessors.
    Bush is like FDR and Lyndon Johnson reincarnated. Liberals should love him; he's their kind of guy.

  7. #7
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Well, first of all pollution and the right to conservation are 2 separate items.

    You're all for private rights and reducing goverment taxation - why is deductability of non-cash donations not something you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    The air and water is polluted because of the lack of ownership for the most part
    Tell that to the people of Northeastern PA, Virginia and other (former) mining communities, who live with the legacy of private landowners (mining companies) using their land and leaving it ruined....with dangerous, poisonous water runoff. Also, most power companies (which pollute) are private

    and the government and its allies are the biggest polluters.
    One of, no doubt...but that doesn't eliminate the private polluters' responsibility

    Part of the reason why the water is polluted, especially things like the Hudson River, is because they are "owned" by the government which has no incentive to take care of anything.
    Wrong, the Hudson is polluted because of private industry along the river dumping waste into it - a process that was STOPPED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Until it became illegal and costly to dump, companies just opened the floodgates to the river.

    I'm in favor of allodial ownership meaning when peolpe OWN their land, they own their land. They don't have to pay rent on it every year(proprety taxes). THen they could preserve it forevermore if that was their wish.
    Nice theory, but there's no way it can work. Besides the private polluter thing I mentioned above, there'd be no money for schools, public sewer, water and other things people DEMAND (thta's a complicated issue since no town ever makes money on residential development)


    Nothing has undermined propery ownership like the various "enviromentalist" movements. Many people can't even clear brush on their property, leading to all sorts of fire hazards(as I witnessed here in San Diego 2 years ago)
    Meet me in chat sometime, I'd love to debate this fact by fact. Realizing that I do this everyday....

    If that's all you see in environmental movement, you know why I NEVER refer to myself as environmentalist. What's sad is people rely on labels so heavily, that one thing they don't like sours every effort. Bottom line should be what makese sense LONG TERM as well as short term..or, as one of my websites says "Balancing Economy Ethics and Environment with Lifestyle"

  8. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Lots of private companies pollute but it is the government that has set up and continues to set up the situation. Even things like air pollution have their route with the systematic erosion of propery rights in air(in your lungs) by the courts in the late 19th century. They began to use "public good" arguments to allow factories to pollute and began refusing to grant injunctions against polluters, thus paving the way for the heavy polluting technology.

    The Hudson was polluted nonstop because it was owned by the government, in effect unowned, a tragedy of the commons. Government regulation to prevent water ownership was the initial problem, the government's regulatory steps after are typical of government intervention in that it becomes cumulative. Most people don't pollute inside your house because it is private property; "commons" areas tend to be rife with it. And the regulation on keeping waters unpolluted has gone the other extreme such as not allowing milk to cross a river because the milk might get contiminated(really a form of protectionism for some local milk producers and other such things).

    Nice theory, but there's no way it can work. Besides the private polluter thing I mentioned above, there'd be no money for schools, public sewer, water and other things people DEMAND (thta's a complicated issue since no town ever makes money on residential development)
    It can work and has worked. Schools do not need to be provided by government and having the government in school is one of the worst things possible. Public schools are brainwashing tools and always having be. A free market in education without government interference is one of the most important reforms we need.
    Don't need a state for sewege treatment either(and state sewer treatment plants are some of the biggest polluters around). Likewise, we easily see water provided by the market things like the bottled water and water filter markets, it would be no different from all water services.

    I'm in the chat almost daily at various hours

    It's not sad, it's true. It also got started very early with the Conservationist movement of the late 1800s. That movement was funded by the railroads and existing western landowners semi-clandestinally in order to keep as much land out west off the market as possible so a: the railroads could get free land grants from the government and b: so the value of the land owned by existing owners could go up. That basic model has been the frame since.

  9. #9
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    Lots of private companies pollute but it is the government that has set up and continues to set up the situation.
    No fan of government, I can't see how it's their fault companies pollute the land, then close and/or move overseas, leaving the GOVERNMENT in the former industrial community to clean up the mess. How is that a government set up situatiion?


