Baby boomers complaining about paying capital gains tax......

[OG Goat Holder]

Haha, I think we are on the same wavelength cause we do the same thing.

“There is no possible way you could’ve amassed that much land in one generation. It’s time to redistribute.”

Oh ok. So now you gonna steal from a decayed corpse that’s been dead for 60 years?

Redistribution is what they did in Zimbabwe and South Africa. That's a far cry from your marvelous life in the US of A, man. Go ask those farmers over about what getting screwed out of something really means.

And now their dubmass government is trying to get them to come back, because they can't run the farms they stole from them.

 

[johnson86-1]

Haha, I think we are on the same wavelength cause we do the same thing.

“There is no possible way you could’ve amassed that much land in one generation. It’s time to redistribute.”

Oh ok. So now you gonna steal from a decayed corpse that’s been dead for 60 years?

It doesn't suck for farms any more than it sucks for any large estate. I wish they would just do an inheritance tax rather than an estate tax. You get $5M lifetime inheritance/gift exemption. That's enough to allow you to passively generate roughly 2x the median family income in the US indefinitely. Then tax any excess inheritance/gift beyond $5M as if it's realized capital gains and then set their basis at that point (basically the step up basis). That's still not good policy, but it should be politically palatable and at least it doesn't increase the taxes based on how much consumption the deceased forewent but how much a person actually receives. If you get an inheritance/gift that allows you to passively receive roughly 2x the median family income indefinitely, that's a pretty solid deal and you can pay some tax on it. Index the $5M each year to the higher of the growth in median family income or inflation. If you really hate giving the government money, divide your estate into $5M chunks in your will and give a ranked list of decedents until you run out of money.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

When you inherit property, you get a step up in basis to fair market value, thereby avoiding the tax on his gains. Unless his estate is over $13 million under today's law. Inheriting capital gain property is one of today's largest tax advantages.

Haha, I’m well aware. Guess you missed the point entirely. The government shouldn’t steal from its citizens just because one of them has too much of something according to…the people that don’t have as much of that same thing.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

They used to suck. A married couple now has a $26 million exemption. Y'all must have big farms.

I know you may be shocked to hear this but that’s about 1500 to 2000 acres in the Midwest of super prime Iowa farmland. Could be less acreage depending on your nearby competitors.

Abbot 3700 to 4000 of prime in the delta. Thats the value NOW. Not the value in 25-30 yrs when I hit retirement or die.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

It doesn't suck for farms any more than it sucks for any large estate. I wish they would just do an inheritance tax rather than an estate tax. You get $5M lifetime inheritance/gift exemption. That's enough to allow you to passively generate roughly 2x the median family income in the US indefinitely. Then tax any excess inheritance/gift beyond $5M as if it's realized capital gains and then set their basis at that point (basically the step up basis). That's still not good policy, but it should be politically palatable and at least it doesn't increase the taxes based on how much consumption the deceased forewent but how much a person actually receives. If you get an inheritance/gift that allows you to passively receive roughly 2x the median family income indefinitely, that's a pretty solid deal and you can pay some tax on it. Index the $5M each year to the higher of the growth in median family income or inflation. If you really hate giving the government money, divide your estate into $5M chunks in your will and give a ranked list of decedents until you run out of money.

I think the better question is why do we take money from people at their death…if their estates reach an arbitrary number that the guys with guns say is too much?

 

[stateu1]

I know you may be shocked to hear this but that’s about 1500 to 2000 acres in the Midwest of super prime Iowa farmland. Could be less acreage depending on your nearby competitors.

Abbot 3700 to 4000 of prime in the delta. Thats the value NOW. Not the value in 25-30 yrs when I hit retirement or die.

Shocked I tell you** So, if grandpa paid $4 million for said prime real estate and you inherited, therefore avoiding $21 million in capital gains, you're bitching?

 

[Boom Boom]

I mean, if bolding the question I'm responding to isn't enough to help you follow along, I don't know how to help you. The IRS took several years to even apologize and agree to stop targeting conservatives in a consent decree and couldn't even make it two years without rejecting a non-profit's application because biblical teachings are associated with the republican party. Can you even imagine them rejecting an environmental group's non-profit application because climate change is associated with the democrat party? To ask the question is to answer it.

Oh lord. The IRS gave many reasons for rejecting non-profit status for that group, including the inartfully worded statement you included. Among them is that all of their directors/board were Republicans! And that their stated purpose was to get people to vote. And you would have us believe this groups intent was not to politically help Republicans? Or did you not even know those things and just fell for the propaganda with the sexy headline? (Lord knows plenty of hits that fit that description turn up on a Google search.)

Do you not think there's examples of them doing this to liberal groups?

And you wonder why republicans don't want to give them more money? There should be some things that are too important to make partisan. Military, tax collection, law enforcement, etc. Even hardcore partisans that are smart would realize it's a very short term gain with huge long term costs. Certainly some people are just ****** and it's about personal power and profit and not really about advancing partisan goals except to the extent it betters their position. The problem is all the true believes who basically make politics or certain political issues a substitute for religion and they are too dumb to look 5 minutes into the future.

