Liberal Forum

Summary:  Old guy and other UK *** object to inheritance tax.  

Old guy says, "I have no objection to paying tax,..."

And there's your problem.  If you give up the principle, you're just haggling over price.

‘I’ve worked my whole life and paid my taxes — now they want more’ (msn.com)
 

LincolnNebraska » 05 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:12 pm

Summary:  Old guy and other UK *** object to inheritance tax.  

Old guy says, "I have no objection to paying tax,..."

And there's your problem.  If you give up the principle, you're just haggling over price.

‘I’ve worked my whole life and paid my taxes — now they want more’ (msn.com)

Here's a question for you.  Do you believe in any inheritance tax? 
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm

Here's a question for you.  Do you believe in any inheritance tax?

Oh, come on.    

LincolnNebraska » 05 Jun 2023, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:44 pm

Oh, come on.  

Ok, I'll take that as an emphatic "no".  So, ponder this for a moment.  Are you ok with:

• People who are able for whatever reason, to amass hundreds of millions of dollars or more setting up a Dynasty entity to allow their children and lineage on down the blood line to live off of the massive trust without ever doing a bit of work
• Families who become wealthy enough to set up a kingdom inside of a country
• With the ability for such entities to grow without any check or balance whatsoever.

And, let's say, just for argument sake, that these families are all named Shapiro, Goldstein and Cohen.
 
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm

Ok, I'll take that as an emphatic "no".  So, ponder this for a moment.  Are you ok with:

• People who are able for whatever reason, to amass hundreds of millions of dollars or more setting up a Dynasty entity to allow their children and lineage on down the blood line to live off of the massive trust without ever doing a bit of work
• Families who become wealthy enough to set up a kingdom inside of a country
• With the ability for such entities to grow without any check or balance whatsoever.

And, let's say, just for argument sake, that these families are all named Shapiro, Goldstein and Cohen.

"without ever doing a bit of work"  lol  

You sound like the mirror image of a lib,
 

LincolnNebraska » 05 Jun 2023, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:59 pm

"without ever doing a bit of work"  lol 

 

I don't get the "lol"?

You sound like the mirror image of a lib

I'm not sure what the mirror image of a lib is.  But, I do note that you don't seem to want to discuss your topic.
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 3:01 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:01 pm

I don't get the "lol"?

I'm not sure what the mirror image of a lib is.  But, I do note that you don't seem to want to discuss your topic.

LOL for your view of the people who supposedly never do "a bit of work."
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm

Here's a question for you.  Do you believe in any inheritance tax?

Here's an answer for you.  No!
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm

And, let's say, just for argument sake, that these families are all named Shapiro, Goldstein and Cohen.

Except they're not all named that.    
 

ConsRule » 05 Jun 2023, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:09 pm

Here's an answer for you.  No!

Me:  Hey, Joe.  I'm not eating this candy bar.  Here ya go!

Joe: How much tax do I owe on that?

LincolnNebraska » 05 Jun 2023, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:10 pm

Except they're not all named that.  

So?

I guess I have to ask again.  Do you believe families should be able to amass wealth without any check or balance?
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:13 pm

So?

I guess I have to ask again.  Do you believe families should be able to amass wealth without any check or balance?

Yes...as long as how they amass said wealth is through legal means.  Someone amassing a huge net worth does not stop you from amassing your own personal wealth.  It isn't a zero sum game.  People (not saying you are) need to stop being jealous over what others have.

However, I would eliminate the "free" step up in basis of asset that happens upon death. 
 

ConsRule » 05 Jun 2023, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:20 pm

Yes...as long as how they amass said wealth is through legal means.  Someone amassing a huge net worth does not stop you from amassing your own personal wealth.  It isn't a zero sum game.  People (not saying you are) need to stop being jealous over what others have.

However, I would eliminate the "free" step up in basis of asset that happens upon death.

First, I am not jealous over what others have.  That really does not matter to me. 

But, I find it interesting that you would eliminate the "free" step-up in basis of an asset that transfers upon death.  So, you are not a purist when it comes to taxing wealth.  Some forms of wealth are ok to be taxed.

But, let's say that you eliminate the death tax (state and federal) but also eliminate the step-up basis on death.  How are smart wealthy people going to side-step that step-up basis problem?  I'll tell you how they will do it:

• First, no more "growth" investments. 
• Next, only invest in dividend investments.  These would be companies with high dividend growth rates and high pay-out ratios. Sure, you will be taxed on the dividend income, but what's left over will be plowed right back into buying more shares.   More shares = more income, and the "nest of investments" can grow to infinity (theoretically) from generation to generation.
• Dynasties get richer, and working class people are priced out of ever being able to afford these types of investments. Why?  Because Trillionaire dynasties will price them out.  Don't believe me? Berkshire Hathaway Inc. - Class A NYSE: BRK.AAs of June 5, 2023 • 3:59 PM EDT$499,088.98 / Share

 
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:46 pm

First, I am not jealous over what others have.  That really does not matter to me. 

