This is exactly why we need a wealth tax for those who are able to use this scheme, and why we should retain estate taxes.

So, what do they do instead? — Mikie

A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. But that's how it can work too.

Expropriating the expropriators would be a simpler solution to the problem of too many way too rich people than screwing around with the complicated tax code.

Short of that raise the income tax (inheritance tax, etc.) to at least 90%. Too high? It used to be that high. In those days there were about half as many millionaires and billionaires back in the ancient Depression and Post WWII boom days as there are now. Many of the current crop of -illionaire parasites got their start in the 1970s.

Great, IF the spouse has lots of cash,

I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

Especially if one IS the rich spouse.

Great, IF the spouse has lots of cash,

I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

Especially if one IS the rich spouse. — BC

No, we're not talking about cash or "one rich spouse". We're on topic here as below:

that would mean they have to pay capital gains tax. — Mikie

This is the topic.

Yes, I understand that avoiding capital gains taxes, income taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. is the issue. The rich have many ways of avoiding taxation on shore and off shore. It is not inevitable. As I remarked earlier in this thread, taxation on wealth was far higher during the depression, WWII, and the post WWII boom, and there were about half as many millionaires and multi-millionaires as there had been in the 1920s, The number of multimillionaires and billionaires has doubled from what it was in 1975.

So, please excuse my joke at your expense.

Agreed. There are many things we can do — any of them would be a start. Close these loopholes; wealth tax; higher corporate and individual taxes; higher capital gains tax; get rid of the social security cap. You name it.

A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

I guess this would fall under “die,” yeah. Rather than to kids, you have it to your spouse. The stepped-up basis applies there too.

Expropriating the expropriators would be a simpler solution to the problem of too many way too rich people than screwing around with the complicated tax code. — BC

Simpler in theory, but I think much more drastic and therefore less likely for success. Government taking private property isn’t a good look for most Americans.

The tax code is complicated by design, as you know — and always manages to favor the wealthy. That can be undone just as it was done.

Simpler in theory, but I think much more drastic and therefore less likely for success. — Mikie

Of course, and it requires the Revolution to be over, such that the people could actually expropriate the expropriators. We are nowhere close to a constructive revolution, so I don't think the rich have to worry about pitchfork-armed peasants descending on them this year or next.

On the other hand, rewriting tax law such that 90% of income, inheritance, capital gains, and so on are collected by the IRS requires that the financial and social elite join with the government elite and labor elite to forge an alliance on behalf of the working class -- that group that composes 80% to 90% of the population. This doesn't require a revolution, but it probably requires something that feels like a national existential crisis. The Great Depression was the last time the elites came together with a program to redistribute wealth downward to the working class. FDR, the New Deal, and the post WWII boom were part of that. During those 40 years, wealth among the [white] working class was greatly increased, and wealth among the rich was greatly reduced,

The first time the American elites came together to redesign the system was the Civil War. One would rather not take that route again to achieve social justice -- the body count was quite high.

So, please excuse my joke at your expense. — BC

lol. No problem. :up:

There are many things we can do — any of them would be a start. Close these loopholes; wealth tax; higher corporate and individual taxes; higher capital gains tax; get rid of the social security cap. — Mikie

None of those are things we can do. That's the point. they're all things government can do.

Things we can do;

1. Put a brick through the window of the nearest Amazon
2. Put a brick through the window of the nearest such investment bank
3. Put a brick through the window of the nearest...

You get the picture. It involves bricks.

Dave Chapelle knows that Trump knows what's going on:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lNi9DIVkXpo

Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from?

If you cannot beat them join them. You just need to start early and be disciplined. If you start too let then teach your kids how to manage money.

Simples.

where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR

Ha! 'Loan repayments'... Good one...

teach your kids how to manage money. — I like sushi

Sure. Listen up kids.

1.Get some money. *
2. Get an accountant and a lawyer.

* Money is accumulated by 'entrepreneurs' taking a cut from the trade of others, as the name suggests (Fr. - between-takers), and definitely not by working hard and playing fair.

Money is accumulated by working. You just have to set aside a little and put it into savings. That is how people become millionaires. It is not really that difficult if you start young.

The ‘enraged’ people are usually those that want more (envy the super rich) rather than feel pity for those that have less in my experience.

A large issue is simply lack of education. The opportunities are their but so many just had no idea they were available then feel annoyed by those that took advantage of a opportunity they were not aware of. Better to learn, take it on the chin and soldier on and do the best you can rather than scream ‘not fair!’ at billionaires.

You just have to set aside a little and put it into savings. That is how people become millionaires — I like sushi

:rofl: That's how to make a small fortune out of a large one.

The ‘enraged’ people are usually those that want more — I like sushi

:100: Like Trump, for example.

What are you talking about? You think putting 5% of your income into funds is only possible for people with a “small fortune”?

All you seem to be doing here is proving my point that people are not educated about how to manage their money. Start in your early twenties and you will be fine. Just takes a little discipline and forward thinking. Very, very few people today are completely unable to put aside something on a monthly basis.

You think putting 5% of your income into funds is only possible for people with a “small fortune”? — I like sushi

You may have mis-read that comment.

So minimum wage $15,000 approx, 5% = $750/year invested over let's say 30 years is a total investment of $22,500. Now I would be personally surprised and pleased if that figure could be doubled after inflation by wise investment, but let's be wildly optimistic and say it could be multiplied by 10.
You'd be almost a quarter of the way to being a millionaire! only three more lifetimes to go.

Minimum wage is your starting point, that is the issue. Also, why just 30 yrs if you are assuming minimum wage? On minimum wage from 20 yrs old I would go for 50 yrs (which would be about $300,000+).

I understand that people do not appreciate what compound interest can do if left alone over decades. All that said, it would be good if minimum salaries came with some kind of automatic pension investment rather than just having those with a greater disposable income to benefit more easily longterm. How would this be implemented though … tough question. I do not see skimming off the top as being a optimal way forward.

My point was that it is not that hard to get to a million NOT that difficult to do for most people. Of course if someone lacks ability to get a job above minimum wage their entire life then that sucks. Some people are not capable but MOST are.

It is always the case that the richest countries have the poorest people sadly. It was the same for the British Empire. Now the minimum in UK is far better than US I imagine.

Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR

That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes.

You just need to start early and be disciplined. — I like sushi

Is this a joke?

You just have to set aside a little and put it into savings. That is how people become millionaires. It is not really that difficult if you start young. — I like sushi

Apparently not.

1) That is not how most people become millionaires.
2) If it were so simple, everyone would do it. Perhaps ask yourself why they can’t. (If you think it’s laziness or lack of education, I’ll leave you to it.)

Very, very few people today are completely unable to put aside something on a monthly basis. — I like sushi

Hundreds of millions of people.

When 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, are in enormous amounts of debt, don’t have a $400 emergency fund, and whose real wages have flatlined for 40 years — yeah, your thoughts on this matter are not only ignorant, but callous.

"But they're job creators!"

At the end of the day I've found that its simply people being convinced that a billionaire's self interest is somehow their personal self-interest. There is a significant portion of the population that has been convinced that all taxation is a waste or theft. There's more that have been convinced that "They deserve it" because they've worked harder than everyone else. And then there are people who hope to take advantage of those cheats themselves one day.

In my experience, you're not going to change these people's minds unless great suffering occurs for them. Thus corruption will build until it finally damages people, then people will fight..

Read exactly what I said and consider the context it was written in and how I repeated what I meant.

Do you think some kind of scheme should be put into place to help minimum wage workers in later life? I do. Maybe open up a pension/saving scheme to set up like I said? Good idea or bad idea?

I do not see skimming off the top as being a optimal way forward. — I like sushi

Why not? Why is lobbying your government to get a bigger cut of rich people's wealth always the only thing which is for some reason ruled out in the great 'American Dream' spirit of entrepreneurialism?

Apparently, you can put babies on spikes* if it's going to make a profit and 'well done you' for your hard work and dedication, any complex financial fabrication you like, even literally printing money... but lobby government, strike, campaign... apparently that's not hard work any more, that's not an entrepreneurial way of acquiring more money, it's suddenly become lazy sponging off the state.

*

I agree with Sushi on the importance of thrift and saving. Granted: it isn't possible for many families to save. The cost of basic care for parents and children may exceed the families income. But many individuals and families need not operate in the red. First, thrift. A lot of spending goes into products and services of little (or no) lasting value. Cut out the crap and many people will have money to save.

I practiced regular saving from my first job onward. My problem was that, while I had learned thrift as a child, as an adult I didn't know what to do with extra cash besides saving it. Even without investing it, savings made life much easier. (Eventually I did figure out investing.)

I agree with Sushi on the importance of thrift and saving, — BC

I also agree with that. I just disagree that it will make anyone rich.

That is not how most people become millionaires. — Mikie

A million dollars isn't what it used to be. Real estate is the vehicle that has made many people millionaires. Buying and paying for a house does require discipline (else the bank will take your house back). Policy makers understood that mortgages would keep people's noses to the grindstone in a way that renting didn't.

The problem with the valuable house is that you can't sell it and still live in it. But on a balance sheet, property and cash can make one "a millionaire".

The problem with the valuable house is that you can't sell it and still live in it. But on a balance sheet, property and cash can make one "a millionaire". — BC

Cliche inflation makes poor homeless fools of us all. https://www.foxtons.co.uk/discover/2018/10/what-does-A1m-buy-you-in-london

I remember when a $64,000 question was a seriously hard question that you had to go in a sound-proof booth to answer. and there were 3 dollars to the pound in those days.

I also agree with that. I just disagree that it will make anyone rich. — unenlightened

Yes, the self-made multi-millionaire (multimillionaires to billionaires) is a fiction. Becoming rich requires the contributions of banks, investors, governments, etc. to convert a bright idea (or just as easily a bad idea) into substantial wealth.

According to informed sources...

In 1995 musk founded Zip2, a company that provided maps and business directories to online newspapers (he borrowed $28,000). In 1999 Zip2 was bought by the computer manufacturer Compaq for $307 million, and Musk then founded an online financial services company, X.com, which later became PayPal, which specialized in transferring money online.

Musk apparently started his rise to uber-riches by selling services--no need for big plant investments, machinery, megatons of ore, etc. Just office space, young workers, and internet connections; selling new services to a new and rapidly expanding businesses. Beats me why PayPal was a success, but then, I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body,

That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes

Well if he's got billions in income, he's theoretically paying income tax.