Um, does it even begin to compare to what cops have done? Why is it bad to criticized funding one, but not the other?

Besides, the problem here is not the IRS, it's clearly the law. The law MANDATES the IRS sort out who is a legitimate non-profit, and who is just using pretexts to hide political activity. You can't write that law and not expect some enforcement problems.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

Shocked I tell you** So, if grandpa paid $4 million for said prime real estate and you inherited, therefore avoiding $21 million in capital gains, you're bitching?

Huh? Sounds like you’re the one who is bitching.

 

[Boom Boom]

What IS ridiculous, apparently from this thread, is that other people think they are entitled to take REPEATED chunks out of the same dollar someone else earned, just because someone else chose to
Invest that dollar instead of buying Mcd’s fries.

That's not ridiculous. ALL money passes through multiple hands. There is no such thing as "double taxation". Newsflash, you pay a sales tax when you buy fries. Then the guy who cooked those fries pays an income tax on the money he made cooking them (well, theoretically). And so on. That's how money works.

Besides, no one is taxing that dollar when it is invested. It is not taxed a dime until that investment turns into income.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

This is the case on most any capital investment outside deductible taxes and interest.

I think the better question is why do we take money from people at their death…if their estates reach an arbitrary number that the guys with guns say is too much?

Captial gains and death taxes are both stupid.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think the better question is why do we take money from people at their death…if their estates reach an arbitrary number that the guys with guns say is too much?

Mainly envy.

If I could design a tax code, I probably would focus on consumption and leave out any estate or inheritance tax. But an inheritance tax with a sufficiently large exemption doesn't seem especially destructive compared to the politically viable alternatives and it seems much better than a straight up estate tax.

 

[SouthFarmchicken]

That's not ridiculous. ALL money passes through multiple hands. There is no such thing as "double taxation". Newsflash, you pay a sales tax when you buy fries. Then the guy who cooked those fries pays an income tax on the money he made cooking them (well, theoretically). And so on. That's how money works.

Besides, no one is taxing that dollar when it is invested. It is not taxed a dime until that investment turns into income.

If I live in Texas, I pay sales tax on the fries (local and state). Thats fine, it wasn’t taxed previously by Texas. The Feds don’t tax me again on that already taxed dollar. If I live in MS, I get screwed. Everyone gets a piece apparently, but just one bite.

Mainly envy.

If I could design a tax code, I probably would focus on consumption and leave out any estate or inheritance tax. But an inheritance tax with a sufficiently large exemption doesn't seem especially destructive compared to the politically viable alternatives and it seems much better than a straight up estate tax.

We agree.

Unfortunately, the people in Congress that spend our money don’t have the estate tax indexed to inflation like the MS PERS 13th check.

 

[johnson86-1]

Oh lord. The IRS gave many reasons for rejecting non-profit status for that group, including the inartfully worded statement you included. Among them is that all of their directors/board were Republicans! And that their stated purpose was to get people to vote. And you would have us believe this groups intent was not to politically help Republicans? Or did you not even know those things and just fell for the propaganda with the sexy headline? (Lord knows plenty of hits that fit that description turn up on a Google search.)

Do you not think there's examples of them doing this to liberal groups?

You don't think other get out the vote operations are partisan? You think the $350M mark zuckerburg spent wasn't tilted based on partisan interests? It's just selective enforcement. Sometimes it's intentional. Probably more often it's the fish doesn't think about the water. And the rejection wasn't just inartfully worded. It included statements that would have immediately been flagged had they try to make an equivalent statement about left wing pet causes. But even though they were relatively fresh off of a scandal for basically the same type of selective enforcement, they can't keep from doing it.

Um, does it even begin to compare to what cops have done? Why is it bad to criticized funding one, but not the other?

Generally the problems people complain about with police do not involve them being partisan organizations, so it is not as hard of an ask to expect the political process to still result in funding for them.

Besides, the problem here is not the IRS, it's clearly the law. The law MANDATES the IRS sort out who is a legitimate non-profit, and who is just using pretexts to hide political activity. You can't write that law and not expect some enforcement problems.

It's not enforcement problems. It's selective enforcement and harrassment.

That said, I would be perfectly fine with getting rid of non-profit status for all organizations other than religious or those existing to provide services to the poor. There'd likely be a legal problem with allowing an explicit exception for religoius non-profits, but most of what qualifies for tax deductible donations probably shouldn't, and they could still avoid paying taxes by only asking for and receiving what they need to operate.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think you are missing the point. Depending on how long you hold the real property (I’m not talking about stocks) that you are living in, you spent a ton of already taxed dollars to maintain your house. You are absolutely being taxed on all of those dollars multiple times as a result of investing those dollars in your property upkeep.

In addition, I would argue you ARE being taxed on that initial dollar again. That dollar should be tax free moving forward for my use. I earned it at some point doing something and was already taxed on it. The federal government is NOT going to tax me again on that dollar if I buy a bag of waffle fries, they are going to tax Chikfila off what they netted from the sale. Why are they taxing me again if I choose to invest instead of consume?

Going further to the extreme, If your great, great, great grandfather earned it and you inherited it, the government has already gotten their cut. That’s the biggest problem I have with the wealth redistribution garbage. The wealthy are wealthy for a reason. At some point, maybe it was 200 years ago, someone in that family line took a risk or had a great idea and it paid off. The FAMILY earned it. Nothing was ever given to them. The person who actually earned it could have blown their money on hookers and blow. They didn’t. They chose to continue to invest or whatever and created value that could sustain their family for centuries.

Wow.

1- Maybe you spent a lot to maintain your house. Or maybe it was a new build, you lived there for a decade, and you spent nearly nothing. Either way- what you spend to maintain property beside the point. If you CHOOSE to spend money on your property, you aren't being taxed twice if your property sells for more than purchase price. F17S.
You are trying to draw a direct connection between taxed income used to maintain property and value of that property at the time of sale. There can be a connection in some instances, but there can also be no connection.
Choosing to spend money on one's home is not double taxation. You can argue it is, but damn it's a bad look.

2- You seem to not understand the difference between income tax and sales tax. That's unfortunate.
Both can exist without double taxation applying.
Just because one state doesn't have sales tax doesn't mean anything either since typically property taxss are then higher.

3- If you invest money instead of consuming a product paid for with that money, thst money won't be taxed. Profits from that money will be taxed. Why is this even being argued?
You either don't understand basics of money and taxation or you are being intentionally obtuse.

4- Claiming the family earned it and nothing is therefore given to descendents is hilarious. A will literally identifies who is supposed to be given things.

 

[mstateglfr]

I totally understand how capital gain works. Your cost basis will be removed from the transaction and you won't pay tax again on that dollar, but you pay tax on the gain where you took the risk. You could lose the money. Yes I know you can write that off, but that doesn't help from a cash flow perspective.

Losing money tends to not help things from a cash flow perspective.

Seriously though- investments are a risk. You are risking property for the chance to increase it. If you lose your property, you can write it off as a loss. If you increase your property, the government taxes you a small amount for the new property.

This isn't difficult to understand. What is your proposed solution to how losses should be handled, if a tax write off isn't enough?

 

[Boom Boom]

You don't think other get out the vote operations are partisan? You think the $350M mark zuckerburg spent wasn't tilted based on partisan interests? It's just selective enforcement. Sometimes it's intentional. Probably more often it's the fish doesn't think about the water. And the rejection wasn't just inartfully worded. It included statements that would have immediately been flagged had they try to make an equivalent statement about left wing pet causes. But even though they were relatively fresh off of a scandal for basically the same type of selective enforcement, they can't keep from doing it.



Generally the problems people complain about with police do not involve them being partisan organizations, so it is not as hard of an ask to expect the political process to still result in funding for them.



It's not enforcement problems. It's selective enforcement and harrassment.

That said, I would be perfectly fine with getting rid of non-profit status for all organizations other than religious or those existing to provide services to the poor. There'd likely be a legal problem with allowing an explicit exception for religoius non-profits, but most of what qualifies for tax deductible donations probably shouldn't, and they could still avoid paying taxes by only asking for and receiving what they need to operate.

How is it selective enforcement when lib groups get it too?

Audit indicates liberal nonprofits also got extra IRS scrutiny

Democrats cited Thursday’s report as vindication of their earlier claims that liberal-leaning groups were also caught up in the IRS practice.

www.politico.com

The bias isn't coming from the IRS.

 

[Boom Boom]

I think the better question is why do we take money from people at their death…if their estates reach an arbitrary number that the guys with guns say is too much?

Necessity. Taxes are inefficient, an estate tax helps smooth down some of the rough edges.

We also recognize that large fortunes were achieved in part by skirting proper taxation. An estate tax helps right that wrong.

But I would be all for just treating all inheritance as income. It would be taxed way more that way! But if some richie wanted to give $25k to 1 million people with no income, thereby no tax being paid....OK!

 

[TheStateUofMS]

Losing money tends to not help things from a cash flow perspective.

Seriously though- investments are a risk. You are risking property for the chance to increase it. If you lose your property, you can write it off as a loss. If you increase your property, the government taxes you a small amount for the new property.

This isn't difficult to understand. What is your proposed solution to how losses should be handled, if a tax write off isn't e

Necessity. Taxes are inefficient, an estate tax helps smooth down some of the rough edges.

We also recognize that large fortunes were achieved in part by skirting proper taxation. An estate tax helps right that wrong.

But I would be all for just treating all inheritance as income. It would be taxed way more that way! But if some richie wanted to give $25k to 1 million people with no income, thereby no tax being paid....OK!

You can already do that up to $17k per person.

 

[Boom Boom]

You can already do that up to $17k per person.

OK!