Closing the wealth gap

22,025 Views | 526 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by DiabloWags
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's a nice story!
It's about choices, and "doing the right thing."



Team owner's act of generosity leaves staff 'speechless,' in tears

Jeff Eisenberg
Thu, December 30, 2021, 3:43 PM


On his final day as principal owner of the Iowa Cubs, Michael Gartner surprised his staff with an unforgettable goodbye gift.

He shared profits from the sale of the Des Moines-based minor-league baseball team with all 23 of the club's full-time employees.

Gartner didn't reveal his intentions until Tuesday evening during a staff-wide gathering inside a ballpark lounge overlooking left field. As some employees scarfed down hot dogs and sipped beer and others watched from afar via Zoom, Gartner punctuated an emotional farewell speech by unveiling a stack of envelopes.


"Here are your new business cards," Gartner joked.

"Everyone knew something was up because of the way he said it," Alex Cohen, the team's lead broadcaster, said.


What was actually inside those envelopes were checks worth a total of approximately $600,000, general manager and minority owner Sam Bernabe told Yahoo Sports. Gartner, Bernabe and the other three members of the team's ownership group determined how much each full-time staffer received based on how long he or she had worked for the Chicago Cubs Triple-A affiliate.

The generous gifts unleashed a flood of emotion from the recipients. The team's longest-tenured employee had tears rolling down his cheeks. Everyone from marketing managers, to stadium operations workers, to the janitorial staff struggled to find words to thank Gartner and his partners.

"It was the single most genuine gesture I've ever seen," Cohen said. "You work in sports and it's usually long hours and low pay. You're not in it to make money. But this is an ownership group that really cares about its employees. And this gesture really typified that."

Gartner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper columnist and former president of NBC News, purchased the Iowa Cubs with his partners in 1999. Since then, the club has been the last stop before the Big Leagues for many Chicago Cubs luminaries including Javier Baez, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo.

While highly touted prospects have come and gone, Gartner's ownership group has been the mainstays. Gartner, 83, has strove for years to maintain a cozy, family-friendly environment at Principal Park. Whether in his second-floor office or his lower-level seats, Gartner has often been present and hands-on yet never overbearing.

"[Gartner] was infamous for saying to me all the time, 'Let's do the right thing,'" Bernabe said "That's how we operated the business. It was my charge and my challenge to do all the things that he thought were right."

For years, that simply meant offering employees generous retirement and healthcare plans or making sure they had adequate personal or vacation time. Then the COVID-19 pandemic shut down minor league baseball in 2020, and suddenly Gartner challenged Bernabe anew.

At a time when many cash-strapped Triple-A teams were furloughing or laying off their employees, Gartner sat down with Bernabe and told him firmly, "We aren't going to let anyone go." Gartner knew that his fellow owners would suffer a financial hit yet he once again he felt that it was the right thing to do.

"We got a little bit of PPP money and a little bit of help from the state of Iowa," Bernabe said. "The rest was Michael and the ownership group."

The decision paid off the following year when Bernabe had to reopen Principal Park while implementing new COVID-19 rules. Bernabe says it would have been "disastrous" to have to teach a whole new staff how to run a baseball team while also worrying about socially distant seating and locker room safety protocol.

As Gartner's 83rd birthday approached in October, he and his partners began to explore the notion of selling the Iowa Cubs. He agreed to a deal with Endeavor, a California-based sports entertainment and marketing company that was in the process of also scooping up eight other minor league baseball clubs.

Given Gartner's history of generosity, Bernabe wasn't surprised when the outgoing owner approached him a few weeks ago with an idea for what to do with the sale proceeds. He proposed to Bernabe and the other minority owners to distribute the sale money among the Iowa Cubs' employees.

"Everyone said, 'Great, let's do that," Bernabe said. "It was that easy."

The reward for the ownership group was the response from their staff this past Tuesday evening.

"The overwhelming majority were very surprised," Bernabe said. "I had a couple of them come up to me and thank me afterward and they had a hard time finding the words. They were speechless."
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


So, sort of a worker takeover of the profits from private business?
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


So, sort of a worker takeover of the profits from private business?