    They began to use "public good" arguments to allow factories to pollute and began refusing to grant injunctions against polluters, thus paving the way for the heavy polluting technology.
    Pollution was illegal before the industrial revolution? Please show me the law? How on earth did coal-fired blacksmiths do it?

    Funny, I thought it was the development of large factories and the (private company) abuse of the worker and community....without government intervention...that caused the problem. Living in a former coal mining community...there's lots of examples I can point to.

    The Hudson was polluted nonstop because it was owned by the government, in effect unowned, a tragedy of the commons. Government regulation to prevent water ownership was the initial problem, the government's regulatory steps after are typical of government intervention in that it becomes cumulative.
    Oh, please show me where you get this information. Not a story I can back up with Google searches

    Most people don't pollute inside your house because it is private property; "commons" areas tend to be rife with it.
    That's called (in business) externalizing the waste - dump it in the street (a common procedure for urine and feces before public sewers) or in the river and it's "gone" -at least from your house.

    Personally, I grew up on an unregulated river, ran red with waste from the chemical plant upriver. One day we filed a lawsuit against the company (thrown out by the polluting government as infringing on their rights) that got some guys from the plant to come down and run tests. They actually asked me (a kid in swim trunks, paddling them out to get water samples) whether we swam here..and were APPALLED that we did!

    Can't tell me the government forced them to "externalize their waste stream" into the river. It was simply the cheapest alternative, damn those private citizens downstream!

    [QUOTE] And the regulation on keeping waters unpolluted
    you mean those environmental initiatives you hate

    has gone the other extreme such as not allowing milk to cross a river because the milk might get contiminated(really a form of protectionism for some local milk producers and other such things).
    1. I;d love to see that law
    2. no doubt there are stupid laws, but does that make all laws stupid?
    -


    Schools do not need to be provided by government and having the government in school is one of the worst things possible.
    so those who can't afford private education simply don't get any? Something about creating a marketable, progressive workforce...not to mention equal rights (the right to know how to read) for al...and finally the fact that uneducated, unemployable people will have few alternatives but crime to make a living. Now THERE's a good idea!

    Public schools are brainwashing tools and always having be.
    "Always having be" - hmmm, private school education I guess?\

    A free market in education without government interference is one of the most important reforms we need.
    Prove it works and i'll believe it

    Don't need a state for sewege treatment either
    Your solution would be, what? throw it in the street like we did before? People don't have farms (with room for septic systems) as much anymore. Again, if you have a solution I'd love to hear it.

    Likewise, we easily see water provided by the market things like the bottled water and water filter markets, it would be no different from all water services.
    So you want to spend $20 for a gallon of bottled water, or have REALLY expensive filtration systems (no Brita filter could start with raw polluted water and make it clean)? Besides, i see our reliance on bottled and filtered water as a FAILURE of our society to maintain clean safe drinking water from natural sources...and many experts agree that water will be a MAJOR cause for resource wars in the future.

    It's not sad, it's true. It also got started very early with the Conservationist movement of the late 1800s. That movement was funded by the railroads and existing western landowners semi-clandestinally in order to keep as much land out west off the market as possible so a: the railroads could get free land grants from the government and b: so the value of the land owned by existing owners could go up. That basic model has been the frame since.
    Whare are you getting this information? the first LAND CONSERVATION group in the US is the MASSACHUSETTS based trustees of reservations - no relation to railroads, the west, or real estate holdings (www.ttor.org, i think). So, where exactly is your information coming from.

    I'd like to discuss all these points...will try to stop by chat sometime, or PM me and we can set a time.

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    As someone who doesn't like government (same as me) here are a few questions:

    1. Do you agree the government shouldnt tell us what to do with our money, our land and our property?

    2. Do you agree that the current system of taxation is unfair, and that the government doesn't deserve any more of our money?

