patrick.net

Malcolm Says:

> If the goal is to stop the idle rich from passing idleness
> on to their children then tax the hell out of large inheritances

When taxes on inheritances get real high people just transfer the assets before they die or put them in to a trust or corporation (that can not die). Very few very wealthy families ever pay any inheritance tax and most is paid by the "working rich" who happened to have some assets appreciate above the tax free cap...

FAB, if instead of inheriting an asset, I inherit ownership in a corporation, why would that not be taxable?

Peter Schiff's view on the stimulus

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/169781/Peter-Schiff%3A-Stimulus-Bill-Will-Lead-to-%22Unmitigated-Disaster%22

I agree with most he said, except for the hyperinflation part because we are too resourceful to get into that situation.

However, we are now right on track for stagflationary depression or inflationary depression. We are going from bad to worse, worse to worst very quickly.

The only hope for the US is to drag as many countries into this as possible, if not, that is really the worst case scenario for all Americans.

+resource rich - resourceful, the fat ass Americans are anything but resourceful.

If ... I inherit ownership in a corporation, why would that not be taxable?

Because a corporation is actually something created by people.

I don't think there should be any inheritance tax at all. If you created something, you should be able to pass it on to your children whole and complete.

But nobody created land. It was simply taken at gunpoint (or swordpoint) and then bought and sold after that. So it's very fair to tax land.

And a tax on land is easy to enforce too. Try smuggling land out of the country. Hard to do.

However, on the other hand, I absolutley love the model where the government is a true stakeholder and doesn’t derive its revenue from taxation but as dividends. I kind of see what’s going on as a social experiment so I’m being less vocal and just watching events unfold. It’s a good time to be alive.

Malcolm, that would be interesting to see. But any government involvement still needs heavy regulation.

Taxation = dividends on profits ?

Taxing on inheritance is hard to execute.

The biggest driver for human productivity is to protect their bloodline. We are programmed to do all sorts of crazy things for our offspring, the whole human evolution (and evolution of all species) revolves around reproduction and the preservation of resources for the next generation.

That is why the more socialist countries like Canada and Australia have NO death tax, because it is too hard to tax. In countries with heavy death tax penalties, people either transfer before they die, or transfer assets overseas and acquire a foreign passport altogether. Instead, they tax the transaction, not inheritance. Let's say you inherit $10M worth of shares from your daddy, you pay no tax. But if you are going to sell these shares (put it into consumption or other productive use), then capital gains tax will be levied. Accumulation of capital should not be taxed, the application of the capital can be more easily taxed. If someone inherits $100M and let it sit rotting without touching a penny of it, then it shouldn't be taxed. Once he decides to re-balance his $100M portfolio, or cash out, you tax him at that point.

In fact, if not for the invention of trusts, more money would have been lost by the 2nd, 3rd generations by "voluntary" redistribution of wealth even without inheritance tax. There's a Chinese saying, wealth doesn't stay within the family past 3 generations, because wealthy people tend to have much more intra-family conflicts, and attract far more attention from financial con artists, not to mention the inevitable breeding of squanders. An encounter with Madoff can squander generations of accumulation.

I'd say let nature take care of such a redistribution of wealth. If a family can keep and accumulate wealth for generations (which is very rare), that means they have good genes and good education, let them have it.

Remember, any attempt to reverse "people exploiting people" will get you exactly that.

The Fed balance sheet fell by $150billion this past week, with the Commercial paper facility falling by over $50billion. It looks like $77B of that decline was from Central Bank liquidity swaps which were subsequently renewed. Treasury general and supplemental accounts continue to be paid down.
I still hold a little bit of SLV, and it is starting to look a little bubblicious to me (or else the end really is near -- pick your interpretation). The New York-based trust, which issues securities backed by physical stocks of silver, now holds a record 7,530.2 tonnes of bullion, up 737 tonnes or 11 percent since Jan 2. I've always been concerned that when the selling starts, there may not be enough demand for SLV, so they will be forced to "dump" physical on the market. Look out below!

