Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 616795 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8000 on: May 21, 2021, 10:01:26 AM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5745
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8001 on: May 21, 2021, 10:03:04 AM »
That sounds...like not a lot of money.

Agreed. Still irks me though, and seems an abuse of his position. Not sure if the Hatch act ever contemplated post-position self dealing but this seems ethically dubious all the same.

It's standard practice, and lawful, to charge rent to the SS.

The Clintons do/did not, incidentally, charge rent for their security detail.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landlords-of-misrule/

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5745
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8002 on: May 21, 2021, 10:05:19 AM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

He's always lied about his wealth. Getting into the Forbes list is one of his goals in life, even if he has to fake paperwork.

My opinion: He's a billionaire if you don't count his liabilities.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8003 on: May 21, 2021, 10:09:33 AM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

The idea that Trump has principles might be the most outrageous thing in the history of this thread.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8004 on: May 21, 2021, 10:19:19 AM »
That sounds...like not a lot of money.

Agreed. Still irks me though, and seems an abuse of his position. Not sure if the Hatch act ever contemplated post-position self dealing but this seems ethically dubious all the same.

It's standard practice, and lawful, to charge rent to the SS.

The Clintons do/did not, incidentally, charge rent for their security detail.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landlords-of-misrule/

In terms of precedence, it's not standard practice for a past president to live in a luxury resort that he owned. It may be legal to charge the SS for their security detail, but to my knowledge none have charged $12k/mo for property they themselves owned.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5745
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8005 on: May 21, 2021, 10:33:44 AM »
That sounds...like not a lot of money.

Agreed. Still irks me though, and seems an abuse of his position. Not sure if the Hatch act ever contemplated post-position self dealing but this seems ethically dubious all the same.

It's standard practice, and lawful, to charge rent to the SS.

The Clintons do/did not, incidentally, charge rent for their security detail.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landlords-of-misrule/

In terms of precedence, it's not standard practice for a past president to live in a luxury resort that he owned. It may be legal to charge the SS for their security detail, but to my knowledge none have charged $12k/mo for property they themselves owned.

True. The snopes article mentions a maximum rate/month.

Either that was increased in the 2013 bill or there's some kind of temporary rate that's used until a permanent place is found/built and Trump is (ab)using the temporary rate.

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8006 on: May 21, 2021, 11:51:43 AM »
We know Trump is in debt up to his eyeballs, so his net worth is most likely significantly less than whatever he says it is

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8007 on: May 21, 2021, 11:55:03 AM »
We know Trump is in debt up to his eyeballs, so his net worth is most likely significantly less than whatever he says it is

It's going to get interesting should the now-criminal investigations of the Trump Organization result in charges filed. For the first time ever we might get a more honest accounting of Trump's businesses and his net worth.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8008 on: May 21, 2021, 12:22:15 PM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

The idea that Trump has principles might be the most outrageous thing in the history of this thread.

👏

brandon1827

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8009 on: May 21, 2021, 02:16:49 PM »
We know Trump is in debt up to his eyeballs, so his net worth is most likely significantly less than whatever he says it is

It's going to get interesting should the now-criminal investigations of the Trump Organization result in charges filed. For the first time ever we might get a more honest accounting of Trump's businesses and his net worth.

Exactly...he's already lost his court cases to keep his tax returns away from the State of New York...so sooner or later we're gonna see the real picture

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3091
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8010 on: May 21, 2021, 05:16:19 PM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

Given that donating his salary was one of the things that his supporters always used to point out how much of a patriot he was, this is hilarious.

FTR, he claimed to be giving away a lot more than his presidential salary before he was eligible for one, so there is a good chance that performance actually resulted in him donating less money annually. Or, he was lying before. Or, there is a big enough difference that it could be both, which would be the most Trump thing to ever Trump.

Alfred J Quack

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Location: Netherlands
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8011 on: May 22, 2021, 03:14:31 AM »
Apparently Trump has also been receiving his presidential pension payments. Which for someone of his supposed net worth ($2B?) is the equivalent of a person with a $1M net worth making sure to apply for their $100 annual pension.