    3. Do you agree the initiatives of the current administration usually (even without reading them) err on teh side of helping big business and rich people over middle class

    4. What's the upside of letting the existing government TAKE AWAY more rights from Private Ciitzens who DECIDE to give non-cash donations to charity?

  11. #11
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer

    The stated goal: Reducing loopholes and tax fraud.

    The proposed solution: Reducing deductibility for non-cash donations - making only 1/3 of the value deductible
    This scam is a huge fraud on taxpayers. A simple analogy for those unfamiliar with the jargon is someone donating their '72 Pinto to some organization and claiming a $4000 cash equivolent deduction.

    I say eliminate all the policy tinkering deductions including charitable donations, mortage interest, and 80% of the byzantine tax code. Estates should be simply turned over to the public at probate. No inheritance. People should earn what they own. Calling an estate tax a "death" tax is just more Republican diversionary semantics. The uber-rich are grinning wildly at this notion. Even Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the US, has huge problems with inheritances. His will purportedly donates the vast majority of his wealth.

    Imagine how the whiny "I can't afford the taxes on my 850 acres in the Santa Monica mountains I inherited," sounds to a single mother raising three kids in Compton. Barbara Streisand pulled this scam some years ago and I cringe now every time I hear her name.

    What you are asking for is a virtual windfall for a select group of land barons and their spoiled heirs to keep sigbificant control of their land holdings and simultaneously run the tax scam. If these land robber-barons truly were trtuly interested in connservation, the solution is quite simple: give it to a non-profit with a long record of conservation. Skip the tax loophole and fraud. Say goodbye to the arduous tax burden of such vast land holdings. Problem soved. No need to sell a single square foot to developers since there will be no taxes to pay, not even capital gains.

    OK....this one oughta get me on some sort of a watch list if Carnivore (NSA's massive digi sniffer) catches it. Serious commi stuff. Viva la revolucion! See ya at the U.S. Gulag at Guantanemo, Sh0t.

  12. #12
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    This scam is a huge fraud on taxpayers. A simple analogy for those unfamiliar with the jargon is someone donating their '72 Pinto to some organization and claiming a $4000 cash equivolent deduction.
    There's a litte thing called an APPRAISAL that determines the value of a donated item. For most items, the IRS has it's own "book of values" that it uses...for cars they rely on the Kelley Blue Book, for real estate they require a certified and experienced appraiser, preferably MAI certified. Ms Jones cannot make up a value.

    I say eliminate all the policy tinkering deductions including charitable donations, mortage interest, and 80% of the byzantine tax code.
    Agreed, if you bring the tax rate into line ( for example: flat tax of 20% - a higher % of GDP than the government is now using, or has used since WW2). Also, if you make sure the extremely wealthy can't get around it with offshore investments. Make it fair, and I'll give up deductions

    20% flat tax means for every $1 I earn, 20c goes to the feds. no accountants, no IRS audits - simple math. Anyone can divide what they make by 5 and send 1/5 (which is 20%) to the government.

    Estates should be simply turned over to the public at probate. No inheritance. People should earn what they own.
    And they should then lose it at death to the state? Why on earth does the government deserve everything I aquire during my lifetime?

    Even Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the US, has huge problems with inheritances. His will purportedly donates the vast majority of his wealth.
    Yes...to private charities of his choice. Completely negating your previous suggestion that "the public" (assumedly the government, since no other group represents ALL the people) get all inheritances. Warren also is leaving SUBSTANTIAL money to his kids and family. His term is "enough so they can do anything, not enough they can do nothing" - I'd guess we're talking at least a Million dollars each...given his perspective on money

    Imagine how the whiny "I can't afford the taxes on my 850 acres in the Santa Monica mountains I inherited," sounds to a single mother raising three kids in Compton.
    What about the parents of a single mother my Land Trust helped - in EXACTLY that situation (OK, It was 200 acres in PA, but...) This woman was working her A$$ off to make ends meet, and all her parents (farmers) could do was leave her their land and $50,000 in life savings. The value of their deduction (which lowered the value of the land that daughter inherited) made that $50,000 just enoug to pay the estate taxes on the property...the tax deduction (that the family took on tehir middle-class farm income) was what made it possible for the parents to EAT after having made this donation.

    I'll say it again: There are examples of stupid laws, and fraud, in any operation. One rotten apple doesn't make the entire truckload bad. If that were true, we'd have no more corporations after Enron, no more military after a few soldiers got caught (sex scandal, prisoner abuse, etc.), no more banks after a teller helped a bank robber.

    What you are asking for
    wht ahas been in place for decades, we're asking to KEEP THE LAW THE SAME, not change it until a fair (not that GW wants that, or any politician) replacement to the tax system is in place

    is a virtual windfall for a select group of land barons and their spoiled heirs to keep sigbificant control of their land holdings and simultaneously run the tax scam.

    If these land robber-barons truly were trtuly interested in connservation, the solution is quite simple: give it to a non-profit with a long record of conservation. Skip the tax loophole and fraud.
    Statistically, the richest donors of conservation easements and non-cash donations DON'T TAKE THE TAX DEDUCTION. When my parents donated their car to Lung Association - the deduction was so minor to them they didn't bother with it. When my Land Trust received an easement on 7,000 acres and the donors gave another 12,000 acres to a different charity..they didn't have any use for the tax deduction on either deal.

    It's the little guys, more than the big, that use the deduction. But, it's everyone's right to take it - and that right should not be taken away until the tax system is made more fair.

    /QUOTE] Say goodbye to the arduous tax burden of such vast land holdings. Problem soved. No need to sell a single square foot to developers since there will be no taxes to pay, not even capital gains.[/QUOTE]
    1. WHat if the family wants to keep the land (as in my 20,000 acre example) but simply want to make the gift to the community that the land will never be developed and will always be open for hunting and public viewshed (nto to mention water and air filtration, as all open space does)?

    2.
    What you're really advocating is we say goodbye to the middle class person's ability to make choices. Rich people can ALWAYS find a way to get the deductions they need, they can ALWAYS find a way around it.
    Last edited by discretedancer; 03-11-2005 at 06:17 AM.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Cool, so you're a rich land baroness. Do you have a cool title like Duchess or something? Gentlemen, take note.


    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    There's a litte thing called an APPRAISAL that determines the value of a donated item.
    Of course, but I nearly cleaned out JC Whitney outfitting that '72 Pinto with accessories. My compadre the "appraiser" of course took these valuable "property improvements" into consideration. My point is this is ripe for abuse and fraud.

    Agreed, if you bring the tax rate into line ( for example: flat tax of 20% - a higher % of GDP than the government is now using, or has used since WW2). Also, if you make sure the extremely wealthy can't get around it with offshore investments. Make it fair, and I'll give up deductions
    Flat? No. I still prefer curves. Progressive and simplified works for me. No tax on the poor. Increase the rate up from there. Americans have this quaint "Horatio Alger" complex that keeps most delusional about the inequities surrounding them.

    And they should then lose it at death to the state? Why on earth does the government deserve everything I aquire during my lifetime?
    The people deserve it, not the "government". My country tis of thee and all that. If you have an issue with public lands, you aren't the first, but this is another debate. No one is losing anything. The property owner is dead. As the saying goes, "you can't take it with you."

