Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 264 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
So someone passing on $100k versus someone passing on $100M is both defined by you as rich people who don't want to pay taxes?
Either way, what did the heirs do to deserve any of it?
Always strikes me as a bit of a disconnect that the same crowd that's always telling others about the merits of bootstraps and hard work is forever defending the interests of Old Money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZGR

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,009
2,344
136
It might be "free" (losing a parent is a pretty big price to pay to get it) but it's a gift and should not be taxed, why would you want it taxed? I don't understand you people how you actually want MORE taxes when we're already overly taxed to begin with. Let people enjoy money that comes their way so it can actually go into the economy instead of a black hole. If you guys had your way you'd probably want birthday card money to be taxed too lol.

So you're not in the US and don't fully understand all the tax situations in the US. Hell, 99% of the people living in the US don't understand their own tax situations.

I'm not going to claim I know all of the ins and outs but in most cases, inheriting estate or money from a deceased relative imposes no, or very low, taxes. It is built to tax only the very rich. The top 5% of earners.

The top 5% have an overwhelming share of money and power. To the detriment of society in general. The minimal amount of money they would be taxed on inheritances is a relative drop in the bucket for them. Don't act like they're being taxed 50% of the inheritance or something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Either way, what did the heirs do to deserve any of it?
Always strikes me as a bit of a disconnect that the same crowd that's always telling others about the merits of bootstraps and hard work is forever defending the interests of Old Money.

Right? Shouldn’t they learn to be self sufficient? Lol
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
That is probably true, but the point made is still partly valid, not least because the anxiety felt by the middle class over the issue is what helps the rich keep their inheritance loopholes. It leads the just-getting-by to imagine they have a common interest with the super-wealthy with regard to the general issue (and most people probably aren't aware of the multitude of ways that latter group can avoid paying those taxes at all).

Exactly! Hell, I just found out this year that the rich take out loans that use the stocks they own as collateral and that these loans typically have much lower interest rates than say a car loan or a mortgage.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
The rich certainly do a good job of getting the not so rich to defend them and voting against their best interests.
They don't just get them to vote against their best interests, they flat out use the govt to rob them. Why else do they whine about taxes, but then spend 10 times as much as in political 'donations?' Because they're bribing elected officials to give them favorable treatment, legislation, credits, subsidies, contracts, and 'privatized' public assets to make them even richer.
Just look at Musk. All of Tesla's factories have been built using tax credits and subsidies and the only reason Tesla has ever made a profit is by selling tax credits to other automakers. And the only reason TSLA soared to insane heights was because of the insanely loose monetary policies during the pandemic.
The right-wing loves to pump up the rich like they were John Galts, when the reality is they're the real welfare queens.
While the people who really create the wealth in this world are the ones Musk wants to force to live in their offices and factories and never see their families just so he can be a few dollars wealthier.
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,286
10,882
136
Generational wealth transfers exacerbate inequality. Someone paying some taxes on something they couldn't figure out the basis for is honestly NBD - they're already getting a huge amount of free money.
Should have inheritance tax. At which point you've already paid taxes on the full value of the stock, so resetting the cost basis makes sense. When there is no inheritance tax, a step up makes literally no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fskimospy

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Exactly! Hell, I just found out this year that the rich take out loans that use the stocks they own as collateral and that these loans typically have much lower interest rates than say a car loan or a mortgage.
Worse that that, they use those financial vehicles to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
So someone passing on $100k versus someone passing on $100M is both defined by you as rich people who don't want to pay taxes?
I got a bridge to sell you if you think stopping the step-up-basis is going to tax the wealthy more. You got a $20M estate, you can easily afford $200k in estate planning with a good lawyer and a CPA to make sure you maximize tax law to your advantage. What this will mainly impact is the middle class family that passes on a $100k and cannot afford an estate planner.
No I’m saying the tax code should treat those income similarly. If you think the step up thing doesn’t tax rich people more that’s just factually false.

