101–110 of 504 posts
It always puzzled me how tax-adverse some wealthy people are. I'm not talking about the wealthy people that have 100% of their wealth tied up to company (stock) that they operate - but the wealthy people that are just asset-rich, with zero operational duties. Their wealth is handled by wealth managers, they probably don't even know what they own. But minimizing taxes and hoarding wealth is priority number 1.
I implicitly understood Buy, Borrow when CEOs making a $1/yr became a thing. That seemingly hairshirt salary is publicly reported. I didn't foresee the Die part because it is affected in private.
Whether or not that’s actually true is a totally different matter and depends largely on the actually structure of the compensation, but that’s the theory.
Is this partly why so many billionaires own things like mega-yachts? Presumably they aren't all avid yacht enthusiasts, no? For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of money. So much that he can buy a mega-yacht and it not really affect him financially. But, he could buy lots of things that don't affect him financially, and he chooses not to do so. I always assumed that acquiring a massively valued asset like a yacht t…
[Meta] is it common to open a subreddit just for a single post like this one?
How odd. This is a rather interesting catch, especially in light of the upcoming tax fight in 2025 with the TCJA and Expanded Child Tax Credit expirations, and the unrealized capitals gains tax proposals. Given the other comments pointing to the SEO benefits of creating a subreddit just for a single post, it has shades of an effort to seed the information space and shape the narrative in advance of the tax fight by g…
If this is accurate, it finally explains something I've been asking about for years: The loan is paid back after the step-up in basis. That's the loophole. If the loan was paid back before step-up, the estate would still have to pay capital gains tax.
The step-up in cost basis on death is the original sin that underpins the entire debate over unrealized gains. It's disheartening to see so much thought and deliberation going into an obviously toxic idea (taxing unrealized gains) when the obvious solution (removing the cost basis step-up when assets change hands) is being ignored. Inherited wealth is the least earned, so it should be politically palatable to change…
1. Allow unrealized losses to be deducted.
2. Once a certain percentage of the gain is taxed, step up the cost basis by the amount of tax paid. That way you avoid double taxation (once under the unrealized value and again when the asset is sold).
3. (optional) Keep the tax rate on unrealized gains low. Even 3% would be significantly higher than what we have today.
Under this logic, it almost seems like a no brainer. People who have a ton of wealth in unrealized gains would pay taxes progressively over time instead of being hit with a massive tax bill when they sell (or potentially no tax bill when they die due to the step up in cost basis). Feel free to poke loopholes in this idea.
You can actually achieve much the same effect by buying property and taking out a normal mortgage against it for living expenses which can be done by people of more normal means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems straight forward enough, put a value cap on it. $10 million? 20 million? Is anyone going to feel bad for the poor soul who can't pay the tax bill on a free 20 million dollar home? We have a limit on gifts and according to this is 13 million. Just make it that. What would be the downside here other than extremely wealthy having to pay some taxes upon death?
Make inheritance count toward the gift limit. Have the full $13M limit left on your gifting exemptions? You pass down $13M in inheritance tax free.
Is this partly why so many billionaires own things like mega-yachts? Presumably they aren't all avid yacht enthusiasts, no? For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of money. So much that he can buy a mega-yacht and it not really affect him financially. But, he could buy lots of things that don't affect him financially, and he chooses not to do so. I always assumed that acquiring a massively valued asset like a yacht t…
Especially not at a rate that pays to keep it shipshape.
It always puzzled me how tax-adverse some wealthy people are. I'm not talking about the wealthy people that have 100% of their wealth tied up to company (stock) that they operate - but the wealthy people that are just asset-rich, with zero operational duties. Their wealth is handled by wealth managers, they probably don't even know what they own. But minimizing taxes and hoarding wealth is priority number 1.
https://cdn.xsd.cz/resize/21404adf37a83977870fe87fe0eb4ea6_r...
to this:
https://www.em.muni.cz/cache-thumbs/logo_muni_web-1580x790-2...
Why does a public university, one of the most popular in the country, need a new logo? And if it needs a new logo, why don't they assign it as a project to the students of arts/marketing faculty?
I implicitly understood Buy, Borrow when CEOs making a $1/yr became a thing. That seemingly hairshirt salary is publicly reported. I didn't foresee the Die part because it is affected in private.
This actually has more to do with the vast majority of CEO compensation being structured as stock option grants, and very little if anything to do with “Buy, Borrow, Die.” It’s largely meant to communicate skin in the game to shareholders (“I don’t make any money unless I drive shareholder value via stock price increases"). Whether or not that’s actually true is a totally different matter and depends largely on the a…
