Wealth Tax - Discuss

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What value of Estate would you suggest being taxes?  Do you think the step up in basis should be kept in place too? 

On the later point, I may, I don’t understand the details behind the basis point you’re advocating. 
 

On the former, rather than toss an arbitrary number out, I’d suggest a well intentioned study to consider an appropriate answer. 
 

But income tax penalizes earning income. I believe that inherited windfalls are much less deserved than earned windfalls from ones own efforts. 
 

even 100% inheritance tax could be rationalized as an extremely fair way to ensure equal opportunity as a thought experiment. 

[RochesterRob]

45 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I only point to the Rockefeller’s because they’ve resulted in 140 years of billionaires.

 

Waltons another perfectly great example.

 

as far as how to delineate, it’s a problem to be thought about, but if society really values equal opportunity, target the generational wealth transfers that have absolutely nothing to do with someone’s work ethic, abilities and merit to society. 
 

just like Bill Gates capped his own children’s inheritance. 
 

The top 1% own 30+ trillion of wealth. The bottom half own 2.5 trillion of wealth.
 

Curtail the ability to build defacto royalty.  These are the same people that control and influence all the worst aspects of our political systems.  

  I don't understand the fixation with the Rockefeller's which might help me understand where you are coming from.  That wealth has splintered extensively for over 100 years since JD lost his anti-trust suit.  I don't think any one Rockefeller has had one billion dollars since the 1960's and perhaps before that.  Old JD himself gave away quite a bit the last couple of decades that he lived.  

 

  Unfortunately, it is not within most people's abilities to build a General Motors Corporation, Ford, Microsoft, or Deere and Co of which those companies' products benefit a wide portion of the population.  Taking Ford for example it took in part the efforts of HF II to build the company into what we see today.  Imagine HF dying somewhat younger and the company not much more than a fledgling then taxing it out of existence.  Then imagine a successor trying to round up capital only to be told it would be too risky in the event of premature death for the successor.  

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

On the later point, I may, I don’t understand the details behind the basis point you’re advocating. 
 

On the former, rather than toss an arbitrary number out, I’d suggest a well intentioned study to consider an appropriate answer. 
 

But income tax penalizes earning income. I believe that inherited windfalls are much less deserved than earned windfalls from ones own efforts. 
 

even 100% inheritance tax could be rationalized as an extremely fair way to ensure equal opportunity as a thought experiment. 

The step up on basis is easy. When you inherit an asset you get a step up in the cost basis to value at death.  Example. Mom and dad bought a home for $50k. It’s now worth $500k at the last death. Your basis now becomes $500k. So you can sell it for $500k and pay no gains. Hell if you sell it for less you capture the loss. 
 

I’d rather they did away with the step up and the the estate tax. Hell the water tax is exemption is so high now it’s like it doesn’t exist. It’s $11.7m per person!  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

16 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  I don't understand the fixation with the Rockefeller's which might help me understand where you are coming from.  That wealth has splintered extensively for over 100 years since JD lost his anti-trust suit.  I don't think any one Rockefeller has had one billion dollars since the 1960's and perhaps before that.  Old JD himself gave away quite a bit the last couple of decades that he lived.  

 

  Unfortunately, it is not within most people's abilities to build a General Motors Corporation, Ford, Microsoft, or Deere and Co of which those companies' products benefit a wide portion of the population.  Taking Ford for example it took in part the efforts of HF II to build the company into what we see today.  Imagine HF dying somewhat younger and the company not much more than a fledgling then taxing it out of existence.  Then imagine a successor trying to round up capital only to be told it would be too risky in the event of premature death for the successor.  

the trust is allegedly still worth 11 billion but it’s opaque.

 

fine pick another one, DuPonts, Melons, Carnegie’s... I just picked that one dynasty because the business actions of one or two, resulted in a financial empire for six generations!

 

my point here is nepotistic wealth is the least equitable means to wealth.  So tax the heck out of that. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

The step up on basis is easy. When you inherit an asset you get a step up in the cost basis to value at death.  Example. Mom and dad bought a home for $50k. It’s now worth $500k at the last death. Your basis now becomes $500k. So you can sell it for $500k and pay no gains. Hell if you sell it for less you capture the loss. 
 

I’d rather they did away with the step up and the the estate tax. Hell the water tax is exemption is so high now it’s like it doesn’t exist. It’s $11.7m per person!  

Looks like you are probably couching the general philosophy I’m trying to advocate which is, find tax revenues in wealth transfer from generation to generation. Just in a more sophisticated way, which I can appreciate. Thanks for the learning.

 

Inheritance is absolutely the most inequitable privileged mechanism that exists today.  It keeps rich elites offspring as rich elites even as subsequent generations generally do less to contribute to society. 
 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[RochesterRob]

32 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

the trust is allegedly still worth 11 billion but it’s opaque.

