No politics please, thoughts on repeal of the estate tax ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
While taking away the step up basis may be fair, and more possible with an exemption limit, I don't like changing the rules on a long term system. Some people have been planning for years, maybe decades, to pass down assets with a step up basis, and all of a sudden you tell them there's no step up? Is that fair?
 
While taking away the step up basis may be fair, and more possible with an exemption limit, I don't like changing the rules on a long term system. Some people have been planning for years, maybe decades, to pass down assets with a step up basis, and all of a sudden you tell them there's no step up? Is that fair?


Just as a point... my mom bought 200 shares of Exxon in the 80s.... we have not sold just because we want a step up.... BTW, with reinvested divis she has a LOT of shares now... there is almost no way I could get basis... Exxon has had a number of providers for their reinvestment program so I do not think they could do it either.... plus that is 30+ years X 4 is a minimum of 120 transactions just on this one stock...
 
>> Yes, your interest, not your principal. edit/add: And the previous
>> owner was taxed on their interest, and if the beneficiary keeps it in
>> saving account, they will be taxed on the interest. There is no
>> difference.

Nope, when my rich daddy leaves me money that is not my principal. That's income to me and should be taxed.



>> No. Wages are an expense, and expenses are subtracted from income >> to come up with taxable income. So the corp does not pay taxes on >> the wages they provide. Picture a company with $10M in sales, $5M in >> cost of goods and $5M in wages. No profit, no taxable income, but
>> everyone got paid.

When I receive wages from a company that company pays FICA taxes on that money.


>> And the arguments you just provided are twisted.

No they are not twisted. My argument is that income should be taxed and there should not be special exemptions for the children of billionaires or millionaires. It's almost like their children are being treated like a charity.

I mean come on - not only are they rich but they also don't have to pay taxes. In what way is that even remotely fair or logical? They still benefit from all the taxes that other people have to pay.
 
I have another issue with LTCG (related to the effect of inflation), but I'll save that for later (if the thread is still open)

The other problem with LTCG is it doesn't take inflation into account. I'll stick with my thought that "fair" is about a viewpoint, but equal treatment" is more objective. And if someone held an investment for > 1 year, and paid $1,000 for it, and sold it for $1,500, they owe LTCG of 15% on $500 = $75.

But if one person made their purchase in 1980, and the other in 2016, one really didn't have a gain at all - that investment didn't keep up with inflation. They are being treated equally, when they are not equal, and that's not right.
Whenever the topic of capital gains come up, those are my thoughts too...they're basically running off with money that they really shouldn't be running off with since it's their engineered inflation that provided what they're calling a "gain".

Allowing the step-up in basis at death is inconsistent with taxation while you're alive, but maybe there's some "good" in this scheme.

While you're alive, the threat of getting taxed on your capital gains gives you an incentive to save (keep funds invested). But then at death, the step up in basis allows that cash to be more freely spent by (typically), the next generation.
 
Like us retirees, it isn't the assets that makes us wealthy, it's spending beneath your means.

Except that the main beneficiaries of abolishing the estate tax won't ever have to live below their means. They can do whatever they want safe in the knowledge that they'll be bailed out when mommy and daddy pass away.
 
Except that the main beneficiaries of abolishing the estate tax won't ever have to live below their means. They can do whatever they want safe in the knowledge that they'll be bailed out when mommy and daddy pass away.

Even with the current taxes in place, I suspect they'll do just fine.
 
(edited and re-written to make clear this was an inheritance situation)

For your shares, or someone else's? You inherit 25,131.724 shares of mutual fund XYZ. That's all the info you get. Oh, ok, you get the last 7 years of reinvested share basis, or however long they've been required to track. The holding company has no idea of the rest because the shares were transferred in from somewhere else, maybe from a company that no longer exists. So, what's your basis?

That's what people can face when they inherit. It's got nothing with you being lazy or careless. It's the person you inherited from.

Been there when selling off long held individual stocks to raise money for nursing home costs for great-auntie and it can be a hassle and difficult to backtrack. However, I beleive that there are services that can figure it out but at a cost. What I have usually done is to figure it out as best I can and be prepared to defend it if needed. Defending it was never needed.