    Yes...to private charities of his choice. Completely negating your previous suggestion that "the public" (assumedly the government, since no other group represents ALL the people) get all inheritances.
    Easy there. Read what I wrote. I offerred Buffet as a rich inidividual with radical ideas about the value (and danger) of inheritance. In my argument I offer him as an example only of this, not my commi takeover plot.
    Warren also is leaving SUBSTANTIAL money to his kids and family. His term is "enough so they can do anything, not enough they can do nothing" - I'd guess we're talking at least a Million dollars each...given his perspective on money
    On a first name basis with him? I had to say this because this one connected. *ouch* I can't believe you knew this quote. It is beautiful, however, isn't it? Of course you are right, I'm making a somewhat extreme argument. I do enjoy the idea of countless trust fund whiners scrambling to make a living...
    What about the parents of a single mother my Land Trust helped - in EXACTLY that situation (OK, It was 200 acres in PA, but...) This woman was working her A$$ off to make ends meet, and all her parents (farmers) could do was leave her their land and $50,000 in life savings. The value of their deduction (which lowered the value of the land that daughter inherited) made that $50,000 just enoug to pay the estate taxes on the property...the tax deduction (that the family took on tehir middle-class farm income) was what made it possible for the parents to EAT after having made this donation.
    Do you have a link for this story? I believe it, but it sounds like many other factors could be at play, including the corrupt mess (thanks to ADM) we have for agribiz policy. I'll try and find one about Barbara Streisand's deal, which prompted my bad attitude about this topic
    I'll say it again: There are examples of stupid laws, and fraud, in any operation. One rotten apple doesn't make the entire truckload bad. If that were true, we'd have no more corporations after Enron, no more military after a few soldiers got caught (sex scandal, prisoner abuse, etc.), no more banks after a teller helped a bank robber.
    OK. This is a bit over the top. A relatively unknown tax loophole for large land owners is hardly a national institution or the national defense. This argument is a classic logical fallacy.

    I'm arguing the entire policy is flawed by nature, including a systemic vulnerability to abuse and fraud.

    My other question is, why should we have this deduction to begin with? It seems to favor large land barons, with an incidental side benefit to some family farms, convenient for selling the policy to the public. I see nothing other than (I believe) a smoke screen of do-good value hiding the true motivation for the creation of an enormous tax loophole. This is a battle tested method for passing windfall corporate lotto give aways. Create a loophole with tangible (although proportionately tiny) benefits to "real" people, while hiding the true vast orgy of money grabbing behind the scenes. George Orwell referred to this sort of nonsense as "doublespeak".

    not change it until a fair (not that GW wants that, or any politician) replacement to the tax system is in place...
    Indeed, if any changes at all that happen in today's climate are likely to be FAR worse than any existing policies. Corruption is almost a badge of honor for the theives in GWB's house.

    It's the little guys, more than the big, that use the deduction. But, it's everyone's right to take it - and that right should not be taken away until the tax system is made more fair.
    I'll believe this when I see numbers from GAO. Sounds highly sound-bitish to me.
    1. WHat if the family wants to keep the land (as in my 20,000 acre example) but simply want to make the gift to the community that the land will never be developed and will always be open for hunting and public viewshed (nto to mention water and air filtration, as all open space does)?
    Ahhh, "keep" the land, but make this noble gesture to the peasants, albeit at some huge cost in property tax revenue (at rates everyone else pays) to the peasants. Having one's cake and eating it too, it seems. Why not simply turn over ownership to these peasants you so care about? Don't forget to forego the this tax deduction loophole as well, which clearly also turns this magnamous gesture into a profit motivated one, and highly vulnerable to corruption.
    What you're really advocating is we say goodbye to the middle class person's ability to make choices.
    Hey. It worked in Animal House. Personally I love that scene.

    I'll take another look at the links you put up. I have next to zero faith that anything happening under the current administration or lapdog legislature is motivated by even the slightest bit of righteous intent. If the changes you oppose are recent propopsals, I have no doubt some evil is behind it.
    Last edited by stant; 03-11-2005 at 08:34 AM.

  14. #14
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    Cool, so you're a rich land baroness. Do you have a cool title like Duchess or something? Gentlemen, take note.
    If you think I get rich volunteering my time for conservation (or started out life rich) you are sorely mistaken. And, you have no evidence to that effect. Please remove personal insults


    Of course, but I nearly cleaned out JC Whitney outfitting that '72 Pinto with accessories. My compadre the "appraiser" of course took these valuable "property improvements" into consideration. My point is this is ripe for abuse and fraud.
    But statistically, historically, it has not been an abused system any more than others. In fact, since the 501c3 status of the donee organization depends on their appraisals and easements not being overturned, there's much LESS fraud statistically here than in traditional commercial business or personal endeavor. Remove loopholes that allow offshore manufacturing facilities to not be taxed, remove loopholes that allow billions in "soft money" donations to political campaigns (that end up in politician pockets) from being deducted, remove incentives for Enron-style accounting, and then let's talk about the miniscule amount of non-cash donations to charity.


