171–180 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> thinks reality is an uncorrupted, level playing field Did I say that anywhere? > Tell that to the kids in Congo who have to dig out Cobalt for free. That's actual reality and it has arrived in the west. What does this have to do with the concept of someone "earning" something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> thinks reality is an uncorrupted, level playing field Did I say that anywhere? > Tell that to the kids in Congo who have to dig out Cobalt for free. That's actual reality and it has arrived in the west. What does this have to do with the concept of someone "earning" something?
There's no point talking about this sort of stuff. If you have capital, just get your guns out. It's a more honest approach.
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 don't think it's that unfathomable when you look at how governments spend the money. E.g. a public Czech university spent 80k euros to change their logo from this: 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, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems straight forward enough, put a value cap on it. $10 million? 20 million? Is anyone going to feel bad for the poor soul who can't pay the tax bill on a free 20 million dollar home? We have a limit on gifts and according to this is 13 million. Just make it that. What would be the downside here other than extremely wealthy having to pay some taxes upon death?
It's simple really, many people don't see it as a "free home". It's your home. It's no more free or unfree, earned or unearned than anything else. The home that I grew up in is.. hell, I'd consider it to be "mine" and my siblings more than almost anything else I have.
If you got a home worth that much, you can pay some taxes on it.
https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/more-than-1-500-homes...
1,500 homes sold for over 10m in a year. We're talking about the richest of the rich. That's exactly who should be paying some taxes. The people bitching about losing 'their' home this way... are either a) delusional or b) looking for a way to protect their incredible wealth.
Is your family home worth more than 10 or 20m dollars?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, the estate/gift tax does not kick in until 13 M$, so that already covers that case. Second, it is irrelevant. The capital gains tax that would be due on a normal step-up in basis during life is independent of the estate tax. Assume there was no exemption and you bought stocks 20 years ago for 100 K$ that are now worth 1 M$. If you die, then your estate would need to pay estate taxes on 1 M$. However, if…
Yeah, I was thinking that despite the fact that the ultra wealthy use TFA's loophole, people who don't (i.e. net worth A - In a universe with cost basis step-up on death, they die with gains taxed at 0% and then pay 40% estate tax on everything. B - In a world without cost basis step-up on death, they die with gains taxed at the 20% long term rate and then pay 40% estate tax on what remains. Thus: The step-up causes…
N is your cost basis. M is the gain. E is the estate tax. G is the gains tax.
((N + M) * E) is tax on the automatic step-up, option A.
(M * G) + (N + M - (M * G)) * E is the tax on the non-automatic step-up, option B.
Reorganized to ((N + M) * E) + (M * G) * (1 - E), it is clear that option B is strictly more taxes for any estate tax less than 100%.
1) All investments are tax deductible, not just 401Ks.
2) The sale of investments is treated as income.
3) Money from loans is also taxed as income, unless used for (1).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simple really, many people don't see it as a "free home". It's your home. It's no more free or unfree, earned or unearned than anything else. The home that I grew up in is.. hell, I'd consider it to be "mine" and my siblings more than almost anything else I have.
If that home is over 10, 13 or 20m dollars... you can pay tax on it. If you have siblings, I assume it would be divided between you, so multiply value by siblings. If you got a home worth that much, you can pay some taxes on it. https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/more-than-1-500-homes... 1,500 homes sold for over 10m in a year. We're talking about the richest of the rich. That's exactly who should be paying some…
In my country our threshold is significantly lower by the way - it's around a million, so bog standard houses get hit by it.
I think that inheritance taxes are wholly equivalent to wealth taxes, e.g. "you have a thing, I like that thing, give me that thing", and therefore morally wrong.
I could agree with them on the basis that the money were minimal and solely used for security e.g. police and military, it's an insurance policy against theft, the Government has a monopoly on force and that's better than warlords.
It's not used that way though, so I reject the premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was thinking that despite the fact that the ultra wealthy use TFA's loophole, people who don't (i.e. net worth A - In a universe with cost basis step-up on death, they die with gains taxed at 0% and then pay 40% estate tax on everything. B - In a world without cost basis step-up on death, they die with gains taxed at the 20% long term rate and then pay 40% estate tax on what remains. Thus: The step-up causes…
No, that is not how the math works. N is your cost basis. M is the gain. E is the estate tax. G is the gains tax. ((N + M) * E) is tax on the automatic step-up, option A. (M * G) + (N + M - (M * G)) * E is the tax on the non-automatic step-up, option B. Reorganized to ((N + M) * E) + (M * G) * (1 - E), it is clear that option B is strictly more taxes for any estate tax less than 100%.
Of course, it would be long term (20%) and estate (40% but on slightly less), not one or the other. Mea culpa.
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…
That phrasing deserves a pause. If someone has money, it came from somewhere - income - which is taxed. If you play that in reverse: someone who paid no tax had no income, and therefore no money.
Zuckerberg paid 13.7% tax [1]. Ballpark figure income [2,3] for that effective tax rate is $95K/year. You couldn't maintain a yacht on that income, let alone rent or buy one.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/13/wealthiest-a... [2] https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#9S4WHcw5WA [3] https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-calculator
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…
Yachts depreciate rapidly, not sure where you got the idea that they appreciate.