I suspect you are talking your own book here.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,268
29,013
136
The real solution is to fix the system so it's easier for people to be self sufficient. Whatever is causing some groups of people to be poor should be fixed. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for life.
The way to fix the system so people can be more self sufficient is to increase wages. One powerful tool for raising wages is progressive taxation which makes hoarding of income at the high end painful enough that the wealthy can choose to pay their employees more or pay the government instead. Historically, when faced with this choice, the wealthy decided they were better off paying their workers more and the government less.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Should have inheritance tax. At which point you've already paid taxes on the full value of the stock, so resetting the cost basis makes sense. When there is no inheritance tax, a step up makes literally no sense.
Yes, that would also work. I’m ambivalent to the means by which taxation happens, I just don’t see why a massively appreciated asset shouldn’t be taxed upon sale just because someone died.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and cytg111

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,478
9,380
136
The real solution is to fix the system so it's easier for people to be self sufficient. Whatever is causing some groups of people to be poor should be fixed. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for life.
Teach a man to fish and the city starves. You want the 100k people in your city all trying to fish? Being self sufficient is not an option for anyone that doest want to live a medieval lifestyle with a medieval life span.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,030
13,539
136
But that money was already taxed when it was earned originally. So dumb to want to tax it again. Put yourself in the shoes of someone getting that money, you're just dealing with your parents dying, the least bit of comfort is knowing you get a bit of money. Now you want the government to tax it? That's a huge kick in the face while someone is already down. Not to mention lot of that money often goes towards the funeral arrangements so if you tax it it could very well mean there is not enough left so now family have to pay for some of that stuff out of pocket.

What is with the obsession with wanting to punish people who may end up with "easy" money? Such a dumb way to look at things.

If anything we need less taxes. Every damn thing under the sun is taxed. by the time you figure out all the taxes you pay, about 75% of the money you earn is taxed in some way shape or form. It's ridiculous. We need less taxes, and a more streamlined and more efficient government. Not more. What Elon Musk did to Twitter needs to happen to the government. Slash that shit down to like 10% of what it is now. It's grown too big and inefficient. It's a parasite.
Every argument you make I am taken back to my ignorant self in high school. Did you get off the bus at some point and not back on again?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,286
10,882
136
But that money was already taxed when it was earned originally. So dumb to want to tax it again. Put yourself in the shoes of someone getting that money, you're just dealing with your parents dying, the least bit of comfort is knowing you get a bit of money. Now you want the government to tax it? That's a huge kick in the face while someone is already down. Not to mention lot of that money often goes towards the funeral arrangements so if you tax it it could very well mean there is not enough left so now family have to pay for some of that stuff out of pocket.

What is with the obsession with wanting to punish people who may end up with "easy" money? Such a dumb way to look at things.

If anything we need less taxes. Every damn thing under the sun is taxed. by the time you figure out all the taxes you pay, about 75% of the money you earn is taxed in some way shape or form. It's ridiculous. We need less taxes, and a more streamlined and more efficient government. Not more. What Elon Musk did to Twitter needs to happen to the government. Slash that shit down to like 10% of what it is now. It's grown too big and inefficient. It's a parasite.
We're talking US tax policy, not Canadian. People that are worried about paying for funeral experiences probably aren't that concerned about inheritance tax or step up cost basis. This is the red herring the rich throw out.

The vast majority of inherited wealth was never taxed because it's generally in the form of capital gains, not a savings account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,286
10,882
136
Not understanding, and being against is two different things. I understand it, but absolutely do not agree with it at all. We simply pay too much. You think elites are affected by this? They are not. It's the middle class that suffers.
You are arguing against taxes that would almost entirely impact the top 2 or 3% of society, the impact being that the other 98% have to pay more to make up the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,286
10,882
136
Ideally, it would get spent and go into the economy (instead of a black hole). We shouldn't force people to spend, if they want to save they should be able to, but most people tend to want to spend money 99% of the time.
Taxing it forces it back into the economy. Rich people don't spend all their money. Hell I'm not "rich" and the equivalent of about 70% of my take home pay goes straight to savings. The government and the poor spend their money almost immediately, the rich do not.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,579
136
"Fuck you, got mine (from my parents)"

The reason that's become such an issue (here, don't know about the US) is because of the massive, staggering, increase in house prices (and the reduction in the supply of social housing). For the vast majority of people the only asset they have for which inheritance tax is relevant is the family home. Most don't have the multiple valuable assets of the super-rich*.

And with that family home the increase in value is mostly only a paper asset, as the cost of any home the offspring might buy has gone up just as much.

Thus parents feel they _need_ to hand over as much of that value as possible, or the children will have zero chance of finding anywhere to live, and could actually end up homeless. It becomes a self-perpetuating process, and at the same time creates a huge divide between those whose parents owned a place and those who didn't.

A divide that creates resentment that is, maybe coincidentally, very useful for those at the very top. Extreme house-price inflation seems to have a lot of socially damaging effects, because it forces people to run to stand still, even as some imagine it's making them rich.

