You think your taxes are complicated now

[mcmurtry66]

Wait wait…so we get to assume that rich people kids are bums, but not the many more on welfare? Get out of here.

No just that they have to earn it themselves. We’ve all heard of wealthy people saying they aren’t leaving their kids anything. That there is value in doing it on your own that inheritance can deprive one of

Anyway. Again. I’m against it. I want my kids to live a super fun life off my bitcoin largesse but I do find interest in the discussion. Giving it to the gov is what revolts me the most

 

[twenty02]

For a general defense of the inheritance tax (not as drastic as I’m suggesting), see the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/11/23/a-hated-tax-but-a-fair-oneA hated tax but a fair one from TheEconomist

Well Brad, I cannot read that article, but I'll just say

1) I have a bit of a philosophical opposition to the idea of estate taxes, in general. We either have personal property ownership in this country or we don't and we are all just temporarily granted use of property by the government until we die and then they take it back. Like some form of leaseholder rights from the all powerful state.

But 2) I haven't even argued for the elimination of the estate tax.... Which has already been done across most of the world, as a wide spectrum of countries have found it poor economic policy. We have the 4th highest estate tax rate, globally.

Estate and Inheritance Taxes around the World

The U.S. is one of many countries that levies taxes on estates or inheritances. Of all America’s taxes, the estate tax is perhaps the most contentious.

taxfoundation.org

 

[snarlcakes]

No just that they have to earn it themselves. We’ve all heard of wealthy people saying they aren’t leaving their kids anything. That there is value in doing it on your own that inheritance can deprive one of

I was just responding to Hoosboot claim it encourages personal responsibility. It does to one group, but doesn’t the other.

Anyway. Again. I’m against it. I want my kids to live a super fun life off my bitcoin largesse but I do find interest in the discussion. Giving it to the gov is what revolts me the most

Bitcoin will solve a lot of these issues eventually.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Bitcoin will solve a lot of these issues eventually.



We are so Fing set

 

[BradStevens]

I was just responding to Hoosboot claim it encourages personal responsibility. It does to one group, but doesn’t the other.

Bitcoin will solve a lot of these issues eventually.

I can’t believe you haven’t figured out that this is all just part of my diabolical plan to send Bitcoin to the 🌝!!!

🦍 🦍 🦍 🦍 🚀 🚀 🚀

 

[Cthulhu85]

If you’re dead, it’s not “confiscation.”

You are ridiculous when it comes to this.

Time is the only thing that can't be replaced. Money earned = a part of life spent earning it. How someone spends that time/money is an individual choice.
You should change your username to bradstalin.

 

[BradStevens]

I do what I have to do to support my family and pay the bills and save.

I have a degree in biology and was laid off in June from my microbiology job at a pharma company in Bloomington.

For now I'm working in a welding repair position at Jasper Engines. Why? It pays good and im pretty good at it because it's my one of my interests.

The point I'm trying to make is we all spend TIME, trying to make our way and some of us do whatever it takes.

Time isn't replaceable, time equals money. When you take people's money you are taking a part of their life they will never get back.

I’m sorry you lost that job. That sucks. Your view of work and family responsibilities is admirable.

I think you’re taking this discussion too seriously and personally. I’m talking about theory and from the outset have admitted such an idea will never be implemented in practice in this country.

I have no personal desire to take anything from you and wish you nothing but success, even if you think I’m an idiot.

 

[Cthulhu85]

I’m sorry you lost that job. That sucks. Your view of work and family responsibilities is admirable.

I think you’re taking this discussion too seriously and personally. I’m talking about theory and from the outset have admitted such an idea will never be implemented in practice in this country.

I have no personal desire to take anything from you and wish you nothing but success, even if you think I’m an idiot.

I don't think you're an idiot. And it's just a message board. I bet in real life most of us would get along pretty well even if we didn't agree.

I appreciate your sentiments

 

[hoosboot]

I was just responding to Hoosboot claim it encourages personal responsibility. It does to one group, but doesn’t the other.

It's not Hoosboot's claim, but that's beside the point. How does Brad's suggested plan discourage personal responsibility in welfare recipients more than the current system? I don't believe that Brad suggested that estates should go to welfare recipients.

 

[hoosboot]

And that is the part that should be congruent with conservative principles. I also will add that I do some work with the younger gem and I don’t care what anyone says they do not work hard. At all. They also don’t seem to value the same stuff. They don’t care about joining the country club. Or McMansions or luxury cars. They value other stuff. And that generational culture change may also eventually shape inheritance laws etc. it’ll be long after we are gone but not our kids

Totally agree that Gen Z very much values different things than older Millennials, Gen X, and (especially) Boomers. It's probably good in some ways and bad in others.

FWIW, I work with a lot of peeps in their 20's, too, and I find them to be incredibly hard workers when they are working on something they care about. They just aren't as good at faking caring about bullshit as Boomers and X'ers are. 🤣

 

[stollcpa]

That's not really fair to Brad or the idea and values that he's expressing. He's always engaged with people in good faith here, even when they espouse ideas that aren't fully baked.

Always have appreciated Brad. I don’t know what’s happened but his idea here is totally insane. I didn’t think he was serious but seems he is. It’s wrong and there’s nothing worth discussing about it.

 

[stollcpa]

Totally agree that Gen Z very much values different things than older Millennials, Gen X, and (especially) Boomers. It's probably good in some ways and bad in others.

FWIW, I work with a lot of peeps in their 20's, too, and I find them to be incredibly hard workers when they are working on something they care about. They just aren't as good at faking caring about bullshit as Boomers and X'ers are. 🤣

Gen X values and loves spending money like all generations before. They especially enjoy spending without working their asses off for it.

 

[TomEric4756]

Well Brad, I cannot read that article, but I'll just say

1) I have a bit of a philosophical opposition to the idea of estate taxes, in general. We either have personal property ownership in this country or we don't and we are all just temporarily granted use of property by the government until we die and then they take it back. Like some form of leaseholder rights from the all powerful state.

But 2) I haven't even argued for the elimination of the estate tax.... Which has already been done across most of the world, as a wide spectrum of countries have found it poor economic policy. We have the 4th highest estate tax rate, globally.

Estate and Inheritance Taxes around the World

The U.S. is one of many countries that levies taxes on estates or inheritances. Of all America’s taxes, the estate tax is perhaps the most contentious.

taxfoundation.org

Yes, the constitution intends to protect personal property rights as a key component of the pursuit of happiness.

The very concept of the American Dream is impossible without personal property rights… the notion that such rights should be forfeit upon one’s death … ignores long standing traditions … (Esau, Jacob, and Isaac for one).

It’s a statist view that one’s ‘goods‘ are state property.

 

[NPT]

Don't give it to the government. Get rid of it before you die.

If you knew when you were gonna die that would be a good idea. Of course if a lot of people started doing that the government would start taxing it to get most of it. I will predict that they will find a way to tax Roth IRAs after they came up with those to encourage people to save.

In about anything the government does you have to look at how they are gonna get money. For example, with the National Park System they've sold passes to seniors at a pretty cheap rate that are good forever. That sounds good on the surface but now that they've sold them for years some parks charge you to park.

 

[NPT]

And yet the right celebrates tax cuts when the tax cuts were only for the wealthy.

You never disappoint....every time I think you won't say something dumber than your previous post you manage to do it.

Who gives a flying fvck that he has more?

Apparently some do

You are ridiculous when it comes to this.

C'mon I disagree with Brad on this but he's argued in good faith.

 

[Stuffshot]

It's not really worth debating if you're not going to put a little effort and thought into it.

Like I said, I'm not in support of the idea, but if the company like that had value, it could be auctioned to the highest bidder. The employees and down channel companies who rely upon it would just be working for/with a new owner like they would in an inheritance. Heck, if the family members who would otherwise inherit are so important to its success, they would likely be kept by the new owners like typically happens with key execs in most acquisitions. Family members could even put together a bid for the company.

There are lots of ways that particular aspect could work, but more interestingly Brad seems to be valuing something different than you and a few of the others unable to talk about the idea are focused on. The value he is espousing is one I'm surprised people aren't interested in discussing.

In a forced sale like you're proposing, absolutely nobody would pay full price for such a business. We have many years of bankruptcy sales and mortgage foreclosures that demonstrate this point.