But, I find it interesting that you would eliminate the "free" step-up in basis of an asset that transfers upon death.  So, you are not a purist when it comes to taxing wealth.  Some forms of wealth are ok to be taxed.

But, let's say that you eliminate the death tax (state and federal) but also eliminate the step-up basis on death.  How are smart wealthy people going to side-step that step-up basis problem?  I'll tell you how they will do it:

• First, no more "growth" investments. 
• Next, only invest in dividend investments.  These would be companies with high dividend growth rates and high pay-out ratios. Sure, you will be taxed on the dividend income, but what's left over will be plowed right back into buying more shares.   More shares = more income, and the "nest of investments" can grow to infinity (theoretically) from generation to generation.
• Dynasties get richer, and working class people are priced out of ever being able to afford these types of investments. Why?  Because Trillionaire dynasties will price them out.  Don't believe me? Berkshire Hathaway Inc. - Class A NYSE: BRK.AAs of June 5, 2023 • 3:59 PM EDT$499,088.98 / Share

Point of order...I didn't say YOU were jealous.

With the exception of bonds, virtually every investment is a "growth" investment.  Publicly traded companies see their stock prices change daily.  And I don't care if "dynasties" get richer.  The stock price you mentioned has no bearing on anyone else amassing personal wealth.  Nobody has the constitutional right to own stock in a particular company. If you can't afford the stock of one company...tough ****.  Buy stock in something else. 

The wealthy paid taxes on the money they used to purchase their investments.  They pay taxes on the dividends.  They (or the corporation) paid taxes on the income generated each year by the business. They pay taxes when they have to sell (or trade in barter) stocks...I'm sure you've heard of capital gains.  Real estate holdings pay property taxes on their assessed values (something else I would eliminate). Death SHOULD NOT BE a taxable event...and having the step-up in basis creates a "gain" for the person who died.  I don't think someone should be forced to sell the family business because their parent died...and that often happens because of the increase in basis.  Take an extreme example. In 1989 Jerry Jones paid $140 million for the Dallas Cowboys and the corporation that owned the exclusive rights to Texas Stadium.  Today, the Dallas Cowboys are valued at $5.6 billion (Jerry is worth $13.1 billion). Those amounts aren't in cash sitting in some bank account. Is it right for the Jones family being forced to sell assets to cover $1.6 billion in tax when there was no financial transaction, simply because their hard work caused the value of one asset to increase?

 
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 3:46 pm

First, I am not jealous over what others have.  That really does not matter to me. 

But, I find it interesting that you would eliminate the "free" step-up in basis of an asset that transfers upon death.  So, you are not a purist when it comes to taxing wealth.  Some forms of wealth are ok to be taxed.

But, let's say that you eliminate the death tax (state and federal) but also eliminate the step-up basis on death.  How are smart wealthy people going to side-step that step-up basis problem?  I'll tell you how they will do it:

• First, no more "growth" investments. 
• Next, only invest in dividend investments.  These would be companies with high dividend growth rates and high pay-out ratios. Sure, you will be taxed on the dividend income, but what's left over will be plowed right back into buying more shares.   More shares = more income, and the "nest of investments" can grow to infinity (theoretically) from generation to generation.
• Dynasties get richer, and working class people are priced out of ever being able to afford these types of investments. Why?  Because Trillionaire dynasties will price them out.  Don't believe me? Berkshire Hathaway Inc. - Class A NYSE: BRK.AAs of June 5, 2023 • 3:59 PM EDT$499,088.98 / Share

I own 6 shares (in my fantasy portfolio), how many do you own?
 

ConsRule » 05 Jun 2023, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 4:24 pm

Point of order...I didn't say YOU were jealous.

With the exception of bonds, virtually every investment is a "growth" investment.  Publicly traded companies see their stock prices change daily.  And I don't care if "dynasties" get richer.  The stock price you mentioned has no bearing on anyone else amassing personal wealth.  Nobody has the constitutional right to own stock in a particular company. If you can't afford the stock of one company...tough ****.  Buy stock in something else.

You entirely missed the point.  If you eliminate the step-up basis in favor of eliminating all estate taxes, people (and companies) will quickly figure out how to game that system.  "Oh, ok, no more step-up basis, well then, I'll just invest in companies that pay dividends, have dividend growth and higher pay-out ratios."  CEO "Yes, we will structure the company so that the Wealthy can create dynasties and pay minimal taxes".

The wealthy paid taxes on the money they used to purchase their investments.

Yes, yes, I am very well aware of that.  They already paid taxes on the money they used  to purchase a package of bubble gum paying more tax on that earned money too.  And, they already paid taxes on that money they need to use to pay property taxes. 

They pay taxes on the dividends.

I said that, didn't I?  Example: Let's put $1,000,000 into a mutual fund called QYLD.  QYLD has an annual (paid monthly) dividend yield of 11.48% and after-tax yield of .0723% (.1143 x .37) (highest tax rate).  If I put this investment into an entity that will last forever - generations upon generations, let's see what happens:

• After Year 1 - My investment = $1,114,800
• After Year 10 - $2,025,881.93 - actually a little more than that because of more precise compounding
• After Year 30 - $14,489,505.96  -
• After Year 50 - 43,000,000 - Most people would be dead by now and any amount over $22,000,000 would be taxed at something like 40% BUT....
• After Year 60 (year 10 after kid inherits) - $128,000,000
• After Year 70 (year 20 after kid inherits) - Somewhere north of $500,000,000

I think you get the point.  If stupid 'ol me could figure this out and game it in the time it took for me to write this, this would hyper accelerate the wealth gap between the extremely wealthy and those who can't even afford to buy an ear of corn.
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 5:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 5:03 pm

You entirely missed the point.  If you eliminate the step-up basis in favor of eliminating all estate taxes, people (and companies) will quickly figure out how to game that system.  "Oh, ok, no more step-up basis, well then, I'll just invest in companies that pay dividends, have dividend growth and higher pay-out ratios."  CEO "Yes, we will structure the company so that the Wealthy can create dynasties and pay minimal taxes".

Yes, yes, I am very well aware of that.  They already paid taxes on the money they used  to purchase a package of bubble gum paying more tax on that earned money too.  And, they already paid taxes on that money they need to use to pay property taxes. 

I said that, didn't I?  Example: Let's put $1,000,000 into a mutual fund called QYLD.  QYLD has an annual (paid monthly) dividend yield of 11.48% and after-tax yield of .0723% (.1143 x .37) (highest tax rate).  If I put this investment into an entity that will last forever - generations upon generations, let's see what happens:

• After Year 1 - My investment = $1,114,800
• After Year 10 - $2,025,881.93 - actually a little more than that because of more precise compounding
• After Year 30 - $14,489,505.96  -
• After Year 50 - 43,000,000 - Most people would be dead by now and any amount over $22,000,000 would be taxed at something like 40% BUT....
• After Year 60 (year 10 after kid inherits) - $128,000,000
• After Year 70 (year 20 after kid inherits) - Somewhere north of $500,000,000

I think you get the point.  If stupid 'ol me could figure this out and game it in the time it took for me to write this, this would hyper accelerate the wealth gap between the extremely wealthy and those who can't even afford to buy an ear of corn.

The flaw in your logic...that you apparently refuse to recognize...it that investments (even mutual funds) are eventually sold.  Use your example, at some point between year 30 or 50, the owner of that mutual fund will probably want to retire...maybe travel...maybe purchase vacation property...maybe do something crazy like eat and pay their bills.  Money withdrawn from that fund is available because investments were SOLD.  The mutual fund hasn't had cash sitting in a bank account.  That sale generates capital gains...which are taxed.  When the sucker dies, maybe the kids (who already own a home) don't need another home...so they sale either the one they just inherited or they one they currently live in.  Damn...capital gains, more taxes. 

Why should a child be forced to sell the 445 acre farm (that is the average size...ranches are slightly larger on average) because dear old dad died? I notice you keep dodging that question.
 

Skans » 05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 2:43 pm

Here's a question for you.  Do you believe in any inheritance tax?

It is the least troublesome type of tax possible. The person paying it cannot take his money with him.
An inheritance tax is a good way to prevent a huge portion of a country's wealth to belong to a few people who did nothing to earn it.
Do you want wicked George Soros to pass his billions on to his heirs, or don't you?

ROG62 » 05 Jun 2023, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 4:35 pm

I own 6 shares (in my fantasy portfolio), how many do you own?

Berkshire A?  None. I don't own any A or B shares. I had a very wealthy friend tell me to buy Berkshire A shares back in the 1990's.  I believe they were selling for 30K / share then.  Truth be told, Apple and Microsoft outperformed Berkshire. In fact, I believe that 40% of Berkshire's portfolio is now Apple.  Still, I would have been smart to buy one A Share.  It would have entitled me to attend the annual shareholder's meeting - and that would have been worth it.  

ConsRule » 05 Jun 2023, 5:17 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2023, 5:17 pm

The flaw in your logic...that you apparently refuse to recognize...it that investments (even mutual funds) are eventually sold.  Use your example, at some point between year 30 or 50, the owner of that mutual fund will probably want to retire...maybe travel...maybe purchase vacation property...maybe do something crazy like eat and pay their bills. 
 

LOL.  No.  It would be held in something like a Dynasty Trust.  He can suck the Trust-Titty and STFU.  And, when he dies, his kids will get an even fatter lick at the milk-stuffed titty.  Why?  Because it will never be sold.  It will just keep throwing off dividend cash and re-investing part of the dividend to continually grow the income stream. I've already accounted for income tax.  

So, you will have the haves and the have-nots.  The haves are the smart ones who figured out how to game the system as soon as the gooberment went to a no inheritance tax/ no step-up basis system. The have nots are the ones scraping to buy an ear of corn.

Why should a child be forced to sell the 445 acre farm (that is the average size...ranches are slightly larger on average) because dear old dad died? I notice you keep dodging that question.

The child can sell off the development rights.  Go look into this, its real and it's what happens so that the land can remain a farm.