So is Trump taking the money out of principal? Or is he actually less wealthy than he actually claims? (My guess is that he's really only worth like 500MM)

Given that donating his salary was one of the things that his supporters always used to point out how much of a patriot he was, this is hilarious.

FTR, he claimed to be giving away a lot more than his presidential salary before he was eligible for one, so there is a good chance that performance actually resulted in him donating less money annually. Or, he was lying before. Or, there is a big enough difference that it could be both, which would be the most Trump thing to ever Trump.

Could it be that his "donations" were like this one: https://truthout.org/articles/trump-tax-write-offs-at-his-seven-springs-property-could-be-his-legal-downfall/
Quote
Trump bought the property in 1996, with the intention of developing it into something more than just a vacation retreat for himself and his family, including possibly turning it into a golf course or a high-end residential area. But resistance from several localities where the property sprawls across has stymied those efforts, resulting in the former president, prior to taking office, deciding to turn more than 150 acres of the property into an easement for a conservation land trust.

Iirc the easement of properties was used for lowering taxes and could be construed as "donating to charity" in some weird way. So he could claim to donate milions and milions to charity while getting a massive reduction in taxes for a business venture going south.

To be fair, personally I give to charity as well and get a very small tax return on it (like 10 euros) but I'm doing it for the cause and not the tax return...

GreenEggs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Location: Here & There
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8012 on: May 22, 2021, 06:36:04 AM »
I suppose this same reasoning applies to the estate tax as well.

Sure, I think it's crass for government to ask for payment in order to use the rule of law to protect a non-violent transfer of your assets to your children upon your death. But the Federal exemption exceeds $11,000,000. And if you have a stash in the neighborhood of eight figures, you can probably hire an attorney to set up the kind of trust that basically means you will avoid taxes anyway.




$11M+ is for an individual.  Marriage doubles the amount. 


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8013 on: May 22, 2021, 07:04:09 AM »
I suppose this same reasoning applies to the estate tax as well.

Sure, I think it's crass for government to ask for payment in order to use the rule of law to protect a non-violent transfer of your assets to your children upon your death. But the Federal exemption exceeds $11,000,000. And if you have a stash in the neighborhood of eight figures, you can probably hire an attorney to set up the kind of trust that basically means you will avoid taxes anyway.




$11M+ is for an individual.  Marriage doubles the amount.

$11.7MM for an individual, if we are getting specific...

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8014 on: May 22, 2021, 08:26:24 AM »
And it may not last all that much longer.

https://hdrbb.com/the-senate-introduced-a-new-estate-and-gift-tax-law/

Quote
The “For the 99.5% Act” was introduced to Congress on March 25, 2021. If passed, it will change the estate planning landscape drastically, beginning on January 1, 2022. In a nutshell, those with estates over $3.5 million ($7 million for a married couple) need to act in 2021 in order to save millions of dollars in transfer taxes.

Quote
If the bill is enacted:
     Married couples with a net worth greater than $7 million may no longer be able to utilize current strategies to legally reduce or eliminate estate and gift.
    Irrevocable grantor trusts, such as GRATs, SLATs and ILITs, will no longer be meaningfully effective.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6658
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8015 on: May 22, 2021, 08:51:51 AM »
And it may not last all that much longer.

https://hdrbb.com/the-senate-introduced-a-new-estate-and-gift-tax-law/

Quote
The “For the 99.5% Act” was introduced to Congress on March 25, 2021. If passed, it will change the estate planning landscape drastically, beginning on January 1, 2022. In a nutshell, those with estates over $3.5 million ($7 million for a married couple) need to act in 2021 in order to save millions of dollars in transfer taxes.