So, the forced sale would not yield top dollar for the government at the same time it screws the families of the owner and employees of the business.

 

[ribbont]

Too often what savings someone does have will be eaten up by nursing home costs. Medicare doesn't cover it after 60 days of "rehab" and you have to spend yourself into poverty before MediCaid will kick in.

Or one could plan for long term care.

 

[IU_Hickory]

You never disappoint....every time I think you won't say something dumber than your previous post you manage to do it.


Apparently some do


C'mon I disagree with Brad on this but he's argued in good faith.

And you never disappoint in showing you are just a dumb hyper partisan like the dream team.

How many more insults do you need to throw out to get your application for the team accepted?

 

[Cortez88]

What about if we simply kept the basis on transfer? The kid inheriting the stock wouldn’t pay capital gains unless the asset was sold. This isn’t adding a new tax, but rather realizing the actual gain in stock value. I’ve never understood resetting the basis in transfer. That’s straightforward tax avoidance and because rich folks give their kids stock, it is hugely favorable to a small rich segment.

 

[IU_Hickory]

The wealthy pay the politicians off for their tax loopholes and the dumb argue for how it is appropriate

 

[ribbont]

The wealthy pay the politicians off their tax loopholes and the dumb argue for how it is appropriate

Do you have any suggestions or ideas on marginal tax rates and income levels? Any thoughts on what the inheritance rate and exemption level should be?

 

[ribbont]

What about if we simply kept the basis on transfer? The kid inheriting the stock wouldn’t pay capital gains unless the asset was sold. This isn’t adding a new tax, but rather realizing the actual gain in stock value. I’ve never understood resetting the basis in transfer. That’s straightforward tax avoidance and because rich folks give their kids stock, it is hugely favorable to a small rich segment.

Though I don't oppose what you are saying, I still wonder why the government should get paid for my risking of my capital? I paid my tax when I earned the money. I decided to risk it and my risk paid off. Why should the government get it?

*not trying to be confrontational, just want to hear reasons

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't think you're an idiot. And it's just a message board. I bet in real life most of us would get along pretty well even if we didn't agree.

I appreciate your sentiments

Brad isn't an idiot. Usually, he's one of the more sane and reasonable posters on the WC. This isn't usual.

Excuse me for a bit. I'm going to sell all my stocks and mutual funds, and after paying my capital gains taxes (I have no problem with that), I'll stuff the money into my mattress. The gubmint isn't going to confiscate it as Brad would like it to. I'm going to pass it on to my wife and daughter. I also won't be establishing a scholarship for disadvantaged kids as I planned to do, because under Brad's plan the stock market would turn to shit.

 

[Cortez88]

Though I don't oppose what you are saying, I still wonder why the government should get paid for my risking of my capital? I paid my tax when I earned the money. I decided to risk it and my risk paid off. Why should the government get it?

*not trying to be confrontational, just want to hear reasons

That’s a larger argument against capital gains tax. I’m just saying treat all stock the same. Keeping the cost basis regardless of transfer does that.

 

[stollcpa]

And you never disappoint in showing you are just a dumb hyper partisan like the dream team.

How many more insults do you need to throw out to get your application for the team accepted?

I am going to answer without going where I’d really like to.

You’re dead wrong. He doesn’t go off like many of us do on here. If he’s really critical of a poster, that poster should read and reflect.

 

[stollcpa]

Don't give it to the government. Get rid of it before you die.

So you have a method of rationing spending so exactly all your money is gone the day before death?

What would be the cost to government be if all elderly spent themselves broke and lived on medicare?

 

[snarlcakes]

The wealthy pay the politicians off for their tax loopholes and the dumb argue for how it is appropriate

A couple of questions for you then. What is the wealthy? What percentage of tax receipts do they pay overall ? How does that compare to long term averages?

 

[IU_Hickory]

I am going to answer without going where I’d really like to.

You’re dead wrong. He doesn’t go off like many of us do on here. If he’s really critical of a poster, that poster should read and reflect.

There was nothing in my original reply to him that required the insult.

 

[hoosboot]

Gen X values and loves spending money like all generations before. They especially enjoy spending without working their asses off for it.

Tell me you're a boomer without telling me you're a boomer.

