121–130 of 504 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be unpopular but I think there are ways that taxing unrealized capital gains could work without being super radical. 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…
Taxing unrealized capital gains already isn't all that radical -- property tax is effectively a tax on unrealized gains of property value, and essentially every municipality has that tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does this puzzle you? It seems like completely expected behavior to me. Most people try to minimize taxes. Who do you know that gladly pays more than they legally have to pay?
I feel like if I were a billionaire or even a multi millionaire, I'd have better things to spend my time doing than worrying about taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be unpopular but I think there are ways that taxing unrealized capital gains could work without being super radical. 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…
Taxing unrealized capital gains already isn't all that radical -- property tax is effectively a tax on unrealized gains of property value, and essentially every municipality has that tax.
Also, there is a real debate to be had about if housing should be primary considered an investment or a basic need by society. Many argue that the focus on housing as an investment in the US is a primary driver of our housing problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does this puzzle you? It seems like completely expected behavior to me. Most people try to minimize taxes. Who do you know that gladly pays more than they legally have to pay?
> Most people try to minimize taxes. I don’t think this is true. Most people pay more in taxes, and receive the pleasure of a refund check come April.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but be careful where you draw the line. In particular, don't draw it between "real estate" and "financial assets". Real estate can easily be a financial asset. Instead, the trick is to draw it between "family farm" and "billionaire who bought 100,000 acres of prime farmland".
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be unpopular but I think there are ways that taxing unrealized capital gains could work without being super radical. 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…
Taxing unrealized capital gains already isn't all that radical -- property tax is effectively a tax on unrealized gains of property value, and essentially every municipality has that tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Isn‘t this a false dichotomy? Removing the cost basis step-up doesn‘t automatically mean any taxes are due on the inheitance - you could just keep the low cost basis and pay the tax once you actually realize your gains.
Is there any indication the ultra rich structure loans like this to avoid taxes? Or is this just a meme that, for the most part, financially illiterate redditors like to throw around?
Yea. They all do it. It's a well known exploitable tax loophole. You have to be rich to even take advantage of this method of tax evasion. This is probably one of the best digestible write ups that I've seen on the topic, I highly recommend just reading it.