81–90 of 504 posts
>Let's assume the asset appreciates at an annual rate of 8 percent Quite a lot of value creation going on. Good on them!
What value creation? This could just be a simple Vanguard S&P 500 ETF like everyone else's.
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…
More or less having to do that would be good for society and mildly annoying for the like five dozen existing corporate dynasties on the planet.
Is this partly why so many billionaires own things like mega-yachts? Presumably they aren't all avid yacht enthusiasts, no? For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of money. So much that he can buy a mega-yacht and it not really affect him financially. But, he could buy lots of things that don't affect him financially, and he chooses not to do so. I always assumed that acquiring a massively valued asset like a yacht t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell the idea was to make sure people would have to sell the family farm or house to pay taxes on unrealized gains on inheritance. It makes no sense to apply that to financial assets.
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".
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?
I'm not talking about the wealthy people that have 100% of their wealth tied up to company (stock) that they operate - but the wealthy people that are just asset-rich, with zero operational duties.
Their wealth is handled by wealth managers, they probably don't even know what they own. But minimizing taxes and hoarding wealth is priority number 1.
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…
Is this partly why so many billionaires own things like mega-yachts? Presumably they aren't all avid yacht enthusiasts, no? For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of money. So much that he can buy a mega-yacht and it not really affect him financially. But, he could buy lots of things that don't affect him financially, and he chooses not to do so. I always assumed that acquiring a massively valued asset like a yacht t…
If this is accurate, it finally explains something I've been asking about for years: The loan is paid back after the step-up in basis. That's the loophole. If the loan was paid back before step-up, the estate would still have to pay capital gains tax.
Presuming you can continue to service your debt payments as interest rates and your income varies over time, and are never subject to a margin call due to a drop in the value of your collateral, something even the most powerful are at risk of: https://www.ft.com/content/cf78d815-7ade-40fc-a68d-ec73accb7...
It’s not really any different than what the average American family does with their home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean if you RTFA, and take it at face value, it was posted by a lawyer who has been doing this for 20+ years for hundreds of clients. If it's a fake post, someone put a lot of time into making it convincing? They cite tax law and precedent cases etc.. I have not personally validated any of it myself though.
Why would anyone take anything at face value posted on reddit? So this one random lawyer on reddit has hundreds of clients with a net worth of $300M+? Or, they're LARPing. I wonder which is more likely.
Could this guy be LARPing? Sure.
I looked up a few of the references, they look accurate. They would need to be an excellent LARPer to get that detailed. Or they actually know what they are talking about.
I can't read reddit anymore because I always get "Your request has been blocked due to a network policy. Try logging in or creating an account here to get back to browsing." Any way to bypass this?
or host a private instance.