 

[hoosboot]

Always have appreciated Brad. I don’t know what’s happened but his idea here is totally insane. I didn’t think he was serious but seems he is. It’s wrong and there’s nothing worth discussing about it.

If we didn't talk about things that are wrong and not worth discussing, we'd never discuss anything you care about.

(I keed, I keed!)

 

[hoosboot]

In a forced sale like you're proposing, absolutely nobody would pay full price for such a business. We have many years of bankruptcy sales and mortgage foreclosures that demonstrate this point.

So, the forced sale would not yield top dollar for the government at the same time it screws the families of the owner and employees of the business.

And?

Do we still have bankruptcy sales and mortgage foreclosures since they don't yield full price?

How would changing ownership necessarily screw employees of the business?

"Screws" is your value judgment. In the model Brad is proposing, he's suggesting a different value set. That seems to be the thing you are struggling with, so you make poor arguments against it.

 

[ribbont]

That’s a larger argument against capital gains tax. I’m just saying treat all stock the same. Keeping the cost basis regardless of transfer does that.

I agree it's a larger discussion, but removing stepped up basis, while I think would be fine, would likely need to be phased in to not create too much market disruption.

 

[Cortez88]

I agree it's a larger discussion, but removing stepped up basis, while I think would be fine, would likely need to be phased in to not create too much market disruption.

Agree. I just think that if I sell stock I’ve held for 20 years, I’ll pay long term rates. If I’m hit by a bus tomorrow, my kids get the same stock with stepped up basis. That to me is logically incorrect and inequitable.

 

[ribbont]

Agree. I just think that if I sell stock I’ve held for 20 years, I’ll pay long term rates. If I’m hit by a bus tomorrow, my kids get the same stock with stepped up basis. That to me is logically incorrect and inequitable.

Ok. But I would say let's just eliminate the capital gains tax and now we don't have to worry about basis. I solved both our issues. 🙂

 

[Stuffshot]

That’s a larger argument against capital gains tax. I’m just saying treat all stock the same. Keeping the cost basis regardless of transfer does that.

That's not entirely wrong, but sometimes a probate estate takes 7-8 months or even longer to settle in probate court.

So, then (under your plan) you're perhaps dealing with a stock basis established several years before the decedent's death and the government's effort to pin the gain on heirs that had no prior knowledge of the investment (plus no authority to sell the stock at all) for several months after the decedent's death.

I'm guessing a lot of smart heirs would just say screw that, I don't want anything to do with that stock, and the government then must establish its own brokerage division just to sell stock in a fire sale.

That may not truly be a good solution.

 

[stollcpa]

If we didn't talk about things that are wrong and not worth discussing, we'd never discuss anything you care about.

(I keed, I keed!)

Why should Americans give all their assets to the government at death?

 

[Stuffshot]

And you never disappoint in showing you are just a dumb hyper partisan like the dream team.

How many more insults do you need to throw out to get your application for the team accepted?

Sssh.

How dare you criticize a "moderator"? !!

Someone apparently thinks he/she/pronoun is "moderate."

 

[stollcpa]

Tell me you're a boomer without telling me you're a boomer.

And I am wrong?

 

[hoosboot]

And I am wrong?

Yes, you are. Very wrong.

Don't really understand the generational hate.

 

[ribbont]

That's not entirely wrong, but sometimes a probate estate takes 7-8 months or even longer to settle in probate court.

So, then (under your plan) you're perhaps dealing with a stock basis established several years before the decedent's death and the government's effort to pin the gain on heirs that had no prior knowledge of the investment (plus no authority to sell the stock at all) for several months after the decedent's death.

I'm guessing a lot of smart heirs would just say screw that, I don't want anything to do with that stock, and the government then must establish its own brokerage division just to sell stock in a fire sale.

That may not truly be a good solution.

Not quite. The heirs can disclaim the assets and if no one claims said assets, they would be escheated to the state. The state would liquidate the assets after a period of time depending on the assets.

However, I doubt many heirs would do that as keeping 2/3 to 100% of the asset would be better than 0. If the heir is in the 12% tax bracket (roughly under 117k joint income), then they could sell the appreciated asset over time to pay zero fed cap gains tax and only state tax.