 

fine pick another one, DuPonts, Melons, Carnegie’s... 

 

my point here is nepotistic wealth is the least equitable means to wealth.  So tax the heck out of that. 

  Assuming that you are correct how widely divided is that 11 billion?  I know somebody that knows a middle aged Delano.  That family is to the point where nearly all members live a upper middle class existence albeit without working.  Their kids will surely know work or a harsh alternative.  Unfortunately, the goal of obscene wealth is what gets people to stay late at the office or lab that results in products or services that benefit a huge number of people often globally.  I would guess very few would have Microsoft type goals in terms of work but the compensation of a blue collar worker for such a company.  Some days I get annoyed that I was not blessed with advanced mathematical abilities that would take me extremely far in the corporate world but I have no desire to tear down those that have special talents and can exploit those talents for the most gain.

 

  Dupont's, Melons, etc. if you tax them all the impact is extremely small when it takes many trillions to make the federal government go.  Are you suggesting that there are trillions of dollars out there to be had in estate taxes annually to significantly take the burden off of the rest of us?  Before you assume anything I run a small business and as of late struggled mightily in terms of finances but I do what I do because I have a fair amount of personal satisfaction involved.

Edited April 7, 2021 by RochesterRob

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

28 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Assuming that you are correct how widely divided is that 11 billion?  I know somebody that knows a middle aged Delano.  That family is to the point where nearly all members live a upper middle class existence albeit without working.  Their kids will surely know work or a harsh alternative.  Unfortunately, the goal of obscene wealth is what gets people to stay late at the office or lab that results in products or services that benefit a huge number of people often globally.  I would guess very few would have Microsoft type goals in terms of work but the compensation of a blue collar worker for such a company.  Some days I get annoyed that I was not blessed with advanced mathematical abilities that would take me extremely far in the corporate world but I have no desire to tear down those that have special talents and can exploit those talents for the most gain.

 

  Dupont's, Melons, etc. if you tax them all the impact is extremely small when it takes many trillions to make the federal government go.  Are you suggesting that there are trillions of dollars out there to be had in estate taxes annually to significantly take the burden off of the rest of us?  Before you assume anything I run a small business and as of late struggled mightily in terms of finances but I do what I do because I have a fair amount of personal satisfaction involved.

great points and congrats on running a business. It’s a risk that takes courage. You’re the exact type of risk taker I do not think should be taxed at all. 
 

the general idea is ueber wealthy that pass on wealth to next generations seems like a much more equitable villain in the whole wealth distribution problem.

 

these wealthy elites that get easy access to Ivy League degrees and prestigious jobs early in their career without earning  anything are arguably detrimental to societal progress. Add to that the fact they are independently wealthy from day 1. 
 

The top 1% has 34 Trillion in net worth. And they are going to pass it to their heirs who did nothing to accumulate or advance that. 
 

 

[RochesterRob]

13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

great points and congrats on running a business. It’s a risk that takes courage. You’re the exact type of risk taker I do not think should be taxed at all. 
 

the general idea is ueber wealthy that pass on wealth to next generations seems like a much more equitable villain in the whole wealth distribution problem.

 

these wealthy elites that get easy access to Ivy League degrees and prestigious jobs early in their career without earning  anything are arguably detrimental to societal progress. Add to that the fact they are independently wealthy from day 1. 
 

The top 1% has 34 Trillion in net worth. And they are going to pass it to their heirs who did nothing to accumulate or advance that. 
 

 

  The world has not been, is not, nor will ever be fair.  I consider myself fairly intelligent but am not especially well spoken or well written.  It has cost me time and again.  Having said that I was able to attend Cornell for two years after doing two years at a SUNY.  For the most part I surely was not welcomed with open arms.  I had to fight with instructors and fellow students and fellow student residents but I did exactly that and did not worry about feelings or bruised egos.  My family most definitely had no wealth to get me in Cornell.  As a matter of fact a girlfriend had a father who did a background check on me without her prior knowledge to destroy my relationship with  his daughter.  You can say good riddance if a daughter would not stand up to a father but I think that she needed time to grow but was not afforded it with me.  While the wealthy certainly has access to schools such as Cornell I can tell you that a large number of students there came from ordinary backgrounds.  

Edited April 7, 2021 by RochesterRob

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  The world has not been, is not, nor will ever be fair.  I consider myself fairly intelligent but am not especially well spoken or well written.  It has cost me time and again.  Having said that I was able to attend Cornell for two years after doing two years at a SUNY.  For the most part I surely was not welcomed with open arms.  I had to fight with instructors and fellow students and fellow student residents but I did exactly that and did not worry about feelings or bruised egos.  My family most definitely had no wealth to get me in Cornell.  As a matter of fact a girlfriend had a father who did a background check on me without her prior knowledge to destroy my relationship with  his daughter.  You can say good riddance if a daughter would not stand up to a father but I think that she needed time to grow but was not afforded it with me.  While the wealthy certainly has access to schools such as Cornell I can tell you that a large number of students there came from ordinary backgrounds.  

sure, but the wealthy had no barriers and may have even gotten in on less merit than you had based on your own efforts.

 

of course a large number were “ordinary”, remember the elite are less than one in every hundred. In college 1 in every 20, at Cornell maybe 1 in every 10. 
 

Not debating your story. Just feeling that generational wealth hand off seems like a very easy tax target. Nobody is less deserving to be wealthy than someone who just happened to have rich parents. Anything they do on their own, more power to them. 

[RochesterRob]

26 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

sure, but the wealthy had no barriers and may have even gotten in on less merit than you had based on your own efforts.

 

of course a large number were “ordinary”, remember the elite are less than one in every hundred. In college 1 in every 20, at Cornell maybe 1 in every 10. 
 

Not debating your story. Just feeling that generational wealth hand off seems like a very easy tax target. Nobody is less deserving to be wealthy than someone who just happened to have rich parents. Anything they do on their own, more power to them. 

  Not sure how to take your merit comment.  I had to have a certain GPA and had to have recommendations as well as an application essay.  I can assure you NO corners were cut in my admission to Cornell.  What anybody else had to go through I can't speak to as I don't rightly know.  I don't know what else to tell you.  Some people are only motivated to do very hard effort if there is tremendous reward at the other end including generational wealth.  The trouble is that those same people have built, are building, or will build a large part of the American economy.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

23 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Not sure how to take your merit comment.  I had to have a certain GPA and had to have recommendations as well as an application essay.  I can assure you NO corners were cut in my admission to Cornell.  What anybody else had to go through I can't speak to as I don't rightly know.  I don't know what else to tell you.  Some people are only motivated to do very hard effort if there is tremendous reward at the other end including generational wealth.  The trouble is that those same people have built, are building, or will build a large part of the American economy.  

I was complementing you that you worked very hard to get a spot that some rich kids parents just made a phone call and a donation to get them. 
 

no problem allowing the wealthy to enjoy their creation. But tax the wealth transfer to the entitled recipients. It would disrupt the wealth distribution curve and force more people to earn their own wealth. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Big Blitz]

Because they can pay it (they'll avoid it anyway).

 

Their competition cannot.  

 

High tax rates are great for mega corporations.  

 

 

 

[LeviF]

6 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Because they can pay it (they'll avoid it anyway).

 

Their competition cannot.  

 

High tax rates are great for mega corporations.  

 

 

 

Same thing with “diversity.”
 

And big estate taxes mean that giant ***** corporations can gobble up little companies and their assets when they can’t be passed on to future generations of, you know, real people. Because the son must pay for the sins (of building an inheritance to leave behind) of his father. 

The mentality behind big wealth and estate taxes is so ***** backward it’s really mind-boggling. 

[SoCal Deek]

I’m not even sure where to begin but I’m amazed at how easily so many on here swoop in to harvest other people’s money. I made (earned) the money I’ve accumulated over a lifetime of really hard work in a profession that I love. I’ve earned a lot,  donated a lot, saved a lot, and I’ve paid a boat load in taxes every step of the way. I came from modest WNY beginnings and my parents came from way less than that and their parents (my grandparents) came from less than nothing. I’ll proudly pass what I’ve earned along to my daughter and her young family, but have no idea why I’d be forced to dump it onto the dung heap of misbegotten and wasteful government programs that have become the playground for politicians and their cubicle working minions. I’m not ungrateful for the opportunity afforded to me by birthright as an American but I’ve certainly not gotten a free pass along the way. I’m taxed mightily and I pay way more than my ‘fair share’. I certainly could’ve spent it all along the way on every sort of luxury and vice imaginable but I didn’t.  And now, because I didn’t, the government says “thanks, for saving it for us, we’ll take it from here, your family can fend for themselves”.  Sheeesh! 

Edited April 7, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[oldmanfan]

The discussion needs to start with what is the role of government, on federal, state, and local levels.  The people of this country have behaved like spoiled children for decades now; they want all sorts of government spending while at the same time cry about wanting low tax rates.  That is inherently absurd and we now are tens of trillions of dollars in debt as a result.

 

I believe we should have be a flat federal personal income tax, with those under a given income, probably around 30k a year not paying.  I’d set it at around 10-15%.  No deductions for mortgages and such.  For corporate I’d set it at about the same flat rate, again with no deductions or playing around.  Verizon would pay 10% instead of 0%.  There’s been talk of family farms; treat them as corporations.  
 

if I were President I would make attacking spending my #1 priority.  Outside of emergencies like the pandemic, I would dramatically shrink the federal government’s spending as I believe much of what is done in the name of federal spending is more a state or local issue.  I would calculate the amount of debt for each state and each Congressional district and give each senator and Congressman a month to figure out what federal spending would be cut in their area.  I would cut Executive branch spending dramatically.  Get rid of the Departments of Education and Housing/Urban Development for starters; they are local and state issues.  I would work out if the Oval Office; no golf trips and such.  
 

Spending is the issue along with a tax structure that allows those with more money to avoid paying anything.  My plan addresses both.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The discussion needs to start with what is the role of government, on federal, state, and local levels.  The people of this country have behaved like spoiled children for decades now; they want all sorts of government spending while at the same time cry about wanting low tax rates.  That is inherently absurd and we now are tens of trillions of dollars in debt as a result.

 

I believe we should have be a flat federal personal income tax, with those under a given income, probably around 30k a year not paying.  I’d set it at around 10-15%.  No deductions for mortgages and such.  For corporate I’d set it at about the same flat rate, again with no deductions or playing around.  Verizon would pay 10% instead of 0%.  There’s been talk of family farms; treat them as corporations.  
 

if I were President I would make attacking spending my #1 priority.  Outside of emergencies like the pandemic, I would dramatically shrink the federal government’s spending as I believe much of what is done in the name of federal spending is more a state or local issue.  I would calculate the amount of debt for each state and each Congressional district and give each senator and Congressman a month to figure out what federal spending would be cut in their area.  I would cut Executive branch spending dramatically.  Get rid of the Departments of Education and Housing/Urban Development for starters; they are local and state issues.  I would work out if the Oval Office; no golf trips and such.  
 

Spending is the issue along with a tax structure that allows those with more money to avoid paying anything.  My plan addresses both.

This post should hang in the walls of the Capitol! You and I are going to make a great administration. While we may come at issues from different places, we generally seem to land in the same spot. Very well said! 

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This post should hang in the walls of the Capitol! You and I are going to make a great administration. While we may come at issues from different places, we generally seem to land in the same spot. Very well said! 

We have to decide when to announce our candidacy for 2024.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

We have to decide when to announce our candidacy for 2024.

It’ll be tough choosing between a golden escalator and a basement bunker. Maybe we can find a place that has BOTH! 😉

[RochesterRob]

10 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I was complementing you that you worked very hard to get a spot that some rich kids parents just made a phone call and a donation to get them. 
 

no problem allowing the wealthy to enjoy their creation. But tax the wealth transfer to the entitled recipients. It would disrupt the wealth distribution curve and force more people to earn their own wealth. 

  Having a rich parent will only take you a small step.  You still have to pass the courses and very few professors will bend a final grade for maybe a tiny percentage of super elites.  It's not unheard of for a rich kid to be sent packing after a very poor semester followed by academic probation followed by another poor semester.  But the consequences are minor as daddy has a job waiting once the kid returns home.  Being derailed  for a guy like me would have cost me dearly.  One reason I never played college football.  Most of those guys had a life waiting back home if they screwed up.  If I screwed up there would have been the need to hunt for a mediocre job plus pay back the student loans.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

The discussion needs to start with what is the role of government, on federal, state, and local levels.  The people of this country have behaved like spoiled children for decades now; they want all sorts of government spending while at the same time cry about wanting low tax rates.  That is inherently absurd and we now are tens of trillions of dollars in debt as a result.

 

I believe we should have be a flat federal personal income tax, with those under a given income, probably around 30k a year not paying.  I’d set it at around 10-15%.  No deductions for mortgages and such.  For corporate I’d set it at about the same flat rate, again with no deductions or playing around.  Verizon would pay 10% instead of 0%.  There’s been talk of family farms; treat them as corporations.  
 

if I were President I would make attacking spending my #1 priority.  Outside of emergencies like the pandemic, I would dramatically shrink the federal government’s spending as I believe much of what is done in the name of federal spending is more a state or local issue.  I would calculate the amount of debt for each state and each Congressional district and give each senator and Congressman a month to figure out what federal spending would be cut in their area.  I would cut Executive branch spending dramatically.  Get rid of the Departments of Education and Housing/Urban Development for starters; they are local and state issues.  I would work out if the Oval Office; no golf trips and such.  
 

Spending is the issue along with a tax structure that allows those with more money to avoid paying anything.  My plan addresses both.

Does this mean you’d eliminate the GS14 (125k/yr) job ‘program manager of urban dumpster beautification’ I saw a few years ago ?