Quote
If the bill is enacted:
     Married couples with a net worth greater than $7 million may no longer be able to utilize current strategies to legally reduce or eliminate estate and gift.
    Irrevocable grantor trusts, such as GRATs, SLATs and ILITs, will no longer be meaningfully effective.
Not many on this forum have over $3.5m and this forum is unrepresentatively richer than the general population.  My heart is not bleeding.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8016 on: May 22, 2021, 10:16:33 AM »
That's an interesting bill.     Gifts and inheritances are one area where Canadian taxes are substantially lower than US taxes.   (We don't have gift taxes, and estate taxes max out at 1.5%, I think.)

Maybe we don't have as many wealthy people up here.    Usually our govt is pretty good at going after possible revenue sources.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4453
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8017 on: May 24, 2021, 07:55:13 AM »
I struggle to defend taxing estates when I have discussions with my rightward-leaning friends and neighbors. My best attempt is that the foundation of property rights and security is that safety maintained by the government we have erected, so that government is in effect charging a fee to guarantee the transfers of these assets. Otherwise, unrelated people would show up with guns and take over houses upon death, and that doesn't sound like a better world than this one.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8018 on: May 24, 2021, 09:21:13 AM »
I struggle to defend taxing estates when I have discussions with my rightward-leaning friends and neighbors. My best attempt is that the foundation of property rights and security is that safety maintained by the government we have erected, so that government is in effect charging a fee to guarantee the transfers of these assets. Otherwise, unrelated people would show up with guns and take over houses upon death, and that doesn't sound like a better world than this one.
Just from the start, a transfer of private property is a unnatural state - if you are for strong property rights, why do they end at the death of that person?
Naturally nobody else should be able to own stuff that belongs to someone else, right?
That it is possible is a negotiation result with the society - so of course the society can also set a price on that.
Of course that is when you are for strong property rights and not of the opinion that private property in itself is theft - after all you prevent other prople from using that property. If you allow only one person to use X, you steal that use from 10, 100 or even more than 1000 people.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4453
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8019 on: May 24, 2021, 09:29:46 AM »
I'm contemplating an amazing, deflationary world in which a bunch of continuing estates accumulate dividends and rental income--no reason to own bonds if your ownership claim will never die--pay taxes, and build up a bunch of accounting figures on pages everywhere while consuming practically no resources (apart from legal fees, oh, those legal fees!).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8020 on: May 24, 2021, 09:31:17 AM »
I struggle to defend taxing estates when I have discussions with my rightward-leaning friends and neighbors. My best attempt is that the foundation of property rights and security is that safety maintained by the government we have erected, so that government is in effect charging a fee to guarantee the transfers of these assets. Otherwise, unrelated people would show up with guns and take over houses upon death, and that doesn't sound like a better world than this one.

There's a philosophical argument to be made that multi-generational wealth is anathema to American values - not taxing very large estates essentially creates an permanent aristocracy.

To make a connection to certain "anti-tax, anti-government" types, I've had success by pointing out how "the new liberal elite (e.g. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Hollywood A-listers) are likely to have their children's children's children will be fantastically wealthy if we completely repeal the state tax and keep LTCG as low as they are. 

Once they consider that the grandchildren of Mark Zuckerberg or Madonna or Beyoncé/Jay-Z could be among the most powerful (by virtue of their wealth) on earth, they are suddenly a lot more supportive!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8021 on: May 24, 2021, 10:38:21 AM »
I struggle to defend taxing estates when I have discussions with my rightward-leaning friends and neighbors. My best attempt is that the foundation of property rights and security is that safety maintained by the government we have erected, so that government is in effect charging a fee to guarantee the transfers of these assets. Otherwise, unrelated people would show up with guns and take over houses upon death, and that doesn't sound like a better world than this one.

There's a philosophical argument to be made that multi-generational wealth is anathema to American values - not taxing very large estates essentially creates an permanent aristocracy.

To make a connection to certain "anti-tax, anti-government" types, I've had success by pointing out how "the new liberal elite (e.g. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Hollywood A-listers) are likely to have their children's children's children will be fantastically wealthy if we completely repeal the state tax and keep LTCG as low as they are. 