    Flat? No. I still prefer curves.
    No argument there, but the point is this non-tax donation "loophole" is so small as to be invisible, had the Washington Post not done a cover story on ONE organization.


    The people deserve it, not the "government".
    So when I die, you want my 72 Pinto to be inherited by the people. OK, what name and address do I put on that? Who exactly are the people

    If you have an issue with public lands, you aren't the first, but this is another debate. No one is losing anything. The property owner is dead. As the saying goes, "you can't take it with you."
    Conserved land, whether publicly or privately held, are considered donations because THE PEOPLE benefit. Open space, wide clear vistas, beautiful communities, clean water and air, etc.

    Public lands are great...the fact that they are not permanently protected isn't . My biggest issue with "Public Lands" is they aren't protected in any permanent manner. The government runs them, and can (at the legislature's decision) allow drilling, foresting, sale or destriction of the land. Yes, every state and federal park, unless specifically protected in perpetuity (which very few are) are subject to legislative whim. Leave it in the hands of "the people" (who correctly have created a government to serve as their agent) and you leave it in the hands of politicians. Politicicans who have chosen to utilize Eminent Domain laws to create shopping malls. Do you want to trust all open space to political whim?



    Easy there. Read what I wrote. I offerred Buffet as a rich inidividual with radical ideas about the value (and danger) of inheritance.
    But you incorrectly understand his position, not to mention his actual actions.


    Of course you are right, I'm making a somewhat extreme argument. I do enjoy the idea of countless trust fund whiners scrambling to make a living...
    Too many rich parents aren't as realistic as WB is. It's refreshing to see the kids will have to choose a direction (though their menu of choices will be and to some opinions should be larger than mine) - I only hope they choose one that helps the world and community as much as their own pockets.



    Do you have a link for this story?
    I will try to find it...alot of these details are not publicly known (I have changed the names to protect the innocent) because the public has no "right to know" their private business. But I'm sure I can get one of our donors to agree.

    I believe it, but it sounds like many other factors could be at play, including the corrupt mess (thanks to ADM) we have for agribiz policy.
    Thanks to ADM and the public's demand for banannas in february, as well as a lack of interest in supporting local farmers. Different topic entirely

    Bottom line: Reduce fraud, that's good. Examine conservation more closely. Examine non tax donations carefully. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when the national conservation movement is trying to "police itself" and work toward transparency with the IRS.

    I'll try and find one about Barbara Streisand's deal, which prompted my bad attitude about this topic
    I know the Barbara story (though seeig the link would be good) - but that's one bad apple (maybe not as bad as media made it sound). Should the entire accounting industry close because ENron F*cked up?


    A relatively unknown tax loophole for large land owners is hardly a national institution or the national defense.
    The logical fallacy is that it's a loophole for large land owners. I can provide dozens of examples of small landowners (though small is 10+ acres), however the size of the land still ISN't the issue. The issue is the right of the landowner to do with their land what they wis and the fact the land cannot be preserved if the landowner cannot afford it. Affording it is the purpose of the tax deduction.

    My other question is, why should we have this deduction to begin with? It seems to favor large land barons, with an incidental side benefit to some family farms, convenient for selling the policy to the public. I see nothing other than (I believe) a smoke screen of do-good value hiding the true motivation for the
    creation of an enormous tax loophole.
    Your belief is unfounded. Where did you get this information?

