261–270 of 504 posts
Then again, whenever Buffet & his ilk make self-serving comments about how they don't pay enough taxes I wonder, "why don't you pay more?" The IRS takes donations.
It’s the same reason why it’s better to sponsor a “we’ll double your donation up to $X” charity campaign, than to just donate $X directly. It attracts others in with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owning productive assets is a tortured use of the word hoarding. edit: Hoarding is buying assets that could be used productively and storing them somewhere instead of using them. People with a political axe to grind like taking words with negative connotations and applying them to things that don't make sense to manipulate you. If you think about it for more than two seconds you will understand we already have a word…
I’ll bite. Of every dollar you contributed to your 401k last paycheck, how many cents of them do you think you’ll actually spend in retirement, on a risk-adjusted basis? For me, the answer is certainly not 100 and not 0, let’s say it’s 80 cents. Speaking for myself, I think that marginal 20 cents is by definition hoarding because the marginal utility of money to me at that point is negligible. Sure it could benefit m…
Think of it this way:
Angel investors and venture capitalists are directly funding the creation of new productive businesses with the expectation of a future return / reward. This future reward is only possible with secondary markets such as the public stock exchange. Additionally, employees at these companies are typically rewarded with shares to align incentives. These stock based grants motivate them to work harder and produce more and this is only possible because they can then go and sell their shares on the public market.
An example of hoarding would be like someone buying a bunch of property to park their wealth with low risk but not renting out any of the homes or apartments they purchased because it's too much effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point in my life I took a step back to look at my life and how I’m doing and how much I pay for that life. Maybe I’m just incredibly lucky. My conservative expectation is that we all have to start contributing a lot more over the next few decades if we want to maintain our standard of living, otherwise it will just gradually get worse. I hope I’m wrong.
> otherwise it will just gradually get worse. The austerity policies of the neoliberal turn has already caused standards of living among the less fortunate to drop over the last few decades already. The 2008 crisis is when it started to impact the middle class and we're still feeling the impacts 16+ years later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Maybe there's just no good solution here, but I think the original inspiration for this sort of law was about family homes. It's one thing to inherit stocks and have to sell some of them off, but it's much more complex to try to pass down a property that can't be arbitrarily subdivided. There are various options obviously, but I think enough people had to sell their beloved childhood home because of the tax obligatio…
Even public businesses are not trivial to value for very large shareholders who don’t have the ability to easily sell all shares at once without moving the market quite a bit. But in any case, removing this loophole would just encourage the ultra wealthy to put their money into opaque businesses and then try to “value” them as low as possible. So it’s not so easy to fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is going to be hard for the ideologically blind to understand, but not every rich person everywhere keeps politicians in their back pockets. Some don't even have their own PAC!
I'm not making any comment on whether rich people are more or less likely to be politically inclined than average people, draw your own conclusions. I'm also not sure who you're suggesting is ideologically blind. All I'm saying is that given resources like a huge pile of money, many would not wish to use that money to coerce others or otherwise change their local political situation to better suit them. Instead they'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point in my life I took a step back to look at my life and how I’m doing and how much I pay for that life. Maybe I’m just incredibly lucky. My conservative expectation is that we all have to start contributing a lot more over the next few decades if we want to maintain our standard of living, otherwise it will just gradually get worse. I hope I’m wrong.
What would the government spend the additional tax revenue on, in your conservative expection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The return % is hardly important to what author is saying here. You can assume 4% and still get to 200M in 35 years. Does 200M or 750M make any difference to the point ?
Yes, it does matter: The entire reason this scheme is supposed to work is the gap between the % in asset value gains over time and the % interest rate charged by these supposed bankers to the ultra-wealthy over the same time. If those are equal, this scheme is a terrible idea. You’d be much better off selling some % of the assets and paying LTCG as a fraction of the gains than paying all of the gains in interest. So…
Rate only matters if you still worried about asset growth. At 300M+ net worth you are more worried about securing the wealth for generations to come rather than focusing on growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people try to minimize taxes No, most people don't care about their tax the way wealthy people do. I ended up in a wealthy family through marriage and I can tell you nobody I my original social circle spent even a fraction of the effort the wealthy do when it comes to taxes.
Mostly because there's really no way for them to. When I was young and poor, I didn't have much way to pay less taxes (not that I paid that much - but if I wanted to pay less, I couldn't) - I just had my salary, and whatever is deducted from it was it, I had no realistic way to change it. Even such things as charity donations wouldn't change it because to get out of standard deductions etc. I'd have to donate way mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who do you know that gladly pays more than they legally have to pay? What paying more in taxes gets more done in the things paid by taxes. It's like there is a direct dependency between a money received from the taxes and the things made/built on the tax money.
For an average person, there's not. Like, if I pay twice as much taxes as I do now, literally nothing would change in anything paid by taxes, and I have no ways to effect that change. Same if by some miracle I stopped paying all federal taxes, there's literally nothing that would change in federal government's actions or budgets.