Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who died and left the US $7B?

sherwood.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 589 posts

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#171

Post by cperciva »

_bin_ wrote: post #162
Jedd wrote: post #94

A fascinating reddit post was mentioned here about a month ago - about the mildly famous (if a little macabre) 'Buy, Borrow, Die' cycle used by the obscenely-wealthy to - multi-generationally - avoid tax obligations. https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41408772

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix.

In Canada, assets are deemed to have been disposed of upon death (or gifting) so the estate pays capital gains taxes on the accrued profit. There are a few exemptions for political reasons, e.g. to allow farmers to pass appreciated farm property to their children tax free, but they're sufficiently limited that they don't cost very much.

Seems like an obvious fix to me -- when the cost basis is stepped up, taxes are due -- and in practice it seems to work pretty well.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#172

Post by _bin_ »

The reference to Piketty with its implication that Sarofim represents some hidden class of billionaires is particularly annoying. He was prolific in Houston's social business scene for decades and married the Brown heiress, who was similarly known (along with her father). He threw some of the best Christmas parties and wasn't exactly a recluse, so I see relatively little reason to connect him to that idea. His son Christopher is very similar. He was worth upwards of the author's estimate but a generally good guy who doesn't really deserve the "evil billionaire" label which the author quietly assigns.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#173

Post by bialpio »

schneems wrote: post #126
mozman wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thanks, I’d rather keep more of my paycheck.

The ultra rich don’t get paychecks. If you’re thinking in terms of “paychecks” you’re not who they are talking about when they say “tax the rich.”

100% this. This reminds me of what my SO says: if you have to work, you are not in the upper class. I don't think I agree with this statement fully (I personally think that top decile by income is already upper class), but I feel like I'm becoming more open to re-evaluating my opinion...

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#174

Post by schmidtleonard »

_bin_ wrote: post #162
Jedd wrote: post #94

A fascinating reddit post was mentioned here about a month ago - about the mildly famous (if a little macabre) 'Buy, Borrow, Die' cycle used by the obscenely-wealthy to - multi-generationally - avoid tax obligations. https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41408772

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

[flagged]

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#175

Post by bialpio »

willcipriano wrote: post #82
mynameishere wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wondered if there was a way to effectively "burn" one's entire wealth, creating a small deflationary event that would increase the value of existing dollars. How could one do this? Donate to the Federal Reserve? Or would you literally have to cash everything out and burn it?

A big part of modern monetary theory is taxing the newly printed money and putting it towards (wasteful) government programs to "burn it" in a sense. Predictably, politicians who support MMT only did the printing part and skipped that bit once inflation started.

That does not feel like burning the money, more like propping up the private sector (naively, government's deficit is going to be private sector's surplus if you don't actually reduce the amount of money in circulation).

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#176

Post by _bin_ »

cperciva wrote: post #171
_bin_ wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. In Canada, assets are deemed to have been disposed of upon death (or gifting) so the estate pays capital gains taxes on the accrued profit. There are a few exemptions for political reasons, e.g. to allow farmers to pass appreciated farm property to their children tax free, but they're sufficiently limited that they don't cost very much…

Family farms are a good example but there are still plenty of others like a family business. I wouldn't care to see an increasing fraction of assets fall into institutional ownership simply because people are taxed out of owning them intergenerationally. There's a massive difference between "the government will tax you for part of your value" and "the government will, over a sufficient time, tax you entirely out of even a growing asset."

If the concern is how much the policy costs the nation, then I don't think that's a sufficient reason to change things either. The top 1% in America hold about 31% of a total $140 trillion, or $43 trillion. This is, in a very optimistic case, around twenty years worth of the current federal deficit. Given the trajectory it's taken over my entire lifetime I find it unlikely it would last more than a decade. If the concern is cost, we have a "money out" problem in the US, not a "money in" one, largely driven by our ballooning mandatory spending (much of which goes to a radically outsized group of old people, whose entitlements neither party will touch despite their outsized ownership of wealth) and the high interest expense that's caused. Even if we outright confiscated every dollar of the 1%'s net worth, that wouldn't represent a remotely sustainable solution. Hence my comment about most of these policies looking more like schadenfreude than a sincere desire to fix things.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#177

Post by [deleted] »

_bin_ wrote: post #162
Jedd wrote: post #94

A fascinating reddit post was mentioned here about a month ago - about the mildly famous (if a little macabre) 'Buy, Borrow, Die' cycle used by the obscenely-wealthy to - multi-generationally - avoid tax obligations. https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41408772

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

[deleted]

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#178

Post by dylan604 »

cycomanic wrote: post #151
dylan604 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my point. It is ridiculous to think that $7b is anything but a drop in the bucket. While $7b is a big number to mere mortals, it is chump change in terms of national debt.

What is your point exactly? That's sort of saying the weight of the heaviest man ever alive (>300 kg) is a drop in the bucket if we compare to the total weight of people in the US, which is true but also completely irrelevant (in fact that comparison actually makes it even clearer how out of proportion the $7B are for a single person).

This person is being called out as unique because they "allowed" this money to be collected rather than doing the normal thing people with this type of money do and find ways to avoid the tax.

So if you're so gung-ho positive we can make a dent in the debt, then why not make sensible comments about making changes so the tax is not so easily avoidable instead of nonsensical fat people comments

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#179

Post by metacritic12 »

_bin_ wrote: post #162
Jedd wrote: post #94

A fascinating reddit post was mentioned here about a month ago - about the mildly famous (if a little macabre) 'Buy, Borrow, Die' cycle used by the obscenely-wealthy to - multi-generationally - avoid tax obligations. https://old.reddit.com/r/BuyBorrowDieExplained/comments/1f26... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41408772

This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. The counterpoint is that this leaves money invested, which means others invest in other things, and still entails interest payments. It exists in part because you don't want someone who inherited his parents' house and wants to move in to go broke trying to pay taxes, or have to re-mortgage it, with an even stronger case with family fa…

The obvious fix is to not step up basis on death.

The estate tax already means that the estate of a person who dies may need to sell / divide / split stuff to pay the government. There already is no fundamental protection for an asset passing unscathed from a parent to a child. I don't see how not stepping up basis qualitatively changes this.

And your argument of "you want a child to be able to inherit a family business / house and keep the family business protected" is incredibly axiomatic and the antithesis of a tax. While it's inherently consistent, you're making the same general argument as "all taxes are theft".

Yes taxes may be theft in one view, but under our current society, raising revenue for the common welfare is also a virtue, so we can't have have it both ways.

Re: Who died and left the US $7B?

#180

Post by [deleted] »

sdenton4 wrote: post #99
mynameishere wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wondered if there was a way to effectively "burn" one's entire wealth, creating a small deflationary event that would increase the value of existing dollars. How could one do this? Donate to the Federal Reserve? Or would you literally have to cash everything out and burn it?

In fact, dragons are important stabilizing influences in dungeon economics. The hoard of gold isn't inflationary until the adventurers liberate it and start buying wands and stuff.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN