Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
I would have more accurately said "a" reason, rather then "the" reason. I stand very much corrected on that point.
I didn't suggest it was on the sidelines in the example I gave. It was invested in Apple and held. It is in fact making a very good return where it's at. Diversification would be sensible and beneficial of course, but at the cost of $530 million I'd probably just ride it out.
Beyond that, the capitol gains tax was established in 1921 at 12.5%. It has varied up and down since, but I am not aware of any time that it has equaled or even come close to equaling the rates for normal income despite many, many years of liberal control of government. I'm also not aware of anywhere in the world where that is the case. I'm not particularly arguing that it is at the correct number currently but against the proposition that it should properly be 40-50% plus which is what has been suggested. President's Clinton, Bush and Obama have all signed off on either cutting the rate or extending the previous cuts that were due to sunset. It can be argued that it was just deal making in the case of Presidents Clinton and Obama if you wish, but that doesn't make the point it should be naturally be 40-50% in the US.
There is a whole industry devoted to avoiding US estate taxes that is quite effective. (And also really produce nothing.) Or I could simply take my billion and establish residency in the Caymans, or in Sweden or in any of a myriad of countries that have zero inheritance tax and the US is just out of luck. I know that sounds disloyal and I agree, but the sad fact remains that I suspect a great number of people would renounce their US citizenship for a good deal less than $400 million.
I would have more accurately said "a" reason, rather then "the" reason. I stand very much corrected on that point.
I didn't suggest it was on the sidelines in the example I gave. It was invested in Apple and held. It is in fact making a very good return where it's at. Diversification would be sensible and beneficial of course, but at the cost of $530 million I'd probably just ride it out.
Beyond that, the capitol gains tax was established in 1921 at 12.5%. It has varied up and down since, but I am not aware of any time that it has equaled or even come close to equaling the rates for normal income despite many, many years of liberal control of government. I'm also not aware of anywhere in the world where that is the case. I'm not particularly arguing that it is at the correct number currently but against the proposition that it should properly be 40-50% plus which is what has been suggested. President's Clinton, Bush and Obama have all signed off on either cutting the rate or extending the previous cuts that were due to sunset. It can be argued that it was just deal making in the case of Presidents Clinton and Obama if you wish, but that doesn't make the point it should be naturally be 40-50% in the US.
There is a whole industry devoted to avoiding US estate taxes that is quite effective. (And also really produce nothing.) Or I could simply take my billion and establish residency in the Caymans, or in Sweden or in any of a myriad of countries that have zero inheritance tax and the US is just out of luck. I know that sounds disloyal and I agree, but the sad fact remains that I suspect a great number of people would renounce their US citizenship for a good deal less than $400 million.