If there was a scheme like that rather than an estate tax then people would keep better records... besides, custodians keep that info for us now.
 
Keep the estate tax. I don't understand why one child should get a huge bonus from death of a (rich) parent, while another child, born of poorer parents, should get nothing. Enormous inheritances make as much sense as the concept of 'noble blood', wherein if you were born into a noble family, you too were considered nobility and thus granted special privileges that others were denied.

Sorry, but if you want money, work for it. Don't expect to have it given to you just because you won the 'parent lottery'.

Disagree. Successful people should be allowed to transfer their wealth to their offspring. At to "working for it"...well, who is working for it if the govt. just takes it?

I've never understood the "it's not fair" mentality when someone else has more money. In most cases, that is exactly the definition of fair...those who worked harder or smarter reaped the rewards. The opposite of fair is taking what those people earned and giving to others under the guise of "fairness".
 
I think where the "not fair" thing comes in is for "trust fund" people who inherited wealth.... IMO it is a petty gripe and just jealously. To me the income that allowed those ds to accumulate has been taxed each year and most growth is taxed so it makes no sense to tax it again even though very few people are actually subject to the estate tax.
 
I think where the "not fair" thing comes in is for "trust fund" people who inherited wealth.... IMO it is a petty gripe and just jealously.

Agreed. Winning the "parent lottery" could also extend to being born in the First World vs Third World. How do you fix that?

I believe it was a famous trust funder who once quoted "Life isn't fair".
 
Just as a point... my mom bought 200 shares of Exxon in the 80s.... we have not sold just because we want a step up.... BTW, with reinvested divis she has a LOT of shares now... there is almost no way I could get basis... Exxon has had a number of providers for their reinvestment program so I do not think they could do it either.... plus that is 30+ years X 4 is a minimum of 120 transactions just on this one stock...
The biggest issue in this case is the reinvested divs. I looked at this linbked site, and I found that from 1985, a $1,000 investment in XOM grew to $~ 12K w/o divs, and ~ 34.%K with divs reinvested.

So cost basis would only be reduced by 1/12th, not really much difference. But you've already been taxed o n all those divs. If you are sure they are all on an initial 200 shares, and none were added through purchases, you could estimate it very close with tools like this. But I'm not sure how you could prove (if audited), there were not added shares purchased - You'd need to calculate how many shares were bought with each and every div through the year.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio#analysisResults

.. Nope, when my rich daddy leaves me money that is not my principal. That's income to me and should be taxed.

When I receive wages from a company that company pays FICA taxes on that money.

Well, that's how the govt defines "earned income". So to be consistent, you are saying that every transfer of $ from one individual to another should be taxed as income, and have Fed, State and local taxes, FICA and Medicare withheld? They take it out of even a small weekly paycheck.

... My argument is that income should be taxed ...

It all comes down to what is defined as income. I'm all for dropping all taxing of income, and tax spending instead. It'll never happen, but it seems not only simple, but cuts through all these various discussions of what is "fair". With few expectation, "rich" people (or their heirs) will spend more, so will pay more in taxes.

-ERD50
 
Disagree. Successful people should be allowed to transfer their wealth to their offspring. At to "working for it"...well, who is working for it if the govt. just takes it?

I've never understood the "it's not fair" mentality when someone else has more money. In most cases, that is exactly the definition of fair...those who worked harder or smarter reaped the rewards. The opposite of fair is taking what those people earned and giving to others under the guise of "fairness".

Since you don't understand it let me explain it to you. Of course someone who worked hard and made lots of money can leave their money to whoever they want. And the person they leave it to has to pay taxes on it as income. Just like IBM can employ anyone they want and pay them anything they like and that person has to pay taxes on that income. Why should someone that inherits money not pay taxes on that money but someone that works for it pay taxes? That's the fairness part that you seem to be missing.
 
While taking away the step up basis may be fair, and more possible with an exemption limit, I don't like changing the rules on a long term system. Some people have been planning for years, maybe decades, to pass down assets with a step up basis, and all of a sudden you tell them there's no step up? Is that fair?

I agree. Between that and the record-keeping needed to determine this for assets which may have been purchased decades ago, record-keeping (if still around) which wouldn't have been relevant until now, I don't see step-up going away.

Someone here mentioned the inflationary gain of an asset when determining LTCG taxes. I'd like to see a partial indexing of LTCG but the indexed gain, if any, is then taxed as ordinary income. If there a nominal loss, then use that. If neither are true, then use LTCG=zero.
 
>> Well, that's how the govt defines "earned income". So to be
>> consistent, you are saying that every transfer of $ from one individual
>> to another should be taxed as income, and have Fed, State and local
>> taxes, FICA and Medicare withheld? They take it out of even a small >> weekly paycheck.

Nope - I reread my post and nowhere did I say that.



>> It all comes down to what is defined as income. I'm all for dropping all >> taxing of income, and tax spending instead. It'll never happen, but it >> seems not only simple, but cuts through all these various discussions >> of what is "fair". With few expectation, "rich" people (or their heirs) >> will spend more, so will pay more in taxes.

No I think they would pay less - unless you plan on taxing purchases of company stock and bonds. Most "rich" people spend lots of money on investments such as these.

-ERD50
 
Even with the current taxes in place, I suspect they'll do just fine.

OK, but since one of the main tenets of this board is to live below your means and abolishing the estate tax discourage heirs and heiresses from doing so, shouldn't anyone that agrees with that sentiment be in favor of the estate tax?
 
Been there when selling off long held individual stocks to raise money for nursing home costs for great-auntie and it can be a hassle and difficult to backtrack. However, I beleive that there are services that can figure it out but at a cost. What I have usually done is to figure it out as best I can and be prepared to defend it if needed. Defending it was never needed.

If there was a scheme like that rather than an estate tax then people would keep better records... besides, custodians keep that info for us now.


But not all assets are held by custodians....

Care to give me a basis for my sister's Sabina collection? Or her antique clocks? Heck, before my BIL died they had a sail boat that I had no idea of what he paid (well, kinda a bit as he would brag on how cheap he got it)....
 
Since you don't understand it let me explain it to you. Of course someone who worked hard and made lots of money can leave their money to whoever they want. And the person they leave it to has to pay taxes on it as income. Just like IBM can employ anyone they want and pay them anything they like and that person has to pay taxes on that income. Why should someone that inherits money not pay taxes on that money but someone that works for it pay taxes? That's the fairness part that you seem to be missing.


Your question is easy.... because the US gvmt does not consider it income....
 
>> Well, that's how the govt defines "earned income". So to be
>> consistent, you are saying that every transfer of $ from one individual
>> to another should be taxed as income, and have Fed, State and local
>> taxes, FICA and Medicare withheld? They take it out of even a small >> weekly paycheck.

Nope - I reread my post and nowhere did I say that.



>> It all comes down to what is defined as income. I'm all for dropping all >> taxing of income, and tax spending instead. It'll never happen, but it >> seems not only simple, but cuts through all these various discussions >> of what is "fair". With few expectation, "rich" people (or their heirs) >> will spend more, so will pay more in taxes.

No I think they would pay less - unless you plan on taxing purchases of company stock and bonds. Most "rich" people spend lots of money on investments such as these.

-ERD50

Please learn to quote and multi-quote, it's hard to follow or reply to your posts.

Nope - I reread my post and nowhere did I say that. ..
Right, but you should have said it, otherwise you are not being consistent.


... No I think they would pay less - unless you plan on taxing purchases of company stock and bonds. Most "rich" people spend lots of money on investments such as these. ...

:confused: You are trying to tell me that the average higher income person spends less on material goods (the kinds of things we have State sales tax on now in many states) than the average lower income person? That doesn't pass the common sense test.

Money isn't 'spent' on investments - it is invested. If companies didn't have investors, it would be a lot harder to hire and pay people, and those people would be hurt.

-ERD50
 
OK, but since one of the main tenets of this board is to live below your means and abolishing the estate tax discourage heirs and heiresses from doing so, shouldn't anyone that agrees with that sentiment be in favor of the estate tax?