    If someone makes a donation (of any kind) to a verified IRS qualified charity - why should that deduction be disallowed just because it isn't cash? Seems to me this will restrict the less-wealthy (who have no spare cash) from donating while allowing the ealthy to continute donating because they have cash to spare and can sell off the other assets.

    I am pulling together links on:
    the small % of the federal income tax budget we're actually talking about
    % of wealthy vs non wealthy landowners using the deduction

    do you have any refuting evidence?

    I'll believe this when I see numbers from GAO.
    I didn't think you trusted the Government (first letter of GAO)

    Go right ahead, but forego the tax deduction
    Why? If tehy donated that much cash it would be deductible...but losing an appraised value of other assets (which are counted under our current system for taxation) doesn't count...makes no sense.


    I have next to zero faith that anything happening under the current administration or lapdog legislature is motivated by even the slightest bit of righteous intent.
    The changes being proposed are recent, going on NOW. the law as I defend it has been in place for decades.

  15. #15
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    If you think I get rich volunteering my time for conservation (or started out life rich) you are sorely mistaken. And, you have no evidence to that effect. Please remove personal insults
    My apologies for joking that you were either blue blood or royalty.

    So when I die, you want my 72 Pinto to be inherited by the people. OK, what name and address do I put on that? Who exactly are the people
    No way. You have a '72 Pinto too? What are the odds? Such a misunderstood masterpiece of Detroit's golden years, isn't it?



    Public lands are great...the fact that they are not permanently protected isn't . My biggest issue with "Public Lands" is they aren't protected in any permanent manner.
    Indeed this is a huge problem, and increasingly worse with each passing day the current crooks are in power. It seems only National Park lands have significant protection, and even now THAT is in jeopardy. We're at war after all. It's un-American if you oppose raping the land. Treason. Derserving of banishment to the GWB offshore Gulag (Gitmo).

    But you incorrectly understand his position, not to mention his actual actions.
    I know you are but what am I. .... I understand him just fine. I simply extended his notion of limiting his own bequethed property to his hiers to the level of national policy, with a few twists. Different debate anyway.

    Too many rich parents aren't as realistic as WB is. It's refreshing to see the kids will have to choose a direction (though their menu of choices will be and to some opinions should be larger than mine) - I only hope they choose one that helps the world and community as much as their own pockets.
    Shame on you for not letting me twist this philosophy of his into socialism.



    Thanks to ADM...
    Talk about your corporate evil doers....oil companies are practically business and environmental Mother Teresas compared to this shadowy monster.


    I know the Barbara story (though seeig the link would be good) - but that's one bad apple (maybe not as bad as media made it sound).
    As I recall the story, she failed to sell her land after YEARS on the market, then donated it at a huge inflated value (higher than what she couldn't sell it for), giving her a sizeable, arguably sketchy windfall profit. (She has easment issues as well). [couldn't find a link] I gave her a reluctant second chance until she sued these guys for taking a picture of her house:
    http://www.californiacoastline.org/
    Little did she know these actual environmentalists were retired filthy rich dot-commers with the money to hire better lawyers than she did. Her lawsuit got tossed and she got spanked with sanctions to pay for their attorney fees.
    http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html (check out the pic of the check she made out for $150K + in fees. Ouch)
    Fool me once Babs....
    ....the fact the land cannot be preserved if the landowner cannot afford it. Affording it is the purpose of the tax deduction.
    hopefully you'll agree this is not a generalized fact as stated, but is a reality in the current corrupt environment.

    [
    I didn't think you trusted the Government (first letter of GAO)
    Used to be General Accounting Office. Now the Government Accountability Office. I don't dislike good government, and these folks have a proven track record.

    Why? If tehy donated that much cash it would be deductible...but losing an appraised value of other assets (which are counted under our current system for taxation) doesn't count...makes no sense.
    See above how Babs 'the phony environmentalist' scammed this one. Outright theft form taxpayers. Needs fixing if the current horror show in DC ever ends.
    Last edited by stant; 03-12-2005 at 07:28 AM.

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    I'm as a big a believer in the free market as anyone and have frequently debated discretedancer on that. However, I've also vacationed quite a bit out west. I think it would be a shame to see all of Colorado cut up into tiny little pieces with mobile homes on them. But the conservative free-market person inside would opppose any law that would prohibit the people that own the land should from doing that. If I understand them correctly, these conservation easements are a good compromise and I'm for them. From what I've read, there are a lot a ranchers out west that are facing having to sell their ranch just to pay the property taxes. Either that, or when they die thier children will face that. Are there abuses? I'm sure there are. I read that one of the biggest beneficiaries of this conservation easement program is billionaire Ted Turner. But just because a program benefits some rich people doesn't make it bad. I doubt I'll ever inherit any money. But I'm still opposed to the estate tax because I think its wrong. If we as a society feel that preserving some of our huge open areas is important, I think this voluntary program is a good way to go about it.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #17
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    [QUOTE=stant] It seems only National Park lands have significant protection, and even now THAT is in jeopardy. We're at war after all. It's un-American if you oppose raping the land. Treason. Derserving of banishment to the GWB offshore Gulag (Gitmo). [QUOTE]Except for the thought that National parks are saffe, weagree. So why oppose any low-cost (tax deductions that hardly register on the national budget) ways to conserve more? The modern process of conservation makes it VERY difficult for streisand-style issues to occur, and LTA is doing a great job making it more perfect. Sounds like something you'd love

    See above how Babs 'the phony environmentalist' scammed this one. Outright theft form taxpayers. Needs fixing if the current horror show in DC ever ends.
    But this JCT effort is part of
    the current horror show ...that's actually the point. Do this now and MORE land will be sold cheap to developers by cash-stressed families that
    a. can't afford to keep, pass on, or maintain without deductions

    b. simply want to do the right thing...make a donation with the only asset they have

    c. have the money, and feel their loss (donation) of assets(when qualified with legit appraisals) is as valuable as equal to cash...can't really argue that.

  18. #18
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    If we as a society feel that preserving some of our huge open areas is important, I think this voluntary program is a good way to go about it.
    Thanks hon, That's the kind of logical approach we need. Not a knee jerk "this is a conservation issue...I'm against" response I've seen in debates.

    Ted Turner has no way (and I did look) has no way of making $$ on Cons. Easements. Maybe he's done alot of them and got some right offs...but the Land Trust movement is run by IRS audited non profit network and no individual or company can profit.

  19. #19
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    If estates are turned over to the government (or the "people") upon death, there's your perfect system to attain socialism. No private property survives the decedent, unless he or she gifts all property away before dying (which would then be eligible for income tax). Three generations down the road, and the government (or the "people") own 75% of the country's possessions. (The math is made up - the logical progression is sound enough.)

    Say I own a business. I don't particularly want the government taking control of it if I die in a car wreck tomorrow. I'd like to see the employees and their families continue to make a livelihood, doing what they're doing now, but managing the business that they now have acquired, and in which they've worked for a while.

  20. #20
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Help Protect Rights and Support Conservation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    If estates are turned over to the government (or the "people") upon death, there's your perfect system to attain socialism.
    Good point JZ ... and that's not at all the goal of the Land Trust movement. Not oout to change poltics.

    I guess...the "leave it to the people" scenario could be like monopoly with land owned by the "people's bank" can be purchased and made private....not sure if it has been thought that far. Either way...it's a separate chat from the conservation issue. And either way, I support some land being protected forever from development/...we need the open space, habitat, and other species for our own survival (if nothing else).

Similar Threads

  1. HELP! how do a protect my friend?
    By raindragonfly in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-06-2010, 08:01 AM
  2. how do you protect your knees?
    By Adelina in forum Body Business
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-07-2007, 05:01 PM
  3. Reality of conservation
    By discretedancer in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-13-2005, 03:01 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-26-2005, 02:35 PM
  5. Poll Shows Support for Abortion Rights
    By Tigerlilly in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-29-2004, 08:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •