Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-10-2021, 09:05 AM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,006
I might inherit a used crock pot if I am super lucky, which puts me more in Gumby's camp


If I had some rich uncle with a castle or something though, I would be all over 0% inheritance tax!
Fermion is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-10-2021, 09:28 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Dash man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Limerick
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Dynastic wealth is bad for society. It exacerbates inequality and stifles ambition. Make as much as you want and spend as much as you want, just don't pass it on to your children. Everyone should stand on their own two feet, not on the shoulders of their parents and grandparents, and should run their own race through life. The children who grow up in wealthy households already have more advantages - typically better education (both the formal and the informal kind), better connections and better support systems - than those who grow up in poor households. They don't need additional wealth that has not been taxed (which is what happens with the step up basis).

This would destroy family farms and many other businesses. The unintended consequences would be enormous.
Dash man is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:32 AM   #23
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dash man View Post
This would destroy family farms and many other businesses. The unintended consequences would be enormous.
Is there some reason that family farms and other businesses must be inherited? Can't you start your own if that's what you want to do for a living? That's what the vast run of humanity does - find something they can do to make money to live on.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:38 AM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 7,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
It seems like the ultra-wealthy agree... from what I have read, Buffett's kids are getting pretty modest inheritances. I suspect the same for Gates.

It would penalize family businesses where offspring have been groomed to takeover... Steve Forbes comes to mind.
I do think that Buffett and Gates and Bezos' ex-wife (and all the group who have signed that Giving Pledge thing) are truly philanthropists and may have given away a lot of money to charity otherwise.

But I do wonder if the 40% tax on everything above $23M (which is a large amount for us mere mortals but a rounding error for the billionaire crowd) might color their thinking a bit. If I had $100B and had a choice of giving $100B to charity or $60B to my kids and $40B to Uncle Sam, I know what I'd do (especially if I could give my kids a couple million anyway).

Probably not a decision I'll have to face, TBH.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:49 AM   #25
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Near Sacramento
Posts: 488
Why do people's "dislikes" have to be made into law and affect everyone?!? If you don't want to transfer funds, businesses, land, etc to the next generation, than you set-up a will. trust, etc and transfer it as you see fit.



I would rather make my own choices than have the Gov't come in and take what I worked hard to create. If the Gov't wants to create incentives for great giving at death, then let them do it. Confiscation isn't it.


If anyone wants to pay more in taxes they are welcome to do so. Sounds like Gumby will be first up to the plate. Thank your generous donation to the Gov't.



As to the OP, laws change. Roll with the punches. And if Gumby has his way, you won't have to worry about it at all.


cd :O)
Chris7 is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:53 AM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
MrsHaloFIRE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Is there some reason that family farms and other businesses must be inherited? Can't you start your own if that's what you want to do for a living? That's what the vast run of humanity does - find something they can do to make money to live on.
Having grown up on a family farm I will take a wild stab at that. Couple reasons we dont want farms to go away after 1 generation. Immense amount of capital required to run a farm which takes generations to build. Equipment, expertise, appropriate land management so it will yield correctly, acquisition of complimentary parcels to give you access to soil you need. Also, as someone who likes to eat, I dont want every farm having to start over every generation with someone looking around for land. Yeah there are big commercial farms, but there are also BIG privately owned farms that bring you your eggs, milk and produce. EVen the pretty flowers you like in a vase.

My family's farm has been ENTIRELY encircled with subdivisions. If it were to hit the market it would turn into prob a golf community in approx 10 months time from date of death. You cant just fly out west, land at an airport, go walk around and find an appropriate available parcel and commence to farming. its takes decades to even get decent, establish your suppliers and to whom youre selling. Treat and condition your soil. Learn more about it and do it again. Determine what grows best on what parcel given sun, water, soil conditions. Learn your pests.

TO me the idea of selling every farm at the death of the original farmer is like erasing the research of a scientist when he/she dies. Maybe next generation will figure out cancer in a single career, but we have to destroy all this research because this person died. Kids, go get a "REAL" job bc Gumby doesnt think you should farm on your parent's land. (sarcasm intended)
MrsHaloFIRE is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:01 AM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Dash man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Limerick
Posts: 5,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Is there some reason that family farms and other businesses must be inherited? Can't you start your own if that's what you want to do for a living? That's what the vast run of humanity does - find something they can do to make money to live on.

This would force sales of the farm or business at rock bottom prices because the family has to pay the estate taxes. Corporations would end up owning all the farms and would likely see much land turned into housing developments. Private companies would be gobbled up by corporations. The money to start a farm or a business of any size is tremendous and competition from corporations will be brutal.
Dash man is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:14 AM   #28
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Omaha
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsHaloFIRE View Post
Having grown up on a family farm I will take a wild stab at that. Couple reasons we dont want farms to go away after 1 generation. Immense amount of capital required to run a farm which takes generations to build. Equipment, expertise, appropriate land management so it will yield correctly, acquisition of complimentary parcels to give you access to soil you need. Also, as someone who likes to eat, I dont want every farm having to start over every generation with someone looking around for land. Yeah there are big commercial farms, but there are also BIG privately owned farms that bring you your eggs, milk and produce. EVen the pretty flowers you like in a vase.

My family's farm has been ENTIRELY encircled with subdivisions. If it were to hit the market it would turn into prob a golf community in approx 10 months time from date of death. You cant just fly out west, land at an airport, go walk around and find an appropriate available parcel and commence to farming. its takes decades to even get decent, establish your suppliers and to whom youre selling. Treat and condition your soil. Learn more about it and do it again. Determine what grows best on what parcel given sun, water, soil conditions. Learn your pests.

TO me the idea of selling every farm at the death of the original farmer is like erasing the research of a scientist when he/she dies. Maybe next generation will figure out cancer in a single career, but we have to destroy all this research because this person died. Kids, go get a "REAL" job bc Gumby doesnt think you should farm on your parent's land. (sarcasm intended)
I thought all you had to do to be a farmer was to dig a hole, plant a seed, cover it up and that was that. At least that's what Michael Bloomberg from New York thought. Guess Gumpy thinks like Bloomberg.

Seriously yours was a very good post!
Oilcan is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:31 AM   #29
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsHaloFIRE View Post

TO me the idea of selling every farm at the death of the original farmer is like erasing the research of a scientist when he/she dies. Maybe next generation will figure out cancer in a single career, but we have to destroy all this research because this person died. Kids, go get a "REAL" job bc Gumby doesnt think you should farm on your parent's land. (sarcasm intended)
No need to be angry about it. BigDawg asked my reasoning. I provided it. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Heck, I don't expect very many people at all to agree with me, which is why things won't change.

However, I do wish that all those people who have inherited assets, whether they be a family farm or family business or a pile of appreciated stock, would have some appreciation for the fact that the taxpayers of this country are subsidizing you and your family, in some cases going back several generations. Although maybe your particular family has some morally superior claim to taxpayer subsidies than other families. I don't know.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:39 AM   #30
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilcan View Post
I thought all you had to do to be a farmer was to dig a hole, plant a seed, cover it up and that was that. At least that's what Michael Bloomberg from New York thought. Guess Gumpy thinks like Bloomberg.

Seriously yours was a very good post!
Actually, I do have an idea of what it takes, given that the young wife and I grow virtually all of our own vegetables (and can/dry/freeze them for the winter). It's hard work just to feed the two of us. Doing it at a scale needed to make a living at it would be incredibly difficult.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:00 AM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 36,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
No need to be angry about it. BigDawg asked my reasoning. I provided it. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Heck, I don't expect very many people at all to agree with me, which is why things won't change.

However, I do wish that all those people who have inherited assets, whether they be a family farm or family business or a pile of appreciated stock, would have some appreciation for the fact that the taxpayers of this country are subsidizing you and your family, in some cases going back several generations. Although maybe your particular family has some morally superior claim to taxpayer subsidies than other families. I don't know.
Yeah, I actually thought a 100% estate tax was one of your dumber ideas.

I also disagree that people who have inherited assets are being subsidized by taxpayers.... how so? There is no taxpayer subsidy, in fact the inverse.... those inherited assets are still generating income and are paying income tax annually.

IMO it would be stupid to have a decedent's assets revert to the state upon their death.... not even socialist couries like China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc do that.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:13 AM   #32
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
. . . I also disagree that people who have inherited assets are being subsidized by taxpayers.... how so? There is no taxpayer subsidy, in fact the inverse.... those inherited assets are still generating income and are paying income tax annually . . .
Not necessarily. I could inherit a large portfolio of appreciated stocks or a house or a business or a farm. I could sell any of them the next day and there would be no taxes due. If I continue to use those assets to generate income in the future, of course, then I'll pay taxes on the new income. But the taxes on the step up amount are gone forever. In fact, if I just left the sale proceeds in a no interest bank account and spent them down over my life, I'd never pay income tax. And that amount I have available to spend would be increased by the amount of the tax not collected on the step up amount, which is a subsidy from other taxpayers. Roll that amount over through several generations and the subsidy becomes quite large.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:27 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 36,264
OK, I concede that the step-up in basis is a nice tax benefit that is theoretically dubious... not really a taxpayer subsidy except in comparison to a sale by the decedent.

