Live data from Hacker News

Who died and left the US $7B?

sherwood.news

221–230 of 589 posts

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

#221
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a funny argument the one about the family farm. In this case it's not even about inheritance tax. It's a sob story about a guy who couldn't inherit the farm because his dad owed the state money because they had let him not pay tax on his capital gains for a long time. Sorry for not tearing up.

You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's…

[dead]

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxes are also money invested, in schooling, infrastructure, etc. Not presently. Most tax dollars are spent elsewhere and infrastructure/education get less than 7%: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder... Even that spending is not effective. Drive California roads and you’ll often see fixes that aren’t much better than the damaged roads they replaced. And let’s not talk about our wonderful t…

Most tax dollars go to social security, health (including medicare) interest and defence. So on the one hand, very little of that is infrastructure. Mostly it seems to go on "keeping people alive". Now sure, the govt could invest the money instead, and let a bunch of (mostly old) people die. In our "money" equation, old people have little practical value (and there's no line in our fiscal analysis for measuring our h…

Nevertheless, welfare for olds is in no way an investment when those same individuals have reached the end of their productive years and have a decade or two to live. The point was that calling taxes "an investment" is largely untrue when most tax dollars don't go to anything of the sort.

Social security and medicare are not means-tested in any way whatsoever. In fact, they are massive welfare programs that make our budget structurally unsustainable to give money to the demographic that has had the most time to build up wealth and assets. Around one-third of all US wealth is held by Americans over seventy years old. Perhaps instead of an estate tax, we should explore having those well-off seniors use their savings and home equity instead of demanding government funds. Not to mention decades of subsidizing housing demand has drastically inflated housing prices, and younger Americans are now paying many of these retirees several times what those properties went for decades ago, an increase well in excess of inflation. In other words, through multiple channels, the young are being sucked dry by the old, despite the fact that the old hold a huge chunk of wealth.

I'd also point out old people are a terrible way to feed money back into the economy. They are generally the last people to adopt any innovation outside medicine, so increasing their share of spending draws dollars away from new innovation and towards constructing bingo halls. That has a caustic effect on our long-term economic outlook.

There will of course be the poor grandmother whom we don't want eating dog food. I doubt anyone disagrees with you on that. Let's just not pretend all of them need the checks they presently receive.

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

#223
post #191
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 ... Yes, people get angry about this, but no one has provided any statistics showing this is actually a common loophole. The basic idea in the reddit post is that there were lenders giving multi-decade loans at a tiny interest rate (only payable upon death with also sharing a % share of the gains). Maybe there are lenders who have lots of capital and also don't understand…

I'm very much on your side of the argument but it's common practice. It's not like you can walk into a bank tomorrow and ask for that sort of thing, but for a HNW customer who makes use of lots of private banking services it's routine.

I'm not Bezos or part of his family office so I can't say for sure. My guess would be a mixture of capital demands elsewhere (Blue Origin?) and a desire to diversify. Start-up founders necessarily keep all their eggs in one basket; people building a multi-generational fortune don't.

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

#224
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…

So you create a startup.

- The first year it has 10k€ ARR.

- So it is worth 100k€. You must my pay 30k€ in capital gains taxes.

Like this, every year? Every time it has more revenue, it multiplies its future worth, therefore multiplies it FMV, therefore you must pay the CG on the multiple of your income?

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

#225
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a funny argument the one about the family farm. In this case it's not even about inheritance tax. It's a sob story about a guy who couldn't inherit the farm because his dad owed the state money because they had let him not pay tax on his capital gains for a long time. Sorry for not tearing up.

You can't just arbitrarily set the status quo that way, can't just sneak a premise that the state has default a right to collect a piece of arbitrary appreciation on an asset (as all assets are used for speculation) when the owner hasn't actually gotten cash from that, and that any government that doesn't tax that is just cutting someone a break on something rightfully owed. The state of nature is no tax, and as it's…

> The state of nature is no tax

> You don't get to argue from the point that your preferred taxation regime is simply how things should be

Those two statements seem mildly contradictory.

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

#226
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Help me understand why a family farm would have such an issue if the owner-operator dies, but Walmart didn't when Sam Walton died? Is it an issue of incorporation/business structure?

Leaving aside the fact that Sam Walton was an American and so his assets had no "deemed disposition" upon his death: Walmart is a publicly traded company, so if his heirs inherited a few % less of the company it wouldn't make a big difference.

In the "family farm" (and "family business") scenario, we're talking about private companies -- whether incorporated or not, all the owners are related. If part of such a company needs to be sold off to pay taxes, it would presumably be sold to a someone at arm's length, which would fundamentally change the business structure -- just like running a startup with VC investors is different from running a bootstrapped startup.

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

#227
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…

You missed the obvious one - borrow against the asset to pay the tax.

I mentally bucketed that in "try to find money": if you're not selling equity, debt is one way to do that. But the caveat - less money for R&D, expansion, and employees - still applies.

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you create a startup. - The first year it has 10k€ ARR. - So it is worth 100k€. You must my pay 30k€ in capital gains taxes. Like this, every year? Every time it has more revenue, it multiplies its future worth, therefore multiplies it FMV, therefore you must pay the CG on the multiple of your income?

Only if there is a "deemed disposition". Which in most cases happens when the owner dies.

You probably don't need to worry about this happening multiple times.

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

#229
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…

[flagged]

If the only value you can add to this thread is calling me a clown or a useful idiot, please comment elsewhere. But to seriously respond to what you said, I don't understand how you can have a good faith belief nobody can possibly see the world differently from you. There's quite a lot of downward mobility out of the upper quintiles of wealth in America. "Getting paid for being rich" usually only applies if you're rich and smart and you deploy your assets in an economically productive way. After all, there are more than enough rich people who go back to being poor.

If you refuse to believe anyone who doesn't share your view of class struggle is either stupid or malicious, I don't see why you bother engaging at all.

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

#230
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incidence of taxation is a well-studied concept in economics, with a solid theoretical foundation and empirical evidence backing it. You dismiss its application as a 'silly distinction' and repeat the fallacy that the incidence of taxation falls on the party who is legally liable. If you don't believe me, and don't want to read up on 'tax incidence', consider what would happen if sales tax were paid by retailers…

This is an entirely ridiculous argument. Who actually ‘writes the check’ is actually important in a discussion about who writes the check , despite the fungibility of money. Renters don’t pay the owners property taxes in the US, even if they pay rent. Full stop. Why this matters is because in some cases, owners can end up ‘under water’ with even rent not covering property taxes in the US. In other places, that may no…

No, really, it has been studied, taxes affects both supply and demand. It’s one of the first chapters of any microeconomics book.
Post reply on HN