We Need a Wealth Tax

[Snake Diggity 4614]

14 minutes ago, Brew said:

I make a solid living dealing with the idiocy of lay people ideas, better known as  tax law passed by Congress. If they will run this through,  me, my valuation partners, trust attorneys I work with, etc are going to do even better. That doesn’t mean it is logical. $50M picks up more people than you know of. I have a number that fall into that category that all have very complicated personal financials. They don’t own $100M in publicly traded stock we can look up on Yahoo.

I agree with you, although I think you’re kinda bein a dick about it.  Only thing I’d question is why valuations for the living would be a different process than what is done to value the estate of someone who just died.

Are QBI and Capital Gains the transactions by which most super-wealthy people generate their wealth?  If so then I agree that is where this idea should steer.  I also think the estate tax should play a key role.  I personally think generational wealth is the real problem, not individuals who’ve built their own.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Snake Diggity

[Brew 3044]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Good to see you’re working in your clients best interests in this thread. Very noble. 

Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. I started off in this thread with tax increases that would bring in significant revenue. The changes I mentioned alone would run circles around the numbers from this. I paid an effective rate of 2/3’s what I paid pre Trump on more income. That’s stupid. I’m not arguing for less tax, I’m arguing for simplification. Scrap the whole code and flat/progressive tax it with no deductions for all I care, let’s just not complicate it further.

Complication allows for abuse.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Brew

[Sbbruin 21697]

6 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

 I also think the estate tax should play a key role.  I personally think generational wealth is the real problem, not individuals who’ve built their own.

So let's say I spend a lifetime building up a large estate.  The people who matter to me most, my children, are who I worked to provide for.  I shouldn't be able to pass that on to my kids? 

[Snake Diggity 4614]

5 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

So let's say I spend a lifetime building up a large estate.  The people who matter to me most, my children, are who I worked to provide for.  I shouldn't be able to pass that on to my kids? 

Yes, but in order to avoid the kind of increased inequality we have seen, there needs to be a limit.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Snake Diggity

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

I’m still waiting on your response to the questions I’ve put forth and you have responded with a kid’s video and it can be done. As far as the rest of the world, to my knowledge the use of a true wealth tax has dropped over the years. Very few actually use a flat net worth calculation. 

I’m telling you it’s stupid because there are much simpler ways to raise the funds which I’ve laid out a few of above and the complication of trying to do it in practice.

I don’t have any allegiance to a specific policy proposal.  The wealth tax makes sense to me b/c it applies only to the absurdly wealthy and not a broad policy.  The problem isn’t about increasing revenue as you’re framing it.  The problem is wealth inequality.

Yeah sure, repeal the tax cuts, do other incremental measures with capital gains and estate taxes.  Knock yourself out but I’m not sure how those are wholesale solutions to wealth inequality or uplifting people out of poverty.  The spirit of the wealth tax is to create more opportunities for people at the bottom by taking exclusively from the very top.  If there’s a better way to do that than the wealth tax, I’m all for it. 

[Brew 3044]

5 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I agree with you, although I think you’re kinda bein a dick about it.  Only thing I’d question is why valuations for the living would be a different process than what is done to value the estate of someone who just died.

Are QBI and Capital Gains the transactions by which most super-wealthy people generate their wealth?  If so then I agree that is where this idea should steer.  I also think the estate tax should play a key role.  I personally think generational wealth is the real problem, not individuals who’ve built their own.

I’m being a dick because Hugo is completely misrepresenting my posts and not answering the questions. 

On your estate question, I brought it up on the last page. In an estate situation we have to hire appraisers to value each piece of real estate as well as personal property, business valuation experts to value business holdings, etc. A lot of the personal effects end up getting valued in a sale. Real estate appraisals range from $400-several thousand per property, business valuations range from $2k-$10k+ per business, my fees range from $7500 up to do the return. Not to mention the fact that you can hire 5 guys to do the valuation portion and get 5 different numbers. There is no way to fairly value those assets and everyone be treated the same and pay the same.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

A wealth tax would create a bureaucratic nightmare not to mention that effectively everyone would have to annually report what they have/own to the IRS.  It wouldn't be enough to create a self-reporting system, the IRS would need the ability to monitor and track all assets. You're a rich person that owns art? Great, the IRS gets to value your art collection every April to decide the current market rate.  We need to know every piece of jewelry in the entire country and who owns it. They would also value every piece of real estate and you can't use local valuations. The IRS will create their own appraisal process.