Once they consider that the grandchildren of Mark Zuckerberg or Madonna or Beyoncé/Jay-Z could be among the most powerful (by virtue of their wealth) on earth, they are suddenly a lot more supportive!

Yeah, I like this argument.  Getting money from an estate handout is freeloading.  It's getting something you didn't work for or earn.  It's anti-merticocratic.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4453
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8022 on: May 24, 2021, 11:08:20 AM »
This seems like a good time to post a link to evidence that transferring property before the time of death was a tactic of the Trump family patriarch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html

Wealth matters when it helps you gain notoriety. Transfer enough of it to your children that they can build a brand as "Self-Made Billionaires".

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8023 on: May 24, 2021, 02:33:55 PM »
I struggle to defend taxing estates when I have discussions with my rightward-leaning friends and neighbors. My best attempt is that the foundation of property rights and security is that safety maintained by the government we have erected, so that government is in effect charging a fee to guarantee the transfers of these assets. Otherwise, unrelated people would show up with guns and take over houses upon death, and that doesn't sound like a better world than this one.

What made it click for me was hearing somebody point out it could be considered a rough stand in for the tax on capital gains that accrued over the deceased’s life.

Technically, the way things should work (imho) is that as soon as somebody dies, all their assets get sold off, the government receives taxes in the capital gains (just as if you had sold off assets while you were living), and the heirs get whatever is left. And since you’re selling off everything at once, there’s a good chance that the deceased’s estate ends up in the highest income bracket, though you also have to weigh how much of those can be considered “long term” and whatever tax policy happens to be at the time of death.

So to add some numbers to the narrative, let’s say the deceased purchased an item for $1M, and now it’s worth $100M. The estate sells the item for $100M, pays any income and/or capital gains tax, and whatever’s left goes to the heir(s). 

To this we add the human desire... people want what their parents had and/or parents want to pass the assets (real estate, businesses, fine art, etc.) down to their kids. Under the way I think things should work, the kids would have to pay fair market value for those assets, either from resources they have or by taking out a loan.

Going back to the numerical example, if the inheritors want everything in the estate, they have to somehow come up with $100M.

But not everybody has that kind of money on hand, or is able to get a huge loan. So the government has offered this compromise called the estate tax. The deceased is able to give a certain amount away tax free, and anything above that gets taxed at a whatever percent current tax policy says. The inheritors new basis is the market value at time of receipt. Rough, but mostly workable (this approach starts running into problems when there’s a single asset worth a lot of money, such as privately held business). On paper, the tax is paid by the estate. If the inheritor turns around and sells the assets, they get that money tax free because they’ve experienced no gains. (Or if they wait a few years to sell, they’re only taxed on the gains between the sale date and when the assets were inherited).

Going back to the example, the estate is on the hook for paying the estate tax on the difference between the $100M value of the estate and whatever the current giving limit is, and the inheritor receives the asset. They can sell it immediately for $100M and pay no taxes, or can hold onto it, and pay income/capital gains tax on the difference between the eventual selling price and the $100M.

The other main alternative is that there is no tax, but the inheritor’s basis remains the same as the deceased’s basis. This usually ends up being a large disincentive to sell, since now the inheritor faces a huge tax bill for the gains between the original purchase price and the current market value.

In the example, the inheritor’s basis is now the deceased’s basis of $1M, so they are responsible for the income/capital gains tax on $99M ($100M market value - $1M basis), or more if they wait a few years and the asset continues to appreciate.

There is a third alternative that occasionally pops up, and that is there is no estate tax, but there still is a step up in basis.

In this case, the deceased buys the item for $1M, and it’s worth $100M at their death. The inheritor sells it immediately for $100M, yet pays no tax because they technically have not experienced any gain. But what about any capital gains/income tax on the growth from $1M to $100M experienced by the deceased? Never is owed, so is never collected.


Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Age: 126
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8024 on: May 24, 2021, 02:46:53 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8025 on: May 24, 2021, 03:34:26 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If you give someone $20 Million as a gift, they will have to pay taxes on it. The estate tax wouldn't/shouldn't be any different.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2993
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8026 on: May 24, 2021, 04:25:02 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If you give someone $20 Million as a gift, they will have to pay taxes on it. The estate tax wouldn't/shouldn't be any different.


That's incorrect. The gifter pays the taxes, and only if it exceeds the gift tax exclusion (~15,000$ annual and ~12 million lifetime). 

However, I agree valuable property shouldn't be excluded from the gift tax.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2021, 04:28:42 PM by wenchsenior »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8027 on: May 24, 2021, 04:31:46 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If you give someone $20 Million as a gift, they will have to pay taxes on it. The estate tax wouldn't/shouldn't be any different.


That's incorrect. The gifter pays the taxes, and only if it exceeds the gift tax exclusion (~15,000$ annual and ~12 million lifetime). 

However, I agree valuable property shouldn't be excluded from the gift tax.

Interestingly, the current estate tax limit is almost identical to the $12MM lifetime gift exemption (but separate)

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8028 on: May 24, 2021, 04:33:12 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If the world were as rational as some economists and politicians made it out to be, then all that anyone would care about is that the estate maximized its profit. If somebody decides to cash out and withdraw from society, they’re entitled to try and get every dollar they can in the course of selling all their stuff. They pay their taxes on their income/gains, and then they move on to wherever they want to be and live on whatever cash is left.  If the person is dead, then (imo) the executor should still follow that approach... sell everything at the highest price, pay the capital gains/income taxes, and whatever is left goes to the heir(s).  So in that cold, hyper rational world, yes, Jay Leno’s son should have to buy the collection if he wants it, and have to match or outbid any other purchasers in that process. 

The primary reason it becomes in issue is that there’s an assumption Leno’s son will want to keep the collection intact. If he has 0 interest in cars and would instead like to invest the money in real estate or stocks, the collection is going to be sold anyway to facilitate that change.

Whether or not Leno has to sell the cars would depend on the makeup of his assets. If his only asset is the car collection, then yeah, the collection will probably have to go. However, if Leno has other significant assets (stocks, cash, real estate, etc.) that will cover the taxes owed, he can sell that off to and keep the collection intact.

I also sense a hint that Leno’s son is somehow entitled to everything his father accrued, and I’ll punt on that one.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8029 on: May 24, 2021, 04:38:37 PM »
Does Jay Leno know he has a son, and that his son has zero interest in his cars?

I wonder what will upset him most? Finding out he had a son, that his son doesn’t share his car enthusiasm, or that he couldn’t bequeath it to him if he wanted to...

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8030 on: May 24, 2021, 04:54:01 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If you give someone $20 Million as a gift, they will have to pay taxes on it. The estate tax wouldn't/shouldn't be any different.


That's incorrect. The gifter pays the taxes, and only if it exceeds the gift tax exclusion (~15,000$ annual and ~12 million lifetime). 

However, I agree valuable property shouldn't be excluded from the gift tax.

Ok a little bit of a nuance, but that still makes the gift tax equal to an estate tax. The receiver paying the tax would be an inheritance tax which I think only exists in a handful of states.

Also Leno is worth like half a billion dollars. Even a 40% tax on his entire estate would still have 300MM dollars to hand out at the end. His car collection is only worth like 50MM. So his estate can more than cover the taxes on the collection. That doesn't even cover the number of tax advantages you magically get at death including the reset on cost basis, and the spouse being able to inherit without any taxation at all. The family account can magic some numbers and say that the collection is now worth x at his death and then wham bam, his kids don't have to pay capital gains on it.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8031 on: May 24, 2021, 05:03:58 PM »
So if I'm Jay Leno's son I should be required to purchase my deceased father's car collection if I want to inherit it?

Or turning this around, if I'm Jay Leno, the gov't would force me to sell my car collection to my kids rather than just give it to them?

If you give someone $20 Million as a gift, they will have to pay taxes on it. The estate tax wouldn't/shouldn't be any different.


