[flagged]
Thanks ChatGPT.
Summarizing it to say it was Fayez Sarofim was useful to me.
Who died and left the US $7B?
41–50 of 589 posts
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#42> There are many complexities, but one popular technique is to put assets into trusts that allow the returns to accrue for heirs without taxation. Nike founder Phil Knight, for example, put his company’s stock in a series of trusts to benefit his children. The trusts pay him a modest return, but the rest of the gains avoid incurring estate tax, including Nike shares that were worth $6.1 billion in 2021, Bloomberg reported.
…
> Behn’s clients typically want to maximize the money they leave for their children or establish a philanthropic legacy; some seek to do both.
I’m sure that the numbers on these schemes work out favorably on paper, but if you lived through WW2 I wonder if you might be willing to pay a premium to give your immediate heirs maximum flexibility, knowing that the future is unpredictable.
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes about 30 seconds for the US National Debt clock ( https://www.usdebtclock.org/ ) to tick off $1 million, so almost 2.5 days to tick off $7 billion. I'd say $7 billion covers much more than 3 seconds of interest.
even in your "correct" math, your comment doesn't really improve the ridiculously small amount of moving of a needle that this would make
It does improve it, by several orders of magnitude. If your point is strong enough to make without exaggerating, then use of hyperbole can only stand to distract from the point.
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#44Pretty obscene that somebody could have so much wealth that $7,000,000,000 is just the tax bill. Also weird that it's framed as a "gift."
Anyone can make a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's draconian to have some upper limit on wealth? what if a small number of people managed to, legally, extract wealth to the point where we all became vassals? (Or is that what we've already gone very far towards?)
No. But it is a slippery slope of having limits on people, from wealth to anything you can think of (random example: limit ownership to a single car). In the end if it is all legal, it is nobody else's business. If it is illegal, setting an upper limit is not the moral solution.
You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?”
Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#46This $7B is enough to fund the US Federal government for about 8 hours
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#47Elon Musk or another person pre-paying some of their future estate tax, don't buy the other angle.
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#48I hope this is educational for people, indeed the forbes rich list is inaccurate and there is no way to know how much anyone is worth, with just 5 minutes of planning it all goes opaque if you so desire Although there is the aspect of the immigrant being grateful for American opportunities, its far more likely that Fayez Sarofim didn’t expect to die and had these naked assets outside of the trusts and nonprofits. Sin…
inaccurate or incomplete ?
The latter is to be expected. Forbes only covers certain type of wealthy people for logistical if not also political reasons.
It does not cover powerful people who control enormous wealth but ownership maybe murky what is personal wealth and what is state owned, royal families or dictators like Putin or Kim Jong Un or their extended family will never make the list.
Beyond those kind of people, the murky and opaque ways that money can hidden also means it is hard to track estates that did not come from publicly made fortunes (ex: from listed company etc) that can be somewhat easily tracked.
Even when public like Bitcoin and crypto, Nakomoto 's estimated ~1.1M bitcoins is worth $70B today, nobody knows who he is. There haven't been any transfers from those addresses, however that doesn't mean a part of that enormous fortune is outside the bitcoin ecosystem as real money, the owner of the wallet could be using them as security for large loans like Elon (or other rich people typically do ) does with their stock without actually selling it to minimize tax.
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. But it is a slippery slope of having limits on people, from wealth to anything you can think of (random example: limit ownership to a single car). In the end if it is all legal, it is nobody else's business. If it is illegal, setting an upper limit is not the moral solution.
You can make just about anything a slippery slope if you wanted to - “they’re putting limits on guns, what’s next, kitchen knives?” Morally you should probably be spending more time figuring out how to get everyone their first car instead of worrying about your legal rights in owning your second.
Right? What's with all the volunteer billionaire-wealth advocates?
Re: Who died and left the US $7B?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's draconian to have some upper limit on wealth? what if a small number of people managed to, legally, extract wealth to the point where we all became vassals? (Or is that what we've already gone very far towards?)
No. But it is a slippery slope of having limits on people, from wealth to anything you can think of (random example: limit ownership to a single car). In the end if it is all legal, it is nobody else's business. If it is illegal, setting an upper limit is not the moral solution.
Where $1 billion is about 40,000 Honda Civics, I think most people would support limiting ownership of cars to 39,999. It doesn't even have to be a hard limit, just a luxury tax on cars that cost more than, say, $1 million, and on owning more than 40,000 cars. If you want a 40,001st car, your can do it but it means you're going to have to pay an extra fee that goes towards helping people with less.