If you have advocated carryover basis for inherited assets or only 50% step up or a 15% tax in exchange for a 100% stepped up basis rather than 100% estate tax then you might have got more traction.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:30 AM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 7,109
Perhaps inheritance tax on an illiquid asset such as a farm could be a lean which could be paid as a part of operations over time or when the property is sold.
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:33 AM   #35
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by engr View Post
I started reading a book “beating the new death tax” by James Lange,cpa/attorney. I’m interested in looking for possible new ways to structure my distributions in retirement to possibly be more tax efficient. I’m in the part of the book where he mentions that if I die first my traditional Ira monies will pass to my wife first. After she dies whatever is left will go to our children (as per the beneficiary setup). What bothers me is that once the money is passed down to the children they must pull out distributions within a 10 year window. This may be a time in their lives where they might be making good money and this additional required distribution might throw them in a higher tax bracket. The CARES ACT deleted the “stretch Ira” feature. I feel that I have been saving for over 40 years so my kids might be able to prolong these distributions per their longevity numbers. Now all of a sudden the govt is looking for money to pay for all their programs, etc and deleting the stretch Ira features. This seems like a broken promise - to change the rules of the game. I understand the govt needs money to pay for programs but why not grandfather this up to 2020 so that those that saved for the intended purpose of utilizing the stretch Ira don’t get screwed? If people still want to contribute, fine but don’t keep changing the rules when convenient for one side. I feel the govt broke its initial promise to us.

Rant over.. what are your thoughts?
++1. However, many posters on this forum will disagree. Like you, I think
changing the "rules", in the middle of the game is not fair or ethical.
wolf is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:45 AM   #36
Administrator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 40,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
OK, I concede that the step-up in basis is a nice tax benefit that is theoretically dubious... not really a taxpayer subsidy except in comparison to a sale by the decedent.
Our tax system taxes transfers and income. The estate tax is in lieu of an income tax on the inheritors. If that were not taxed it would be considered a “revenue expenditure”, which is what congress calls a tax break. There are others of these, and they do meet the test of “taxpayer subsidy”.
MichaelB is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:46 AM   #37
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
OK, I concede that the step-up in basis is a nice tax benefit that is theoretically dubious... not really a taxpayer subsidy except in comparison to a sale by the decedent.

If you have advocated carryover basis for inherited assets or only 50% step up or a 15% tax in exchange for a 100% stepped up basis rather than 100% estate tax then you might have got more traction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brat View Post
Perhaps inheritance tax on an illiquid asset such as a farm could be a lean which could be paid as a part of operations over time or when the property is sold.
As I see it, there are two separate issues. One is the idea of inheritance at all. I know I will never convince anyone of my idiosyncratic position on that, as it flies in the face of human nature to provide for our progeny. The second is how inherited assets should be taxed. I hold out more hope on that issue, and it seems to me that yours are both excellent ideas.

And while I'm on a roll about inheritance, let me say that I am greatly annoyed by the various trust and estate tricks used to ensure that Medicaid pays for grandma's nursing home and the kids's inheritance is preserved. That is yet another tax subsidy for, generally, upper income families.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:27 PM   #38
Full time employment: Posting here.
Vacation4us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
As I see it, there are two separate issues. One is the idea of inheritance at all. I know I will never convince anyone of my idiosyncratic position on that, as it flies in the face of human nature to provide for our progeny. The second is how inherited assets should be taxed. I hold out more hope on that issue, and it seems to me that yours are both excellent ideas.

And while I'm on a roll about inheritance, let me say that I am greatly annoyed by the various trust and estate tricks used to ensure that Medicaid pays for grandma's nursing home and the kids's inheritance is preserved. That is yet another tax subsidy for, generally, upper income families.
Although I totally disagree that there should be a 100% inheritance tax I will definitely agree that your second point is valid.

Taxpayers should not be paying for Grandma just so her heirs can inherit.
Vacation4us is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:31 PM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Dynastic wealth is bad for society. It exacerbates inequality and stifles ambition. Make as much as you want and spend as much as you want, just don't pass it on to your children. Everyone should stand on their own two feet, not on the shoulders of their parents and grandparents, and should run their own race through life. The children who grow up in wealthy households already have more advantages - typically better education (both the formal and the informal kind), better connections and better support systems - than those who grow up in poor households. They don't need additional wealth that has not been taxed (which is what happens with the step up basis).


This!! I am voting for you! And I would ask what have they done to deserve it.
Letj is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:13 PM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
ExFlyBoy5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ATL --> Flyover Country
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post

However, I do wish that all those people who have inherited assets, whether they be a family farm or family business or a pile of appreciated stock, would have some appreciation for the fact that the taxpayers of this country are subsidizing you and your family, in some cases going back several generations. Although maybe your particular family has some morally superior claim to taxpayer subsidies than other families. I don't know.
Who says they don't? You are painting with pretty broad strokes.

Let's say after your Navy days you started a law firm that was run so much differently than "normal" firms. You charge rates that almost anyone can afford and it's resulted in a nice lifestyle for you. Let's say you have two children that went to law school and started working at your firm. Well, you die. Guess what? Firm goes away. Sorry, kids...that's the rules. Figure it out on your now, mmmkay? Seems pretty fair to me, right?
__________________
FIRE'd in 2014 @ 40 Years Old
Professional Retiree
ExFlyBoy5 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Broken Promise - Time Oct 2005 Helen FIRE and Money 18 02-10-2006 09:44 AM
United Airlines wants to just 'Forget' Pension Promise..... Cut-Throat FIRE and Money 87 05-15-2005 10:16 AM
The Promise Eagle43 Other topics 10 04-14-2005 05:17 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.