That's incorrect. The gifter pays the taxes, and only if it exceeds the gift tax exclusion (~15,000$ annual and ~12 million lifetime). 

However, I agree valuable property shouldn't be excluded from the gift tax.

Ok a little bit of a nuance, but that still makes the gift tax equal to an estate tax. The receiver paying the tax would be an inheritance tax which I think only exists in a handful of states.

Also Leno is worth like half a billion dollars. Even a 40% tax on his entire estate would still have 300MM dollars to hand out at the end. His car collection is only worth like 50MM. So his estate can more than cover the taxes on the collection. That doesn't even cover the number of tax advantages you magically get at death including the reset on cost basis, and the spouse being able to inherit without any taxation at all. The family account can magic some numbers and say that the collection is now worth x at his death and then wham bam, his kids don't have to pay capital gains on it.

But really if his kids really wanted to keep the cars, Leno could just set up a charity where the cars can be displayed to the public, it gets donated to charity in a trust that he then gives to his kids to manage, and then his estate is effectively reduced by 50MM, his kids get to keep control of the cars.

A silly collection that you want to pass on, easy. The harder one is a family business that depends on maintaining the business capital in a single chunk. But even then, if the estate is in the black, then it should either be able to pay the taxes outright with cash, otherwise a bank loan should be easy enough to get if the business has a large number of capital assets that it needs to keep.

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8032 on: May 24, 2021, 07:57:33 PM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8033 on: May 24, 2021, 09:07:43 PM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2021, 09:09:58 PM by FIPurpose »

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8034 on: May 24, 2021, 10:32:07 PM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Taran Wanderer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8035 on: May 24, 2021, 10:49:36 PM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased. 

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6658
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8036 on: May 25, 2021, 12:04:39 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not "punishing success".  Jay Leno's putative son isn't inheriting his father's cars because he's been successful at anything other than having a rich parent he didn't piss off too badly.

It's a very bad thing for society in general to have lots of people with uncontrolled power.  People with multiple billions (or who pretend to have multiple billions - see Trump) can effectively put themselves beyond control by any entity and can do a lot of unrecoverable damage to the world and the people in it.  This goes even more so for those who inherit the billions than those who made them - the ones who made them have to some extent shown that they can operate within the system.   Do you honestly want your future to be in the hands of Bezo's grandkids, or Pablo Escobar's grandkids, or Putin's grandkids?  I don't, but if those grandkids inherit hundreds of billions of pounds who's to stop them from doing what the fuck they want with you, with the pollution of your land and the alteration of the world climate?

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12238
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8037 on: May 25, 2021, 12:42:21 AM »
Let's be clear. It's an estate TAX, which will be some percentage of what the estate is worth. The government won't abscond with the lot.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4453
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8038 on: May 25, 2021, 04:30:39 AM »
This very thread documents how many things can go wrong when the guy we put in charge has used inherited wealth to become famous for being a successful businessman.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8039 on: May 25, 2021, 05:17:08 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not "punishing success".  Jay Leno's putative son isn't inheriting his father's cars because he's been successful at anything other than having a rich parent he didn't piss off too badly.

It's a very bad thing for society in general to have lots of people with uncontrolled power.  People with multiple billions (or who pretend to have multiple billions - see Trump) can effectively put themselves beyond control by any entity and can do a lot of unrecoverable damage to the world and the people in it.  This goes even more so for those who inherit the billions than those who made them - the ones who made them have to some extent shown that they can operate within the system.   Do you honestly want your future to be in the hands of Bezo's grandkids, or Pablo Escobar's grandkids, or Putin's grandkids?  I don't, but if those grandkids inherit hundreds of billions of pounds who's to stop them from doing what the fuck they want with you, with the pollution of your land and the alteration of the world climate?

I disagree with the first part. It is definitely punishing success to tax wealth upon inheritance. The desire to "spend" money passing it on to kids/grandkids/generationally is a primary driver of many people to succeed. It's just as valid as any other thing to do with money.