Workers couldn't do this unless they get together and voted in an entirely new government. Our current government has no desire to do anything about CEOs making 10s-100s of millions while their employees make minimum wage to a few hundred thousand. My C suite BIL and I got in a pretty big argument about this over Xmas. He's actually for the wealth tax. I think because that is the only solution folks can see to the wealth inequality problem. I am not any suite and have way less money, cars, houses, boats than him but the wealth tax just seems like the wrong way to equal the compensation gap.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


How is that going to happen when the Republicans have reinvented themselves as the party that "watches out for the working man," while fiendishly doing everything in their power to preserve tax law inequity.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While this may not pertain directly to the thread and the corporate compensation committee's who are the one's responsible for doling out stock-option grants . . .

I'm still waiting for people like Bernie Sanders to tell me why he thinks that Govt is a better allocator of my money than I am. I'm also still waiting for him and Elizabeth Warren to use the word RISK in a sentence whenever they talk about entrepreneurs.

FWIW: The Top 5% pay 61% of all Federal Income Taxes and the Top 1% in California pay 46% of all State income taxes, per 2018 and 2016 tax data, respectively. It's the primary reason why California just recently enjoyed a record breaking budget surplus of $75 Billion during a pandemic, and a $31 Billion surplus for 2022.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


So, sort of a worker takeover of the profits from private business?


Workers couldn't do this unless they get together and voted in an entirely new government. Our current government has no desire to do anything about CEOs making 10s-100s of millions while their employees make minimum wage to a few hundred thousand. My C suite BIL and I got in a pretty big argument about this over Xmas. He's actually for the wealth tax. I think because that is the only solution folks can see to the wealth inequality problem. I am not any suite and have way less money, cars, houses, boats than him but the wealth tax just seems like the wrong way to equal the compensation gap.


I'm less interested in the means and more interested in the outcomes. If it works, it works.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


I would like to see government come up with a program whereby we honor and laud people who pay lots in taxes, or choose to profit share like this.

Build a Citizen's Hall of Fame!

If you get into THIS HoF, well, there is no higher honor.

Different levels of recognition, be creative.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


So, sort of a worker takeover of the profits from private business?


Workers couldn't do this unless they get together and voted in an entirely new government. Our current government has no desire to do anything about CEOs making 10s-100s of millions while their employees make minimum wage to a few hundred thousand. My C suite BIL and I got in a pretty big argument about this over Xmas. He's actually for the wealth tax. I think because that is the only solution folks can see to the wealth inequality problem. I am not any suite and have way less money, cars, houses, boats than him but the wealth tax just seems like the wrong way to equal the compensation gap.


I'm less interested in the means and more interested in the outcomes. If it works, it works.


Well, you probably don't want me to take a gun to Bezos' house and redistribute his wealth, right?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No, the Richest One Percent Don't Pay 40 Percent of Taxes.


https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html

"The Stat is literally true. But it is deeply misleading so misleading, in fact, that it routinely fools even the people who are citing it into thinking it indicates something other than what it actually means.

The first problem with The Stat is that it makes no reference to the proportion of income the rich earn. The juxtaposition between one percent and 40 percent is meant to convey the idea that a small number of people are carrying a gigantic and disproportionate burden, but the figure lacks any context when it omits how much money they earn in the first place.

Indeed, it turns the fact that rich people account for a massive share of the income pool into a reason to see them as mistreated"

The Latest Wildly Misleading Argument Against Taxing the Rich ITEP


https://itep.org/the-latest-wildly-misleading-argument-against-taxing-the-rich/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Next time a rich relative complains to me about the injustice, I'm going to respond with "CONGRATULATIONS!!!"
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Next time a rich relative complains to me about the injustice, I'm going to respond with "CONGRATULATIONS!!!"

If your part of your rich relative's estate, just make sure that he dies before 2026 because their estate (assets) will be taxed another 40% above $5 million starting then. The current exemption is at $11.7 million.

The Democrats wanted the Trump Tax Reform (and this exemption) to "sunset" after this year, so that the lowered exemption could generate more revenue and help pay for Biden's "Build Back Better" legislation.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

82gradDLSdad said:

"He shared profits ..."

I am more in favor of our 'tax' law being changed to force companies to share profits (a federal compensation scale) than taxing billionaires and letting politicians dole the money out as they see fit. No one I've mentioned this to agrees with it. I'm on the right track.


So, sort of a worker takeover of the profits from private business?


Workers couldn't do this unless they get together and voted in an entirely new government. Our current government has no desire to do anything about CEOs making 10s-100s of millions while their employees make minimum wage to a few hundred thousand. My C suite BIL and I got in a pretty big argument about this over Xmas. He's actually for the wealth tax. I think because that is the only solution folks can see to the wealth inequality problem. I am not any suite and have way less money, cars, houses, boats than him but the wealth tax just seems like the wrong way to equal the compensation gap.


