Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tend to agree. In fact I'd even call that obvious.
But I suspect that some have other motivations.
(not to beat a dead horse, but...) I'l repeat my view that the ONLY way to help the social (and financial) aspects
in the lowest of compensated workers is to support measures that will reduce their numbers...
something along the lines of a reward system for having fewer of them vs the current public policies
that seem designed to do the exact opposite... and then to whine that they aren't paying enough in taxes.
Reduce the raw number available to compete for the lowest of no/low skill work (humanely of course)...
and the remainder will have an immediate market based supply:demand justification to be paid more.
Maybe even enough that they might be able to pay some taxes as well.
But it'll be decades before we can expect to decrease transfer payments much if at all.
The most we can hope for or work toward is to manage that morass more effectively.
Reduce their numbers, how? It's not like Walmart is overstaffing, have you ever tried to find an employee to ask a question about where something is? Or do you mean reduce their numbers before the poor reach working age through some kind of 'humane genocide'? I'm sorry but you lost me with this one...
Overlap of the 1% between AGI and Net worth looks like it will be tightly overlapping for that 1,000,000+ group given that 1% net worth is around 10 million. Probably 90+% for that top 0.3% for filers. The next group is tougher to guess since depending on lifestyle that amount of funding can get burned through, 50-60%? with the remainder coming from randoms below.
You never know that some of those lower incomes might have people that are surviving are large nest eggs alone and living modestly. I don't imagine it is many, but there are likely some.
I disagree with this .... apart from those in financial services or holding excercised stock options in public corporations.The source of wealth for most of the individuals in the $10-50m range of net worth is closely held stock in private corporations or partnerships and/or real estate with financial assets frequently held in retirement accounts. They would adjust their income according to their actual lifestyle cashflow requirements and very few would be above $500k in AGI... It’s simply not efficient. Your AGI should only be what you actually need to spend on yourself. If your a fund manager or corporate executive earning $5m a year you don’t have that flexibility. I personally know some actual billionaires who would not be in the 1% according to the criteria of AGI + add backs.
All in all, the graph is interesting but almost meaningless because it does not reflect income contained within most estates or trusts as they are not generally included in individual tax obligations.
I disagree with this .... apart from those in financial services or holding excercised stock options in public corporations.The source of wealth for most of the individuals in the $10-50m range of net worth is closely held stock in private corporations or partnerships and/or real estate with financial assets frequently held in retirement accounts. They would adjust their income according to their actual lifestyle cashflow requirements and very few would be above $500k in AGI... It’s simply not efficient. Your AGI should only be what you actually need to spend on yourself. If your a fund manager or corporate executive earning $5m a year you don’t have that flexibility. I personally know some actual billionaires who would not be in the 1% according to the criteria of AGI + add backs.
I don't want to continue this too long as it is OT, but my caveat covered this group. 1% at 10 million is a relatively low bar when there are billionaires. There is a big difference between a person that likely owns a fairly successful company, and those billionaires that own large portions of multinationals and also have much greater breadth and depth of investment. Even in that .3% filers, there are still almost 600,000 of them. Where as billionaires there are only ~5-600 in the US. And even within that group, we know Warren Buffett has released figures in of AGI that are 10+ million, and I can't imagine he doesn't have access to the best tax and estate planners.
All in all, the graph is interesting but almost meaningless because it does not reflect income contained within most estates or trusts as they are not generally included in individual tax obligations.
I'm not an estate attorney, so I'll defer to anyone here who is... but...
I've been told most trusts are very simple revocable grantor trusts that do not have their own unique tax IDs. Instead, any income generated inside the trust is fully reflected on the IRS 1040s of the grantors. An example would be a trust that basically says "If the husband dies before the wife, the wife gets everything; if the wife dies before the husband, the husband gets everything, and once both are dead, $X goes to charity XYZ and everything else goes to the kids, equally divided." For most people, something simple such as this is all that is needed to execute their wishes. I think this is also called a "Living Trust."
More advanced trusts will have their own taxpayer ID, and the trust will file & pay its own federal income taxes.
Last edited by RationalExpectations; 03-28-2019 at 08:06 AM..
Most trusts are simple grantor trusts that do not have their own unique tax IDs. Instead, any income generated inside the trust is fully reflected on the IRS 1040s of the grantors.
IRS requires a unique ID for an irrevocable trust.
IRS requires a unique ID for an irrevocable trust.
Which does not contradict anything I posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
I've been told most trusts are very simple revocable grantor trusts that do not have their own unique tax IDs.
A simple grantor trust, also called a living trust, is revocable, and does not have its own taxpayer ID. That is what the majority of trusts are. They are typically established long before the death of either spouse involved (the grantors)
Either way, trusts do not avoid federal income taxes.
I've long said that the argument from the left that the rich need to "pay their fair share" is nonsense.
Ofcourse it's nonsense. The rich literally fund this entire country. Their first class tickets paid for your cheap economy ticket, their luxury suites at sporting events paid for the cheap nosebleed seats you got, their taxes pay for schools, military, roads, healthcare, and most importantly, the innovation that drives this country.
It sure as hell isn't the high school dropout welfare queens creating jobs or funding services in this country.
We should be happy the rich haven't packed up and moved, with the way they get treated in this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