That being said, it is absolutely important that we do it. Massive generational wealth is a huge problem. The government should fix it, but that fix is a necessary evil. We shouldn't shy away from admitting it is punishing success to do so. It's just that we have to because the consequences would be far worse.

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8040 on: May 25, 2021, 07:17:42 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased.

That is a tax and as I said I can see a reasonable tax being ok. What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8041 on: May 25, 2021, 07:26:57 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not "punishing success".  Jay Leno's putative son isn't inheriting his father's cars because he's been successful at anything other than having a rich parent he didn't piss off too badly.

It's a very bad thing for society in general to have lots of people with uncontrolled power.  People with multiple billions (or who pretend to have multiple billions - see Trump) can effectively put themselves beyond control by any entity and can do a lot of unrecoverable damage to the world and the people in it.  This goes even more so for those who inherit the billions than those who made them - the ones who made them have to some extent shown that they can operate within the system.   Do you honestly want your future to be in the hands of Bezo's grandkids, or Pablo Escobar's grandkids, or Putin's grandkids?  I don't, but if those grandkids inherit hundreds of billions of pounds who's to stop them from doing what the fuck they want with you, with the pollution of your land and the alteration of the world climate?

I think you fail to see the good / amazing things people can do with wealth as well, just because you have latched onto the negative aspects of a few bad actors does not mean that wealth cannot and has not been used for good.

I say this as I look out on miles and miles of open space behind my house that was set aside as a preserve by what would be considered a wealthy family. If it had been transferred to the government or had been a forced sale it would likely be developed as it is prime real estate.

They earned the money, they owned the land and they could have developed it but it was their choice that upon their death it was turned into a nature preserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18417
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8042 on: May 25, 2021, 07:31:08 AM »
What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.

I fail to understand anyone who believes that passing 147.3 billion dollars (just checking Elon Musk's current net worth) to a kid who didn't earn it is a sensible thing to do.  Can you explain your reasoning on this?

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8043 on: May 25, 2021, 07:36:41 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy, what's the ceiling someone needs to have a good education and live a comfortable life? 1.5MM dollars? That's the most common number I see around here for couples. 95% of Americans will never accumulate this much wealth for their children in their lifetimes.

The argument in our politics usually seems to be that Dems say 4x that number is good enough, whereas the GOP usually put somewhere closer to 20-30x that number.

So applying the estate tax to normal middle class people building up their wealth makes as much sense as comparing credit card debt to the national debt.

Comfortable life / good education would probably have a wide range on the spectrum not sure that is a good measure.

I remain unconvinced that it is moral or right to take a persons assets or that it would have a beneficial impact on society as a whole.

A wealth tax that is reasonable I could see that, but forfeiture of assets just to make sure someone has to start on an even playing field and not have too much of a leg up seems unreasonable.

I feel like I am pretty liberal when it comes to many things including free college / healthcare ETC but there is almost zero chance I will change my mind on this I just fail to understand why we would punish success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not "punishing success".  Jay Leno's putative son isn't inheriting his father's cars because he's been successful at anything other than having a rich parent he didn't piss off too badly.

It's a very bad thing for society in general to have lots of people with uncontrolled power.  People with multiple billions (or who pretend to have multiple billions - see Trump) can effectively put themselves beyond control by any entity and can do a lot of unrecoverable damage to the world and the people in it.  This goes even more so for those who inherit the billions than those who made them - the ones who made them have to some extent shown that they can operate within the system.   Do you honestly want your future to be in the hands of Bezo's grandkids, or Pablo Escobar's grandkids, or Putin's grandkids?  I don't, but if those grandkids inherit hundreds of billions of pounds who's to stop them from doing what the fuck they want with you, with the pollution of your land and the alteration of the world climate?

I disagree with the first part. It is definitely punishing success to tax wealth upon inheritance. The desire to "spend" money passing it on to kids/grandkids/generationally is a primary driver of many people to succeed. It's just as valid as any other thing to do with money.