It's easy to say let's create a tax that only impacts people who have over $50m in assets. There's no magical list of these people. 

A better first step is to tax dividends and capital gains at normal income rates.  The initial argument against is that it reduces the next round of investment that creates jobs. But it doesn't create fewer jobs any more than middle class taxes creating fewer jobs since they have less money to spend.

[softlynow 1774]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s a good point.  It’s not like a billionaire jumped into the Presidential race when he thought Biden might not win the nomination. 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Yes, but in order to avoid the kind of increased inequality we have seen, there needs to be a limit.

Inequality of results bothers you eh?

Fuck you for thinking somebody gets to determine a level of wealth for achieving your social experiment.   Life doesn’t work that way, nor should it.
 

Equality applies to justice and the opportunity to get off one’s ass and make it happen.   It’s more difficult for some people.   Boo-fuckin-hoo.  It never has meant we should all have the same stuff.

[Snake Diggity 4614]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

Inequality of results bothers you eh?

Fuck you for thinking somebody gets to determine a level of wealth for achieving your social experiment.   Life doesn’t work that way, nor should it.
 

Equality applies to justice and the opportunity to get off one’s ass and make it happen.   It’s more difficult for some people.   Boo-fuckin-hoo.  It never has meant we should all have the same stuff.

No, fuck you, guy.

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

So let's say I spend a lifetime building up a large estate.  The people who matter to me most, my children, are who I worked to provide for.  I shouldn't be able to pass that on to my kids? 

That's why I don't like a death tax, you already paid taxes on it. When does it become your property to give? Apparently, never.

[wildcat09 29187]

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

Inequality of results bothers you eh?

Fuck you for thinking somebody gets to determine a level of wealth for achieving your social experiment.   Life doesn’t work that way, nor should it.
 

Equality applies to justice and the opportunity to get off one’s ass and make it happen.   It’s more difficult for some people.   Boo-fuckin-hoo.  It never has meant we should all have the same stuff.

If you want to worship royalty you can move to England.

[elfenix 34168]

14 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

you already paid taxes on it

your beneficiaries didn't.  it's income to them.

[softlynow 1774]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

That's why I don't like a death tax, you already paid taxes on it. When does it become your property to give? Apparently, never.

The bolded would make sense if the estate tax ever was 100%, or was being proposed at 100%. The average rate paid by estates hit by the tax is around 15-20% even when the marginal rate was 40%.

It shouldn't be a major part of tax reform, in any event. It doesn't raise the kinds of funds needed, nor is it a major way to keep inequality in check. First, the corporate tax needs to return to the point it raises as much or close as the individual income tax. Second, the capital gains tax needs to be treated the same as ordinary income. Third, marginal rates need to go down to zero at the poverty line (with the refundable EITC only applying to half the FICA collected up to the poverty line, leave some "skin in the game"), up a bit above the poverty line, and a new higher rate needs to be introduced at double the top current rate (say 46% on $1,036,802+ single, and on $1,244,102 married filing jointly). Finally I would raise standard deduction 5-10% over its current level, and jettison every other deduction except those dealing with catastrophes.

[Macanudo 12922]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

So let's say I spend a lifetime building up a large estate.  The people who matter to me most, my children, are who I worked to provide for.  I shouldn't be able to pass that on to my kids? 

Jeff Bezos' kids should be able to live on a few millions not billions, dont you think?

[Sbbruin 21697]

10 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Jeff Bezos' kids should be able to live on a few millions not billions, dont you think?

Yes, but does that mean his heirs should get whatever, $100 mil each, and the government should get the remaining $200 billion or whatever it will be?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

No one credible is saying that we need legislated equal results for everyone so everyone needs to stop that strawman argument. 

The problem is that wealth inequality keeps getting worse and worse every year. There are zero signs it will plateau or reverse itself. And what does anyone think will occur when the top 1% owns or has >90% of the wealth?  History shows that wealth inequality never works out well. First it's bad for the poor and in one sudden point, it gets bad for the wealthy.

Here is a problem with capitalism and inequality today. At some point, someone will start, or has started a company, that will eliminate the need for many of the truck drivers in this country. We will reward that person by making them a billionaire many times over. 100s of thousands of truck drivers are now out of work but 1 man/woman/group gets ~100B in wealth that will only sporadically get taxed as capital gains.  Yes, those out of work truck drivers should take upon themselves to retrain or "find something new" but that doesn't occur much in the real world. Retraining mature work forces has high failure rates.

14 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That's why I don't like a death tax, you already paid taxes on it. When does it become your property to give? Apparently, never.

I think it's a false argument that estate/death taxes are double taxing wealth. A large amount of wealth in this country has NEVER been taxed. How much of Bezos' $180B has been taxed?  As a percentage of his wealth, how much has he been taxed? Maybe 1%.  Potentially much less.

[Sbbruin 21697]

16 minutes ago, elfenix said:

your beneficiaries didn't.  it's income to them.

It is nevertheless taxed twice.  And I'm not sayin gthere shouldn't be an estate tax over a certain threshold.  It is currently $11 mil.  That seems about right.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

5 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

It is nevertheless taxed twice.  And I'm not sayin gthere shouldn't be an estate tax over a certain threshold.  It is currently $11 mil.  That seems about right.

In some cases it might be taxed twice but for many estates, the estate tax is the FIRST time that wealth was ever taxed.  There are definite exceptions but if that is the problem, then let's address that problem as opposed to rejecting the whole concept. And I can read that you're not rejecting the estate taxes outright.

People with an interest in eliminating estate/death taxes always bring out some elderly farmer, how he's lives a simple life and only wants to leave his farm to his children without taxation. That is .001% of estate tax scenarios.  fine, let's carve out an exception for lifetime farmers who leave a farm to children as long as they personally work the farm.

[wildcat09 29187]

15 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Yes, but does that mean his heirs should get whatever, $100 mil each, and the government should get the remaining $200 billion or whatever it will be?

Yes.

[elfenix 34168]

16 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

It is nevertheless taxed twice.  And I'm not sayin gthere shouldn't be an estate tax over a certain threshold.  It is currently $11 mil.  That seems about right.

ok lets get rid of it and tell the heirs they need to pay income tax on it. 

 

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

People with an interest in eliminating estate/death taxes always bring out some elderly farmer, how he's lives a simple life and only wants to leave his farm to his children without taxation.

my favorite one of those bullshit scenarios was the rooneys losing control of the pittsburgh steelers.  as if there was no way to figure out how to pay taxes using a money printing machine. 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by elfenix

[hayden_horn 11360]

47 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

That's why I don't like a death tax, you already paid taxes on it. When does it become your property to give? Apparently, never.

what happens when you buy groceries or food at a restaurant? that money you spend is taxed. nearly every non-private transaction in this country is taxed at some rate. why would wealth transfer enjoy some special exclusion? my mother was a very successful person, and i'll probably get an inheritance of some kind when she passes (god forbid). it won't be life-changing, but i'm sure it wouldn't be peanuts either. i see no problem paying taxes on that income i would receive, and it's unclear to me why others don't view that transfer of money as magically non-taxable income. 

[Bateshorn 9882]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

So let's say I spend a lifetime building up a large estate.  The people who matter to me most, my children, are who I worked to provide for.  I shouldn't be able to pass that on to my kids? 

Sure.  They just need to pay the tax on it now that it's there's and not yours. We've been over this repeatedly:  There  is nothing inherently wrong with double taxation.  We double tax stuff all. the. time. You're House, Savings, Car, etc. etc. etc.   The estate tax isn't actually double taxation:  It's a one time transfer tax.  After that the various components of your estate will be subject to the same annual taxes the federal, state, and locality would have done whether the assets were in your name, or your children's name. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Brew 3044]

11 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

It is nevertheless taxed twice.  And I'm not sayin gthere shouldn't be an estate tax over a certain threshold.  It is currently $11 mil.  That seems about right.

Large parts of it are not taxed twice. The person that died had not paid taxes on the unrealized appreciation so the estate tax taxes that appreciation and gives the beneficiary the stepped up basis. I have zero problem with an estate tax. I do have an issue with an estate having to potentially liquidate a business interest to pay the tax, but proper planning can cover that. We can’t keep the estate tax in the middle of political tennis. We need a fixed structure that doesn’t change constantly. If I have a $50M business I need to be able to plan for how to deal with the estate tax.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

5 hours ago, Brew said:

No kids, just go the private foundation / charitable route. No reason to blow it on the government.

Already the plan.  But it’s not all set.  If we had kids it would be.  When you sell there’s better ways to do it and our plan is on the second bite of the apple.  
The FA is like if you both pass now it will be a disaster w taxes.  I’m like if we both pass now we give zero fucks, pal.  

[Sbbruin 21697]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

No one credible is saying that we need legislated equal results for everyone so everyone needs to stop that strawman argument. 

The problem is that wealth inequality keeps getting worse and worse every year. There are zero signs it will plateau or reverse itself. And what does anyone think will occur when the top 1% owns or has >90% of the wealth?  History shows that wealth inequality never works out well. First it's bad for the poor and in one sudden point, it gets bad for the wealthy.

Here is a problem with capitalism and inequality today. At some point, someone will start, or has started a company, that will eliminate the need for many of the truck drivers in this country. We will reward that person by making them a billionaire many times over. 100s of thousands of truck drivers are now out of work but 1 man/woman/group gets ~100B in wealth that will only sporadically get taxed as capital gains.  Yes, those out of work truck drivers should take upon themselves to retrain or "find something new" but that doesn't occur much in the real world. Retraining mature work forces has high failure rates.

I think it's a false argument that estate/death taxes are double taxing wealth. A large amount of wealth in this country has NEVER been taxed. How much of Bezos' $180B has been taxed?  As a percentage of his wealth, how much has he been taxed? Maybe 1%.  Potentially much less.

The poor can do better at their own hand, as opposed to tax credits or whatnot.  That ain't no strawman, brah.

 

And you hate it that you don't get a cut at all of that Bezos money, don't you?   Who the fuck are those people to control it?   Let the state piss it away...

Edited July 17, 2020 by slorch

[Brew 3044]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Already the plan.  But it’s not all set.  If we had kids it would be.  When you sell there’s better ways to do it and our plan is on the second bite of the apple.  
The FA is like if you both pass now it will be a disaster w taxes.  I’m like if we both pass now we give zero fucks, pal.  

I haven’t worked with anyone that we couldn’t plan around estate tax issues for. The issue is the constantly moving target. I do have one client who’s plan is basically the kids can just pay the tax, but those have been few and far between.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

13 minutes ago, slorch said:

Who the fuck are those people to control it?   Let the state piss it away...

Yeah I think we can all agree the government can be a shitload better about cutting waste etc. That’s a never ending battle.  Too many special interests in Congress.  And they’re all in I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine.  Term limits would be huge.  

Edited July 17, 2020 by ChiTownDoc

[Brew 3044]

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

The poor can do better at their own hand, as opposed to tax credits or whatnot.  That ain't no strawman, brah.

 

And you hate it that you don't get a cut at all of that Bezos money, don't you?   Who the fuck are those people to control it?   Let the state piss it away...

I could give a flip about what Bezos has but NGE is correct that the majority of what he has probably has not been taxed. If it goes into a foundation like some of the other ultra wealthy then it’s never taxed. That’s not even looking at wealth transfer to children. It’s not equitable and needs more work.

[Telegraph_it 3353]

This has been an enjoyable thread. Hugo disagreeing with Brew is quite good. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re just trying to complicate something that doesn’t need to be complicated. 

You audit someone’s assets, and you send them a bill.  It’s amazing we know how much all these rich guys are worth but all of a sudden it’s impossible to quantify for tax purposes?  

Brew raises excellent points.  And I tend to take him at his word because he offers the best tax advice on this site and obviously has a pretty solid accounting practice.

The IRS would not be competent to "audit someone's assets."  They're barely competent to audit tax returns, which basically means they spot check the data behind reported income and deductions and credits.  They rarely, if ever, independently determine anything.  They look at what the taxpayer presents and see if it fits the rules and isn't inconsistent with something else the taxpayer presented in another context.

They couldn't begin to marshal, account for, and value the assets of a multi-millionaire.

It is an appealing idea in a sort of Che Guevara way, but the reality might be quite a mess.

"We" don't know how much they're worth.  Journalists make educated guesses how much they're worth.

Give someone a potentially multi-million dollar annual tax bill, they can afford a shit ton of shenanigans to avoid it.  We already know this very well.

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Give someone a potentially multi-million dollar annual tax bill, they can afford a shit ton of shenanigans to avoid it.  We already know this very well.

I got frustrated, I didn’t want to get into the weeds of it b/c that would distract from the problem/solution and spirit of the idea.  It’s also challenging to argue for an idea that hasn’t been attempted with someone coming right out of the gate to shoot it down.  It’s like arguing with someone in the 1950s about the feasibility of putting a man on the moon. You can’t win those debates.

The Warren plan has a lot of the fine points and potential problems accounted for if you investigate and read the plan. 
 

Like...

Taxpayers will be permitted to defer payment of the tax with interest for up to five years:

For the rare taxpayer with an extremely high net worth but liquidity constraints that make it difficult to pay this additional tax, there will be an option to defer payment of the tax for up to five years, with interest. The IRS will also be instructed to create rules for cases where deferment is required in truly exceptional circumstances to prevent unintended negative impacts on an ongoing enterprise or a taxpayer facing unusual circumstances that would advise for delay.

But these accountability issues are separate debates that we could go round and round on and would obviously have to be ironed out in a legislative process. I didn’t want to go there because I’d have to hunt down answers to every little issue. 

Apologies to Brew for being a dick about it. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Brew 3044]

You can’t throw a plan out without discussing the weeds. That goes double when the weeds are the problem with the entire plan. We don’t need Congress chasing a rabbit down a road that doesn’t work in the end. Sure a tax on wealth sounds great. I agree with you. Feel better now that we have that covered? There are a lot of things that sound great in principal that are completely impractical though. My kids would love to live entirely on candy. It would probably work, but the mess it will create is a problem.

Now let’s discuss all the issues with the plan that I have pointed out to you repeatedly that you have ignored. I’ll wait on you to answer the first few rounds of questions before I pose too many more other than this 1. Why do you think most European countries have repealed their wealth tax at this point?

I have read through her plan and there is nothing in there that deals with how to assess the tax and how valuations will be handled. The valuation problem is more than a minor legislative problem and is the key issue in the whole thing. It’s the step that can’t be fairly applied in any way, shape, or form and is where the plan runs off the rails. How do you value a closely held business or piece of real estate where the value can be trusted and fair no matter where you are located? Have you ever bought a house? Have you noticed that the appraisal is typically right around the purchase price? Do you ever wonder why that is? Have you ever refinanced one and had it appraised? Have you ever had an issue with the first appraisal and had the first one revise his numbers or even found a second guy that magically came up with the number you needed? The business valuation sector is even more screwy than the real estate market. The tax foundation and various other sources go into way more detail than I have of the problems with it and why it’s too cumbersome to administer. 

As I also said if they want to put it in place, fine it will be good for business. However, I can say with 100% certainty that 100% of the returns with a closely held business, real estate, collectibles, etc will have mysteriously low valuations. When it gets questioned or assessed differently, it will end up in court because that group has the ability to lawyer up. At some point it will get overturned for the same reason it did in Europe. You can’t assess a tax on a variable interest that 5 different experts value 5 different ways.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Okay you win, guillotines it is. 

[Brew 3044]

It’s clear at this point you have either no interest in discussing the underlying fundamental problem with the plan or you don’t understand the problem or you don’t believe it is a problem. If you don’t believe it’s a problem, then give me some insight on the valuation issue.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

33 minutes ago, Brew said:

It’s clear at this point you have either no interest in discussing the underlying fundamental problem with the plan or you don’t understand the problem or you don’t believe it is a problem. If you don’t believe it’s a problem, then give me some insight on the valuation issue.

What is the best way to distribute money exclusively from the top .05% to people struggling in the lower/middle of the economy?  

That’s what needs to be done and the intent of the wealth tax.  It’s moving lots of money from the top of the pyramid to the bottom via the government.

So the wealth tax is a dumb idea, let’s move on to an alternative approach.  

Whatcha got? 

I cannot win the debate you want to have.  I am not a finance scholar.  That doesn’t mean solutions to your questions don’t exist, I’m just not informed enough to answer them so I will concede the arguments to you.

That still leaves us with a debate over the best alternatives to guillotines, unless you don’t see wealth inequality as a serious problem. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

Well, we could always look at countries that are more successful than us with this. Who is doing well and what do they do?

[Firemans4Horn 17793]

I’m in financial services and see all the current loopholes (carried interest, cost step up, QDI, capital gains tax) and realize our system is rotten to the core. We have too many smart accountants and estate attorneys and financial advisors playing shell games moving money around instead of just simplifying the tax codes. I think Brew and people with opposing views could agree on that. 
 

slorch #bootstraps is living in the white man’s post-WWII era mindset but that’s not a surprise. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Firemans4Horn

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

You can’t throw a plan out without discussing the weeds. That goes double when the weeds are the problem with the entire plan. We don’t need Congress chasing a rabbit down a road that doesn’t work in the end. Sure a tax on wealth sounds great. I agree with you. Feel better now that we have that covered? There are a lot of things that sound great in principal that are completely impractical though. My kids would love to live entirely on candy. It would probably work, but the mess it will create is a problem.

Now let’s discuss all the issues with the plan that I have pointed out to you repeatedly that you have ignored. I’ll wait on you to answer the first few rounds of questions before I pose too many more other than this 1. Why do you think most European countries have repealed their wealth tax at this point?

I have read through her plan and there is nothing in there that deals with how to assess the tax and how valuations will be handled. The valuation problem is more than a minor legislative problem and is the key issue in the whole thing. It’s the step that can’t be fairly applied in any way, shape, or form and is where the plan runs off the rails. How do you value a closely held business or piece of real estate where the value can be trusted and fair no matter where you are located? Have you ever bought a house? Have you noticed that the appraisal is typically right around the purchase price? Do you ever wonder why that is? Have you ever refinanced one and had it appraised? Have you ever had an issue with the first appraisal and had the first one revise his numbers or even found a second guy that magically came up with the number you needed? The business valuation sector is even more screwy than the real estate market. The tax foundation and various other sources go into way more detail than I have of the problems with it and why it’s too cumbersome to administer. 

As I also said if they want to put it in place, fine it will be good for business. However, I can say with 100% certainty that 100% of the returns with a closely held business, real estate, collectibles, etc will have mysteriously low valuations. When it gets questioned or assessed differently, it will end up in court because that group has the ability to lawyer up. At some point it will get overturned for the same reason it did in Europe. You can’t assess a tax on a variable interest that 5 different experts value 5 different ways.

So, I assume you must have a plan then?

[Hook1997 5269]

Imagine the first people to come up with a estate tax...   So someone dies, we should tax them for dying!   Why should most likely   smarter better off people be punished,  I just don’t get.  They earned it why punish them for doing better then everyone else?  If you think the money from this will ever be spread to the people who need it and sharing the wealth to the less fortunate by the government will happen you are kidding yourself never has and never will.  Unpopular opinion I know.  

Edited July 18, 2020 by Hook1997

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

slorch #bootstraps is living in the white man’s post-WWII era mindset but that’s not a surprise. 

Yep.  Only white people have a chance, bro.  Go fuck yourself and your close minded, predetermined opinion.

I'm just here to hold down the black man, but I'll hire him.  How slave-master of me.   LOLz.

Edited July 18, 2020 by slorch

[Guest]

Here's a big reason I am so "insensitive" on the "Merican Dream is dead, gotdammit' and "Bootstraps are so scary" accusations:

For the past 25 years, we have constantly had requisitions open for frontline employees( entry level) that do this:

work approx 50 hours per week. Work part or all of many weekends. Work early mornings, but finish mid afternoon.  Virtually no late night shifts except for one offs like store inventories. 2 days off per week though, and most often they are consecutive.

2 part healthcare plan with one mimicking ACA and the other being more expensive but paying very well. Vision and dental plans optional according to needs.

Company funded pension, yes, really.

$.50 on the dollar 401K match

Pays $52k per year with potential to get to $70k through performance or tenure tiers.  Bonuses and/ or working more than 50 hours gets you more.

Must have reliable transportation, a clean driving record, and no felonies/ DUI.

REAL opportunity for advancement and company is supportive when employee might want to transfer around the country/ world.

We absolutely abide by EEOC regulations and guidelines. In one of my early workgroups, I hired the first 2 black men that anyone had ever heard of for the company in that area. Insert snide remark about black friends here; but until you've done it, with Klannish customers in some areas; you have no idea.  My last frontline workgroup in Houston was 18 people, 14 of whom were POC and 12 of whom were female and 8 of those were LGBTQ.  So excuse me when I blow off some of y'all's bullshit excuses and accusations.