Let’s say you inherit $10M worth of shares from your daddy, you pay no tax. But if you are going to sell these shares (put it into consumption or other productive use), then capital gains tax will be levied.
For those of you keeping score at home, this is only for TY 2010, after which the Bush tax cuts will sunset (unless renewed by Congress -- which could make for an interesting Congressional elections in 2 years).

Go daddy, go :-)

In a way, high housing prices were self-inflicted by the consumer who completely bought the hype. Not just those self-indulgent Boomers, but how many smug BayArea hipsters thought it was unstoppable, even after the local dot-bomb carnage? Can government really beat common sense into people? The public reacts negatively to moral suggestions from on high that we downsize our expectations/consumption: be the first on your block to live within your means! Yeah, they're going to jump on that!

Similarly Wall St. had little inclination to do anything but maximize their returns, and leverage the hell out any real equity--who would stop them? Why manage stable portfolios when the other guy can "promise" 10X the return to investors? Here lies part of the core problem--why conduct real business development if you can spin bubbles for higher short return?

In the not-so-distant future, a cabal of economic elites who control the nation's banking and credit systems conspire to destroy the structure of the financial system, so they can transfer vast amounts of taxpayer funds to themselves through government assistance programs set up to "rescue" the very financial system they destroyed.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/tarp-paulson-bac-c/index/a/21019/from/yahoo

If I were a bank I would refinance the house if I could keep an equity stake on the deed for the remainder of the loan as a second position.

Here is a price reduction for an SF mid-rise development in Mission Bay:

Radiance? All reasonably-sized units are still priced above $900K.

I don't think so... :) No thanks!

I agree completely.

I actually went and looked at the model one day I happened to pass by there before Christmas. They had a snotty saleslady (you know the type) who put on the air of "you should be so lucky to live in this exclusive development". Bleh. I'm not falling for it. Look for further reductions.

and how much are these going for? (In Emeryville, does EBGuy ave some inside info ??)

http://www.vue46.com/

They advertise on the radio. Doesn't look all that great to me.

I vote for people exploiting people. Because f--- it, we might as well make it official. Justme and Patty, the issue is "arbitrary". You can gaze up at Buffet and that's unfair, but there's a whole fanout of J6P behind you who think you Bay Ayrean SW salaries are a grotesque anomaly.

Society should rode the coattails of its greatest, not revert to the LCD.

Bleh. I’m not falling for it. Look for further reductions.

Yep. :) I think so.

If you are interested in SF, nowadays there are quite a few choices in Pac Heights.

Also, the spell checking on my iPod makes me wants to scream. ;o

(In Emeryville, does EBGuy ave some inside info ??)
Click on "Details and Registration" from the main page... $200k off... what a bargain... I'll bring my checkbook. Pretty funny, someone on Socketsite just called Mission Bay (Radiance development) the Emeryville of San Francisco.

TOS,

Unbelievable. Why would a "successful" 65 year old need to borrow so much to buy a home? By that age, she should should have saved enough to pay cash. Instead, she used the wannabe tools of a variable rate mort combined with a HELOC.

Notice all the comments on her blog that sympathize with her. Unfortunately, that dipshit mentality affects Washington, too. They will pass that second bailout bill under the guise of aiding the general economy (that is, allow the public to continue borrowing to support consumption at thier "entitled to" level). In reality, this bailout will just transfer wealth from our decendents to the current banking elite. The overextended among us do not care about the long range affects of the bailout, just as long as they see a chance to be rescued from thier folly.

Note Washington's current catering to the lowest common denominator with the extension of the Digital TV transfer date from Feb to Jun. We will see 4 more years of similar action, where the short-sighted and irresponsible are held out as victims, needing government to force the prudent and responsible to bail them out.

Opps, I meant "TOB" not "TOS"

No insult intended!

And "Oops" not "Opps."

You would think I was the one who developed Brand's spell checker.

Accumulate a big pile of dollars, or gold, or whatever, and live off of that in a small house.

That's what I did. Works for me.

But in regards the "land tax". Wouldn't this be a problem for actual (as opposed to corporate) farmers? What about people who put land into a conservation trust?

Society should rode the coattails of its greatest

A rode is a sailor's term for an anchor line, attaching the boat to the bottom. Maybe this was a Freudian slip on your part. ;)

Brand,

so you are saying that people generally never think that they are getting more than they deserve. and that they often think anyone who gets more than them does NOT deserve it?

As read in that blog post:

"Suddenly, four deals I was in, all of them capable of making me financially secure, either fell out of escrow or went on "hold."… Not an uneducated victim of a greedy mortgage broker. And not a speculator."

Those "four deals" were um…real estate, weren't they? With the RE bust well underway, this "entrepreneur for forty years", or more accurately realtor, did not know the direction of the market? If you ask me, she's the worst kind of whiny victim, because she bought into her own faulty sales pitch, and now that it has cost her, she wants her own bailout. A not too surprising conclusion, if her circle of "entrepreneurs" think she deserves sympathy. There's nothing like a "clique of the brilliant" to breed the worst kind of idiots.

KurtS,

Right on.

Anyone who will publicly characterize themselves as "successful" should be viewed with the utmost suspicion. They are either narcissistic, deluded, brain dead or all three. Plus they are probably nasty on top of that.

We tried petitioning our leaders, and they ignored us.

We tried voting them out, but the Wall Street financed pro-bailout politicians were re-elected.

Now is the time to take direct action to put down-ward pressure on housing prices.

STOP RENTING!

If we all moved in with our parents, or got additional roommetes to move in with us, we could put downward pressure on rent. This would bankrupt many speculators, and the houses they currently own would be put on the market, driving down house prices.

If you hope to buy a house someday, renting is a big mistake. Not only are you spending the money you could be saving for a downpayment, you are also keeping your worst enemy, the speculator, in business.

Don't Buy!

Don't Rent!

Save every single cent!

I posed a question on her blog on those "four deals", to which she clarified they were her "investments", whatever that means. So not a realtor, "not a speculator", but all the same trying to close on four properties--and has the audacity to complain about her reset mortgage? I can only guess her "four deals...capable of making her financially secure" were either rental properties, or foreclosures she planned to flip. Both assume a quick market turnaround. Quite a few assumptions there...especially for now.

"If I didn’t create jobs, you wouldn’t have one. Period."

Original Bankster, right--what an IDIOT statement, from a lady who cannot cover her own mort. I'd love to see Surfer-X skewer this one bwahhaha!

Original Bankster,
Perhaps she can spend a week at EST, get back to that "higher plane" and outwit all us puny mortals and that pesky market reality? You know, living in Marin I encountered these 'tudes 24/7, particularly my ex and her family. Time for a massive reality check you navel-gazing crybabies.

Anyone who will publicly characterize themselves as “successful” should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

Absolutely. "Sucess" is the perfect alignment of will and reality. Anyone who thinks he is "successful" enough is not wanting enough.

The best idea regarding taxes someone posted as a snarky comment but its brilliant.

Since the government/fed is creating so much new money from thin air....why don't they simply ELIMINATE THE INCOME TAX and print all the money they need? Leave us the eff alone with all the deductions/incentives.

Its true the 'inflation tax' would be higher but it would mostly hit people with tons of USD and I suppose they might buy real estate to hedge?

Of course everyone has a different useless idea on taxes. really a waste of time to discuss....

I got some critical insights from this thread which will be lifelong learning:

1. Wall street pigmen depends on continued high valuation of assets like home. Low valuation means low bonus for wall street pigmen.

2. Wall street pigmen needs a continuous supply of "buy and hold" suckers so that they can drain wealth from warm bodies generating wealth from their physical and intellectual labor.

3. baby boomers will continue intergenerational wealth transfer via tax policies and bailouts. Barrack Obama and Alan Greenspan are baby boomers.