This whole argument is clearly an expression of revenge for perceived wrongs by perceived wealthy people, it’s not based on anything else. Nearly all of this is claiming there is a moral imperative to tax people out of their homes and businesses because she didn’t get the promotion she deserved
www.fool.com
But we got to fight the big corporations. We would live in a feudal society if average Americans didn’t pay 40% tax on the value of their IRA and house!How dare anyone amass an estate worth over $400K during their lifetime. After all, that would leave *gasp* over $200K each if they had two heirs.
Average house price by state
The average house price in the United States as of the fourth quarter of 2023 is $417,700. See how states compare here.
From what I can tell, it worked the same way as today's did, based on market valuation.
As a reminder, Eisenhower's America's taxed estates up to 77% and incomes up to 92% (federal income taxes alone!) Of course, back then fewer Americans were pathetic little forelock-tuggers, who spent their days shrieking "socialism" as the prospect of aggressive taxation of the very rich.
Didn't click on it, did you, dummy? It's not someone's blog. It's the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended to August 12, 1957. I gave you the page number. It's a PDF of the original document, copyright 1957, Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 41-26375.
No. You don't need to go to a big bank. We're talking about a loan that would be backed by 60% equity. You'd have a long list of lenders willing to make such a loan, including small banks and S&L's.
Your envy is hilarious.
I don't. If you feel ashamed about living off the dole, that's on you. Consider getting a job.
They can, of course, liquidate it, if they want, in which case it's still a huge windfall. No, it would not be subject to capital gains, because under the current system heirs get stepped-up basis.
It's family property. Pretty simple. nobody else owns it or deserves it.
$250k would be the pre-tax amount of $1M split four ways. $150k would be the amount of each person's take that is subject to taxes. Each would ten pay $60,000 in taxes from that. So, yes, the after-tax proceeds for each would be $190k ($100k tax-free, then $90k from the $150k that was subject to taxes).
Poor choice of words, I wasn't referring to income as in income subject to taxes. More as something that increased their net worth, like a single payment. Yes, businesses produce revenue streams, but anything can be brought to net present value.Not under federal income tax law, but it might be under state income tax law.
How Can I Protect My Inheritance From Taxes? - TurboTax Tax Tips & Videos
Received an inheritance of cash, investments, or property? Here are four ways that can help you keep it from being swallowed up by taxes.turbotax.intuit.com
Is Your Inheritance Taxable? - SmartAsset
smartasset.com
You are confusing the initial windfall from how you described deriving income from it. If it is taken and invested after being received, and then is to be liquidated, partially, to use it as liquidity, you will not escape capital gains.
What he means is we can assume that e.g. Bezos has a tax basis in his AMZN shares of roughly $0 per share. Under current rules if he leaves that to his heirs, he would liquidate shares to pay tax, then the heirs receive a bunch of shares, and the sold shares and what's transferred are stepped up to FMV on the date of death. So the heirs receive shares with a basis of about $135/sh based on today's close. If they sold them all tomorrow, they will pay roughly $0 in capital gains taxes, or the difference between selling price and $135.
I know what he meant. I am talking about his actual post where he described making income through investment and leaving out the taxes that have to paid to liquidate gains on that investment.
Because, according to supply side idiots, even the lazy heir is a job creator.
Apparently your idea of living off the dole is collecting social security, which isn’t really a giant own.
I don't own a business so I have no clue how businesses are taxed for estate purposes. I used assets because that's what I thought you said in the OP though on the-reading your OP I see you used value.
Sam Walton took over a failed 5 & dime built it into a chain of successful Ben Franklin stores, leveraged them against the advice of his wife to open Walmart, you know how that came out. At every junction he took tremendous risks, battled competition, and succeded when the consensus was he'd fail. Why shouldn't he be able to pass along the fruits of his labor to his heirs? Or, is that only something Democrat elites like Joe Kennedy can do? His spoiled brat rich kids never had to work a day in their lives.
But there's a step up in basis at death to FMV. Without an estate tax those $billions are never taxed. We could require heirs to carry over the basis of inherited property, but that's a logistical nightmare for families. My mom has been in her house since 1973. Who knows what 'improvements' she's made in the last 50 years, or what they paid for it. It's worse for things like jewelry or artwork, or even a car.
That makes no sense at all.
I hate it when people snip part of my comment, then ask a question that's at least partially answered in what they chose to omit from the quote. If you want to know the answer to your question, read my posts. I explained it in part in what you snipped, and in other posts.
OK, so you want $billionaires to never pay tax. I'll never understand why regular people carry the water for the plutocrats.
That's a different argument, so you moved the goal post from drivel to a talking point.
First of all, you can disagree with my post but that doesn't make it ignorant.
Are you really going to argue that you and me have the same political power as Warren Buffett et al.? Or that your local county commission doesn't dance for that area's wealthy elite?