Stick around and build a career.  Don't wanna be reliable and show up, you'll be gone.  The point of this post is this:  we have constantly been hiring/ adding jobs, and it's challenging AF to find people who want to work for $52k and benefits for a non-degreed individual who has kept their nose clean.  Want to revisit the teacher discussion?

 

Nah...people love clinging to their excuses and reasons they think the world is unfair.  You can still make a damned good living in the trades or in some environments not requiring a degree.  That requires effort and good choices.  and someone's gonna pop off that the CEO makes $6mm/ year; so it's still abusing people.  Yeah, you can focus on what isn't fair in the world and 30 years later you will be the same bitter, jealous, butthurt person who never really got a shot.  BECAUSE YOU MADE THAT CHOICE.

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by slorch

[Bateshorn 9882]

1 hour ago, Hook1997 said:

Imagine the first people to come up with a estate tax...   So someone dies, we should tax them for dying!   Why should most likely   smarter better off people be punished,  I just don’t get.  They earned it why punish them for doing better then everyone else?  If you think the money from this will ever be spread to the people who need it and sharing the wealth to the less fortunate by the government will happen you are kidding yourself never has and never will.  Unpopular opinion I know.  

The dead person isn’t being taxed. Their dead.

 

Their living heirs are paying a transfer tax upon receipt of new assets.

[Brew 3044]

7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The dead person isn’t being taxed. Their dead.

 

Their living heirs are paying a transfer tax upon receipt of new assets.

Of which a significant portion typically hasn’t been taxed. A lot of what passes through estates are assets with unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed.

[workswithseed 2033]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The dead person isn’t being taxed. Their dead.

 

Their living heirs are paying a transfer tax upon receipt of new assets.

*They're

[Brew 3044]

6 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

So, I assume you must have a plan then?

This thread isn’t very long, so it’s pretty easy to skim. My plan is on page 1. As an extension of that, tie some portion of the estate tax to the programs funded in the Warren plan. With a few tweaks it will raise more money in a much simpler fashion. At the same time wipe out the trust code and rewrite it where estate tax avoidance isn’t a big part of it.

You want to really make a difference? Change the gift tax structure to eliminate the ability for people to transfer a business to their kid at a massive discount during their life. Then require IRS notification for any business ownership transfer of S corp’s, LLC’s, and GP’s with disclosure annually of all owners. If we just enforced what is on the books now we could raise significant money, but it’s too complicated and has turned into an honor system at this point.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

There isn’t going to be a wealth tax because it would be impossible to implement. Income tax is only really enforceable because employers are required to collect and report.  Are we expecting people to report their wealth based on their personal valuations?

i suppose you could require brokers to report stock portfolio value but I guarantee people will find ways around that as well.

but it makes for good politics. Talk of a wealth tax stirs up passions on both sides about what is and isn’t fair, political donations go up, and nothing actually changes.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

3 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Imagine the first people to come up with a estate tax...   So someone dies, we should tax them for dying!   Why should most likely   smarter better off people be punished,  I just don’t get.  They earned it why punish them for doing better then everyone else?  If you think the money from this will ever be spread to the people who need it and sharing the wealth to the less fortunate by the government will happen you are kidding yourself never has and never will.  Unpopular opinion I know.  

Well, first you have to understand that, generally speaking, any "private" property holdings were at sufferance of the king, and came with the payment of tribute from the profits of the land.

Usually, your death, or that of the king, could result in a transfer of most of your property back to the king, known as "escheat."

Escheat was the original estate tax and it was 100%.

Noble titles that descended changed this because the land and property went with the title.  But still could be reverted to the crown at any time basically.

Then came the revolutionary concept of letting a person determine by will how and to whom their property would be distributed.  These transfers were taxed by a hodgepodge of measures in England and Europe from the 16th century on.

The US, being rather prickly about taxation at its founding, did not at first tax inheritance.  But when it did, it wasn't a revolutionary thing.

Death has been accompanied by taxation for as long as there has been private property.

[Bat Guano 359]

I read the first page and skipped to the last, so I don't know if this point has been made in between, but unless we disconnect political power from great wealth (and good luck with that), no meaningful wealth tax will happen. Our purported democracy is in effect an oligarchy, and oligarchs aren't going to tax themselves. 

Seems like a revolution is the only option left. Not looking forward to it, but it looks like that's where we're headed.