That being said, it is absolutely important that we do it. Massive generational wealth is a huge problem. The government should fix it, but that fix is a necessary evil. We shouldn't shy away from admitting it is punishing success to do so. It's just that we have to because the consequences would be far worse.
Then why wait until death / inheritance?

The person that earned and has large sums of money while still alive has the ability to cause just as much damage (or good) as the person that inherits the money.

Why does it suddenly become a problem when they die or it is an inheritance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8044 on: May 25, 2021, 07:40:11 AM »
What I fail to understand is wanting to wipe out someone’s life work / wealth at the end of their life so the next generation does not start out too advantaged.

I fail to understand anyone who believes that passing 147.3 billion dollars (just checking Elon Musk's current net worth) to a kid who didn't earn it is a sensible thing to do.  Can you explain your reasoning on this?
Because he earned it and that is what he chooses to do with it.

He could also choose to leave it to science grants or a dog that should be his choice.

————-

Not sure how much I will be worth when I die but i would like to have the choice to leave it to what I am passionate about VS the government deciding what it should be used for.

For example the rail trail initiative, reef restoration, mountain bike trails or college tuition assistance for my future generations are areas I could see myself leaving what I have at the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: May 25, 2021, 07:53:07 AM by the_fixer »

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4814
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8045 on: May 25, 2021, 07:50:20 AM »
I have never understood the thought that wealth should die with the person.

Property that was homestead to grow this country has been passed down from generation to generation.

Or a farmer that works the land their entire life and builds a successful sustainable farm so their family can prosper.

Or someone who digs themselves out of poverty and works their entire life to lift their family out of poverty and provide a future for their family.

How much is too much? At what point do you have so much money / assets that you are vilified and the government gets to take it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For 2021, our Congress has set the number at $11,700,00.00 or $23,400,000.00 for a couple.  Above that, the estate pays tax that phasing in over the first $1 million in excess to 40%.  So, we have decided that $11.7 million is enough ($23.4 million for a couple), and above that we the people are going to pull back some of those deferred capital gains or income that went unpaid over the life of the deceased.

What if a wealthy person decides to realize all their gains and pay taxes before their death?  Should they get to bypass the inheritance tax in that situation?

Omy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8046 on: May 25, 2021, 08:11:22 AM »
Historically, the hoarding of resources, wealth, and power has not proven to be a healthy long term strategy - for anybody except the hoarders and their dynasties.

Taxes help to create a more level playing field for future generations and give back to the society that helped individuals and their families hoard massive amounts of resources in the first place.

Is Bezos 150,000 times as good a human as the average millionaire on this forum? Isn't there a point where hoarding wealth and resources shouldn't be rewarded and passed on? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The planet is being pillaged and the peasants will revolt eventually.


OzzieandHarriet

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8047 on: May 25, 2021, 08:26:08 AM »
The other thing about how these hugely wealthy people made their money (at least in the US) is that they’ve been able to take advantage of a system that shields their wealth throughout their careers. Everything from tax loopholes to outsourcing to paying slave wages with no benefits (Walmart ...) — etc. The rest of us have to pay, why shouldn’t they? Do they really contribute more to society?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14890
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8048 on: May 25, 2021, 08:47:34 AM »
Sigh... the arguments about estate tax invariably get mired down with the slippery-slope fallacy.

Virtually no one who supports having an estate tax rejects some level of exemption, and most supporters set that at a level that could support a middle-class lifestyle (e.g. a few million $).  Currently the exemption is $11.7MM (double for couples). At the same time, supporters overwhelmingly believe the estate tax should be somewhere between LTCG and earned-income; not "all your accumulated wealth".

The anti-tax crowd has been able to use this fear of total seizure by an evil government to drive the narrative. For the record I'd be in favor of returning to a $5MM exemption (double for couples) and treating the rest as earned-income at current brackets.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4453
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #8049 on: May 25, 2021, 09:14:02 AM »
The exemption should be 25X median HH income in the US, perhaps with primary residence thrown in for free.