I'm less interested in the means and more interested in the outcomes. If it works, it works.


Well, you probably don't want me to take a gun to Bezos' house and redistribute his wealth, right?


Not you personally, no. An armed division of the IRS would be a different matter.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:





Well, you probably don't want me to take a gun to Bezos' house and redistribute his wealth, right?

Were you at Elon Musk's house recently?

Elon Musk has 5 key pieces of advice for young people who want to be successful in life (yahoo.com)
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


First off, I would suggest that a WEALTH TAX is literally impossible to enact because calculating what wealth "is"... is terribly complicated. The IRS administering such a tax would probably be as challenging as landing a man on the Moon.

Moreover, I wouldnt say that the Rich "hide" their wealth as much as they take advantage of tax law that allows for such things to be constructed so as to pass down wealth to the next generation of their family.

It's your right to pass as much of your assets down to your heirs via a simple Family Trust.

Where this can become far more "aggressive" is with a Grantor Annuity Trust. These types of Trusts are the vehicles by which very wealthy people pass down their wealth..... tax free.

In fact, Phil Knight was a Pioneer in this area when it came to using the Grantor Annuity Trust.

The following is a great read for thise wishing to learn more.

How American Billionaires Like Phil Knight Pass Wealth to Heirs Tax-Free https://www.bloomberg.com/features/how-billionaires-pass-wealth-to-heirs-tax-free-2021/?utm_medium=deeplink
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


What we need is a cultural shift. Instead of people being selfish, or trying to finagle the system so that they get more out of it, or put less in, people take pride in putting in, so as to create a better society.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama's presidency in one sentence:

The first elected black president of the United States and also most progressive president in recent times enabled white elites to become even richer and eventually became one of them before he left.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


First off, I would suggest that a WEALTH TAX is literally impossible to enact because calculating what wealth "is"... is terribly complicated. The IRS administering such a tax would probably be as challenging as landing a man on the Moon.

Moreover, I wouldnt say that the Rich "hide" their wealth as much as they take advantage of tax law that allows for such things to be constructed so as to pass down wealth to the next generation of their family.

It's your right to pass as much of your assets down to your heirs via a simple Family Trust.

Where this can become far more "aggressive" is with a Grantor Annuity Trust. These types of Trusts are the vehicles by which very wealthy people pass down their wealth..... tax free.

In fact, Phil Knight was a Pioneer in this area when it came to using the Grantor Annuity Trust.

The following is a great read for thise wishing to learn more.

How American Billionaires Like Phil Knight Pass Wealth to Heirs Tax-Free https://www.bloomberg.com/features/how-billionaires-pass-wealth-to-heirs-tax-free-2021/?utm_medium=deeplink



Property tax is a wealth tax.
Yah, hide was the wrong word. How about legally hide?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


What we need is a cultural shift. Instead of people being selfish, or trying to finagle the system so that they get more out of it, or put less in, people take pride in putting in, so as to create a better society.


Something like, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what can you do for your country?".

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Obama's presidency in one sentence:

The first elected black president of the United States and also most progressive president in recent times enabled white elites to become even richer and eventually became one of them before he left.


Obama was less progressive than Carter, 1st term Clinton, and Biden
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:





Property tax is a wealth tax.
Yah, hide was the wrong word. How about legally hide?

I see no reason why the Govt should be allowed to tax you (again) when you die.
Do you?

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If we tax the rich too much we will be deprived of the magic of Billionaire Space Cowboys!

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

82gradDLSdad said:





Property tax is a wealth tax.
Yah, hide was the wrong word. How about legally hide?

I see no reason why the Govt should be allowed to tax you (again) when you die.
Do you?




They can if they start taxing wealth. That doesn't die. This is a horrible topic that I've gotten myself into. Happy New Year. Great to see Harbaugh getting his ass kicked again in a big game.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

If we tax the rich too much we will be deprived of the magic of Billionaire Space Cowboys!


I'm not sure if I could go on if we stopped sending aging and C-list celebrities on 15 minute suborbital joy rides.
WalterSobchak
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

concordtom said:

Next time a rich relative complains to me about the injustice, I'm going to respond with "CONGRATULATIONS!!!"

If your part of your rich relative's estate, just make sure that he dies before 2026 because their estate (assets) will be taxed another 40% above $5 million starting then. The current exemption is at $11.7 million.