Uh, no.

One of the reasons I lived so far below my means was to have a shot of creating inter-generational wealth, and that would be the first time in mine (and late DW's) family history.

My teen kids already know that spending every dollar today means less for the future. I am hopeful, but can't be certain, that whatever legacy they receive will be managed by them for long-term benefit.
 
Cap gains on investable assets may not be that hard if you can find the records of when shares were bought. But for some those records might not exist? Some brokers did not track basis until recently.

On real property - establishing basis is a lot harder. Dad did not document the value of the property he inherited from my mother at her death, although he had the property resurveyed. I guess he didn’t have an accountant to tell him to do that, and the lawyer didn’t mention it. I always assumed that had been documented when Dad inherited, but the lawyer said not with him mentioning an accountant would have done it, and Dad doesn’t remember such a thing and didn’t have an accountant other than the lady that does his taxes. Maybe because of spousal inheritance rules basis documentation was not necessary. Just to be clear if someone is confused, the property was inherited by my mom, and inherited by my dad on her death. It was not joint.

But he’s also made considerable home improvements since, and the documentation is haphazard. There are receipts for some of the materials, but probably little for. I do have boxes of records. But he inherited happened in 1995!

The house itself is not valued very highly by the county. The farm land however is worth a lot.

Some, probably most people just don’t bother to track these things while alive, not thinking or being aware what is needed for their heirs to deal with.
I know that counties track sale prices so they can set tax assessments. I thought they kept those records forever. Did you try that?

Or, someone has some average values or typical values for farm sales. Something like this https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c2-70.html

If it's really been 50+ years, I'd think the basis is trivial, anyway. The average price of Iowa farmland is about $7,200/acre. It was $261 in 1960. So, an inheritance of 320 acres has a market value of $2.3 million, and a basis of $0.1 million. The cap gains on the basis are $0.02 million.

Note that if we had never had this step-up rule, your dad would have paid cap gains when he inherited it, and he would have known that you would do the same someday. He would have kept the records when he inherited it.

All that said, I could see special rules for farmland that isn't used as farmland.
 
If it's really been 50+ years, I'd think the basis is trivial, anyway. The average price of Iowa farmland is about $7,200/acre. It was $261 in 1960. So, an inheritance of 320 acres has a market value of $2.3 million, and a basis of $0.1 million. The cap gains on the basis are $0.02 million.
It hasn’t been 50+ years. It was 1995, so 22 years.

I believe farmland there was going for good money back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, because neighbors sold for some serious $$, but prices have dropped since.
 
Since you don't understand it let me explain it to you. Of course someone who worked hard and made lots of money can leave their money to whoever they want. And the person they leave it to has to pay taxes on it as income. Just like IBM can employ anyone they want and pay them anything they like and that person has to pay taxes on that income. Why should someone that inherits money not pay taxes on that money but someone that works for it pay taxes? That's the fairness part that you seem to be missing.

I do get it. The money used to build the estate was taxed when it was first earned. It's not the same as IBM making deductions on wages.
 
The biggest issue in this case is the reinvested divs. I looked at this linbked site, and I found that from 1985, a $1,000 investment in XOM grew to $~ 12K w/o divs, and ~ 34.%K with divs reinvested.

So cost basis would only be reduced by 1/12th, not really much difference.

IIRC XOM split one or more times during that period, which adds to the research. Then there are stocks like T that since 1980 have splintered into all variety of companies, some of which still exist, and each with its own cost basis.
 
Last edited:
I am in the camp that believes the estate tax should be repealed. I just don't believe "death" should be a taxable event, particularly since that money was taxed when earned and if invested, was taxed over and over again.

The heirs WILL pay tax if that money is sitting in a beneficiary IRA (s) or is invested. It's not like it will never be taxed again. Or at least one assumes. Then again, they could blow it all and help the economy that way!

Regarding the stepped up basis - Since the heir is not the individual that made the investment, I see nothing wrong with the reset of basis. Technically it may be the cleanest way to do it. Not sure a person should inherit a built in tax situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom