All Hank, all the time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
OK. You made the sale. I ain't for that sort of estate tax repeal. In fact, thats pretty fucking odious. If that's true, that's not estates tax repeal at all - thats estate tax revenue source transfer.

But if they just repealed it, I'd be for that (even though I do recognize it is kind of gross to see fortunes like the Walton family's bloat to fantastic levels).

Um, honey? That is too estate tax repeal.

You and Paris are paying the same % amount -- you are clearing $425,000 when you sell the $500k thingie immediately; she gets 425 million on 500 million. It's just a matter of zeros.

I can see an argument that that's fair.

ETA Do you want the step up in basis AND no estate tax? So that you get $500,000 free and clear, and Paris gets $500 million free and clear?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's socialism. I don't give a shit that she was born on home plate. Somebody's always going to be ahead.

Picture Hong Kong, but with a 99% estate tax. That's not socialism.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA Do you want the step up in basis AND no estate tax? So that you get $500,000 free and clear, and Paris gets $500 million free and clear?

Yeh, that seems fair. We both get to keep it all. If we must be taxed, we should also all be taxed at the same rate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Picture Hong Kong, but with a 99% estate tax. That's not socialism.

You gotta flesh that out a bit more for this ignorant sod.

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You gotta flesh that out a bit more for this ignorant sod.

Tys' advocatting for Hong Kong system for the America. I.e for a communist takeover and administration of our capitallist system. This is just another of the many thngs he repudiates and apologizse for at age 50.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, that seems fair. We both get to keep it all. If we must be taxed, we should also all be taxed at the same rate.

There is something appealing to the idea of taxing all inherited wealth at the same rate. But it's also eliminating a tax break that has long applied only to the middle classes. Sure, Paris gets the same break, but it's insignificant percentage wise.

And Burger: philanthropically, do you think that the repeal of the estate tax entirely will help or hurt the philathropy rate among the upper class, given that charitable donations will no longer be given favorable (estate) tax treatment? I'm thinking hurt, on average.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Wank McBumsky
Tys' advocatting

Is this like tomcatting?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc

And Burger: philanthropically, do you think that the repeal of the estate tax entirely will help or hurt the philathropy rate among the upper class, given that charitable donations will no longer be given favorable (estate) tax treatment? I'm thinking hurt, on average.

I suspect it will change the pattern, but I'm not sure it will necessarily hurt in the long run.

first off, people give to charity first and foremost because they believe in the cause. No tax break is going to let you give to charity without giving up some of your own (or heirs) money.

Second, if the stepped-up basis disappears, that will create an incentive for charitable giving. If you give an appreciated asset, you get to deduct the full value, but the charity doesn't have to pay the k-gains tax. So while you would (under current law) avoid 15% tax instead of 50%, you still avoid some. What's more, you'll have that incentive througout your life, rather than only upon death.

So, at bottom, I suspect the change will affect more the timing of gifts than the amount (i.e., on a stream, rather than only at death).

Finally, I'm not sure tax policy should be justified by the effect on charity. Any charitable deduction is inherently a subsidy from the government. So, even if a change to the estate tax causes charitable giving to decline, it could still fairly be argued that the decline is from a too-high level.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's socialism. I don't give a shit that she was born on home plate. Somebody's always going to be ahead.

And I still don't get why the estate tax repeal is going to cost me money. Is there something in the actual law itself that creates a tax burden on middle class people? I thought it was just a straight up repeal of the estate tax.

If they just repeal the estate tax, why does that necessarily make my taxes go up? My taxes would only go up if they repealed the estate tax AND decided to make up the loss of revenue by adding new taxes on the middle class, wouldn't it. If you leave my taxes the same, but give the rich a break on the estate tax, why would I care?

Right now, property that passes at death gets a stepped up basis. Those 10,000 shares of IBM stock that Gramps bought at $5 back in 1962, they now have a basis equal to whatever the close waa on IBM on the day Gramps dies. With the loss of a basis step-up, the stock keeps its $5 basis. So, when you go to sell the stock to pay for a nursery for Sebby, Jr., you get taxed on a $100/share capital gain.

Does that clear it up?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Many retired business owners get paid in dividends as part of the buyout of the shares of their interest in the business. If you raised the rate on dividends sharply, you'd hurt a lot of people. You'd also make it more difficult for people to sell their businesses.

1. Bullshit. If people get cahs on the buyout of their interest in a business, its cash boot, taxed as capital gain.

2. Tough. The tax break on dividends is less than five years old and was grossly unfair when it was passed.

3. If they want out of a business, and they're ging to make a good profit on the sale, people will still sell their businesses. If they don't because 15% (or even 35%) of the gain is going to go to pay taxes, then they should be assessed an idiot tax.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is this like tomcatting?

Yeah, but he only steps out with lawyers.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you give an appreciated asset, you get to deduct the full value, but the charity doesn't have to pay the k-gains tax. So while you would (under current law) avoid 15% tax instead of 50%, you still avoid some. What's more, you'll have that incentive througout your life, rather than only upon death.

So, at bottom, I suspect the change will affect more the timing of gifts than the amount (i.e., on a stream, rather than only at death).

What percentage of charitable giving (globally) is in the form of appreciated assets, as opposed to cold hard cash or even depreciated assets (i.e., Hank's dad's car that he's thinking of giving to the Red Cross so that he can plant something else in the front yard and get the neighbors off his back)?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What percentage of charitable giving (globally) is in the form of appreciated assets, as opposed to cold hard cash or even depreciated assets (i.e., Hank's dad's car that he's thinking of giving to the Red Cross so that he can plant something else in the front yard and get the neighbors off his back)?

I would guess that a substantial percentage of the larger gifts do, in fact, involve appreciated assets.

What you'd need are data on the amount of charitable giving per person (i.e., how much came from gifts of <$100, $100-500, 500-1000, >1000, etc.) I would guess that most gifts in the range over a few thousand dollars involve appreciated assets. It's only sensible. And I would guess that a substantial percentage of charitable giving is concentrated in gifts of large amounts, simply because a large gift is generally more than hundreds of small gifts.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would guess that a substantial percentage of the larger gifts do, in fact, involve appreciated assets.

What you'd need are data on the amount of charitable giving per person (i.e., how much came from gifts of <$100, $100-500, 500-1000, >1000, etc.) I would guess that most gifts in the range over a few thousand dollars involve appreciated assets. It's only sensible. And I would guess that a substantial percentage of charitable giving is concentrated in gifts of large amounts, simply because a large gift is generally more than hundreds of small gifts.

Well, yes I agree that would make sense to do it that way, if one were a corporation. But I get solicitations all the time and I'm no corporation, and mostly I hand out cold hard ducats. It feels like you're correct, but I was curious about a source to confirm it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Right now, property that passes at death gets a stepped up basis. Those 10,000 shares of IBM stock that Gramps bought at $5 back in 1962, they now have a basis equal to whatever the close waa on IBM on the day Gramps dies. With the loss of a basis step-up, the stock keeps its $5 basis. So, when you go to sell the stock to pay for a nursery for Sebby, Jr., you get taxed on a $100/share capital gain.

Does that clear it up?

No, I get it. But why is that step up fiddling tied to the estate tax repeal? Why aren't they just repealing the tax, like they're advertising? Who inserted these provisions fucking with the step up?