The Democrats wanted the Trump Tax Reform (and this exemption) to "sunset" after this year, so that the lowered exemption could generate more revenue and help pay for Biden's "Build Back Better" legislation.

In fairness the reduced basic exclusion amount for 2022 would've been around $6.03M if BBB had passed and the unified credit provision hadn't been removed by the House in committee before passing BBB to the Senate. All that provision was set to do as originally drafted was strike 2010(c)(3)(C) to reset the base amount to $5M. That $5M still would've been subject to the increase calculation under 2010(c)(3)(B), and we now know from the IRS that their calculation of the new 2022 exclusion is $12.06M.

It's interesting that the unified credit provision didn't even make it out of the House, and unclear whether it will ever be resurrected going forward or just quietly get left behind. More important IMO is the "anti-clawback" regulation at 20.2010-1(c) which was never on the table for repeal and which is worded to apply any time the lifetime exclusion in a year of inter vivos gifting exceeds the lifetime exclusion in the donor's year of death, provided the gifts made in that year exceed the death year exemption. So (unless repealed) it will apply any time this may happen, not just in this 2018 through 2025(?) increase period. By 2026 the reduced exemption will probably be around $7M per person ($14M with mutual portability elections between spouses), maybe more.
WalterSobchak
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

DiabloWags said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


First off, I would suggest that a WEALTH TAX is literally impossible to enact because calculating what wealth "is"... is terribly complicated. The IRS administering such a tax would probably be as challenging as landing a man on the Moon.

Moreover, I wouldnt say that the Rich "hide" their wealth as much as they take advantage of tax law that allows for such things to be constructed so as to pass down wealth to the next generation of their family.

It's your right to pass as much of your assets down to your heirs via a simple Family Trust.

Where this can become far more "aggressive" is with a Grantor Annuity Trust. These types of Trusts are the vehicles by which very wealthy people pass down their wealth..... tax free.

In fact, Phil Knight was a Pioneer in this area when it came to using the Grantor Annuity Trust.

The following is a great read for thise wishing to learn more.

How American Billionaires Like Phil Knight Pass Wealth to Heirs Tax-Free https://www.bloomberg.com/features/how-billionaires-pass-wealth-to-heirs-tax-free-2021/?utm_medium=deeplink



Property tax is a wealth tax.
Yah, hide was the wrong word. How about legally hide?
Estate tax is also a wealth tax with an established reporting procedure. Everyone files a 706 eventually, or more precisely has one filed for them. Tracking and reporting gross taxable estate annually would take more work for sure, but wouldn't be impossible. Probably why they only propose (so far) for it to apply to the ultra wealthy. Diminishing returns concept.

The key distinction IMO about property tax is that it's a repetitive tax. The same owner/taxpayer gets re-taxed every year on the same asset value and there's no basis concept involved. That's pretty unique in our system. Even gift and estate taxes only take one bite from the apple per owner/taxpayer.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

82gradDLSdad said:

dajo9 said:

bearister said:

"Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer's first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion.
The wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families."

Elizabeth Warren: What to know about the 2020 candidate's wealth tax proposal - Axios


https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-warren-2020-candidate-wealth-tax-policy-proposal-afdd231c-a00a-4d00-b948-274124be1097.html




To me, the Warren plan is the best plan that has been put forward. 82grad's shared profits plan may be better but I'm not sure I understand it fully.


The biggest hurdle for any of these plans is that rich folks can pay the best and the brightest to hide the money that is about to be transferred to another. My plan is just that I'd like corporate profit to be divided up more equitably amongst those that help produce it. I don't want to increase tax on it so it goes into government oblivion.


What we need is a cultural shift. Instead of people being selfish, or trying to finagle the system so that they get more out of it, or put less in, people take pride in putting in, so as to create a better society.


Something like, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what can you do for your country?".




Precisely.
I thought I included that in my post.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

82gradDLSdad said:



Property tax is a wealth tax.
Yah, hide was the wrong word. How about legally hide?

I see no reason why the Govt should be allowed to tax you (again) when you die.
Do you?




I support the concept of inheritance, so let's not go THERE.
Instead, let's talk about what typ of society we want for our local community, our state, our country, our planet.
Let's take a big picture perspective and see how we might be able to get there.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"I support the concept of inheritance.."

Which could be made more palatable if they had a surgery to remove the "I was born on 3rd base but act like I hit a triple" mentality that the average trust fund baby displays.

Classic example: The Royals. I don't think they spend a lot of time reflecting on the fact that "but for," flipping burgers would be it (with no insult to people that flip burgers intended).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPd6tsb9P/

Here is the biggest issue
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, this garbage recycled again. Hey Tom, the IRS is allowed to take citizen contributions. You start the process. Let's see copies of those of those cancelled checks. Tom, could you even live with all the things you suggest on this board?

The income tax taxes income. The wealthy tend to escape income in several ways, which generally can be reduced to wealth does not equal takable income. The wealth tax is politically impossible since top donors to both parties are vested interests against it. It probably is unconstitutional. It is likely the most inefficient and ineffective because wealth is inherently more difficult to measure. Privately held companies, for example, are not traded in public markets, which means that there are no stock prices by which one can objectively gauge their value. There are numerous examples of private wealth being unreliable. Kylie Jenner, the Kardasian relative, was a billionaire and appeared on the Forbes list of richest women. That turned out to BS as other media took a closer look at her private companies, and she while doing well, she was two digits removed from a billionaire, no less a double billionaire. Her case demonstrates how easy it is to misstate wealth, financial assets can be hidden or moved abroad with the click of a mouse or converted into other assets that are impossible to value. Wealth taxes have been tried and abandoned or greatly reduced in scope of what is taxed. A lot of this is because these taxes failed to raise much money, and are hard to administer. The usual economic argument is by taking a fraction of people's wealth each year, the tax reduces the return to investing and discourages saving. This can reduce growth because investing and capital accumulation are critical to innovation.

The biggest problem is that the Tom's of the world don't understand the difference between income inequality and wealth inequality. While the federal government taxes income, it does not tax wealth. The IRS does not keep data on individual wealth, and it is very difficult to assign an objective value to most forms of wealth, such as family businesses, art and jewelry collections, private equity, club memberships, many hard assets, intangibles, etc., not to mention bank accounts or investments outside the county for that matter. There really is no accurate measure of wealth inequality.

If you want to discuss income inequality, a good potion of the people on this board are professionals who make good salaries and are the reasons for income inequality. Your welcome to put your money where your mouth is and join Tom in in making your contributions to pay for all those meaningful programs you think the government drums-up. This is the perfect solution - those that think big government programs are cure-alls can pay for them.

As for other solutions, Unit 2 and I developed solutions such as certain type of estate taxes, no step up on basis etc. But does the government listen to our brilliant ideas? Biden tried for at least a few minutes. Instead, it is back to let's just raise another wealth tax concept which is illegal, won't become law, and won't work. Or let's raise income taxes yet again on successful workers with our wonderful voter mandate.

And so there is also the question about whether wealth inequality is bad (I would discuss income inequality, but at some point, many of you will wake-up and realize you are part of the wealth inequality). Lefty economists thought that there was a trade-off between growth and equality. To quote a prominent righty: More growth necessarily meant that some people became very rich as the result of starting very productive companies, fashioning new technologies, synthesizing drugs, or devising new and popular products. Reaping the rewards meant that they earned far more than others, although their income (and wealth) did not come at the expense of everyone else. Conversely, taxing wealth and redistributing it enhanced economic equality, but it also reduced incentives to invest and innovate. Tolerating inequality was considered a worthwhile trade-off because a wealthier, albeit more unequal, economy has the potential to make everyone better off from rising living standards. And with appropriate redistributive policies, some of the wealth could fund social insurance while still rewarding successful entrepreneurs. This is know of known as trickle down and the saying is sorta like Let's go Brandon, it has subsumed the message of those being ridiculed. But our economic system generally follows this approach, where people like Keynes call it an invisible hand, or say incentives do work.

Again quoting someone else: A more political argument is that inequality may depress growth is that the wealthy distort the political process, lobbying to rig the game through laws and regulations that benefit them at everyone else's expense. Okay, this is not exactly a new thing - anyone have evidence this is more pervasive?

For Adam Smith types, there is the law of unintended consequences. Let's look at tech. A wealth tax creates an incentive to keep companies private and not sell shares on the stock market, because that makes wealth easier to underreport. Her case demonstrates how easy it is to misstate wealth. A wealth tax creates an incentive for tech entrepreneurs not to take their companies publicwhich means that the American public cannot share in the growth of the most productive firms in the world. This reduces wealth creation within the economy as a whole, and the Bay Area economy in particular.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whenever wiaf goes on a rant about how it's impossible to improve America I start thinking about ways to evolve from America.

I bet wiaf's creative thinking would improve if the alternative wasn't the status quo.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.