[EDIT]* I heard somewhere an account of the scheme the super-rich in the US use to avoid inheritance tax, but I couldn't really understand it, and now can't remember where I heard it. Something to do with owning hugely valuable real-estate assets and down-grading their reported value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
So has anyone been able to come up with a good public policy reason as to why the government should charge parents 15% capital gains tax on sales they make while alive but 0% on identical sales their kids make after those parents die?

By the way if people just want to say ‘I inherited a lot of money and don’t want to pay taxes on it’ that’s fine, at least you’re owning your position.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
The reason that's become such an issue (here, don't know about the US) is because of the massive, staggering, increase in house prices (and the reduction in the supply of social housing). For the vast majority of people the only asset they have for which inheritance tax is relevant is the family home. Most don't have the multiple valuable assets of the super-rich*.

And with that family home the increase in value is mostly only a paper asset, as the cost of any home the offspring might buy has gone up just as much.

Thus parents feel they _need_ to hand over as much of that value as possible, or the children will have zero chance of finding anywhere to live, and could actually end up homeless. It becomes a self-perpetuating process, and at the same time creates a huge divide between those whose parents owned a place and those who didn't.

A divide that creates resentment that is, maybe coincidentally, very useful for those at the very top. Extreme house-price inflation seems to have a lot of socially damaging effects, because it forces people to run to stand still, even as some imagine it's making them rich.

[EDIT]* I heard somewhere an account of the scheme the super-rich in the US use to avoid inheritance tax, but I couldn't really understand it, and now can't remember where I heard it. Something to do with owning hugely valuable real-estate assets and down-grading their reported value.
It’s darkly funny that parents feel the need to do this in order to save their kids from the dystopian housing nightmare those same parents created.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,579
136
It’s darkly funny that parents feel the need to do this in order to save their kids from the dystopian housing nightmare those same parents created.


Downright depressing, really. And also was probably part of the plan in the first place, certainly with regard to council-house sales.

There's some quote from Orwell I recall reading (that I can't find via Google, and can't face reading his entire collected works to locate) about the security of the wealth of the rich depending on the pride in home ownership of the lower-middle-classes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Downright depressing, really. And also was probably part of the plan in the first place, certainly with regard to council-house sales.

There's some quote from Orwell I recall reading (that I can't find via Google, and can't face reading his entire collected works to locate) about the security of the wealth of the rich depending on the pride in home ownership of the lower-middle-classes.
I saw recently that the UK was attempting to ease housing bans across the country only to be met with furious resistance from people who consistently complain about cost of living problems.

IMG_1744.jpeg
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
That would be a truly progressive tax system!
well, I’m for progressive tax systems where that rates of taxation goes up for each additional tax bracket, but only that particular bracket. I’m fine with a limited no tax or low tax one time inheritance tax on death of parents.
Are we talking about estate tax, inheritance tax, or something different? :p
Estate tax was only applicable for amounts above $5-6 million from 2011 to 2017, and gosh, for some weird reason it jumped up to $11 million in 2018.
Yes, this is insane. Of course, inheritance can be tied up in an estate, and even a trust - just to make things even harder to figure out.

so, cap it at $5M plus, idk, inflation. After that it gets taxed progressively. Those who have large sums of money will want to find other ways to spend those $$s rather than paying Uncle Sam a 70% tax rate (or whatever). Hopefully, this will benefit the economy and or charities. Any policy implementation would need a lot of work (and a democratic government).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
well, I’m for progressive tax systems where that rates of taxation goes up for each additional tax bracket, but only that particular bracket. I’m fine with a limited no tax or low tax one time inheritance tax on death of parents.
But why is that a good public policy solution? Why should people pay lower taxes on money given to them than money earned?

Let’s say my combined effective tax rate is somewhere in the 30’s. If I work and earn $1 million why should I pay $300,000 in taxes on it where if you’re just given it without lifting a finger you pay $0? Shouldn’t it be the opposite?

Personally I think we should heavily tax non-productive money transfers so we can lower taxes on productive ones.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,579
136
I saw recently that the UK was attempting to ease housing bans across the country only to be met with furious resistance from people who consistently complain about cost of living problems.

There are factions in the Tory Party on both sides of that, it seems. The right argue both ways, depending on which specific special-interest they represent.

And long ago there was a lot of noise from the so-called 'countryside alliance' about how hard-done-by rural people were, and it seemed to involve people demanding more affordable homes for their offspring marching alongside people demanding no more house-building in their pretty rural village.

I don't pretend to understand the issue, though. It's too complicated a problem for me to figure out. So many different issues seem to clash and interact when it comes to housing (same as with farming and food production)