View Full Version : Culture wars out of the closet
I read two articles: one yesterday. I was going to post about it but decided not to. Then today, I read this one (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/make-america-white-again-a-politicians-billboard-ignites-uproar/?utm_term=.1ff10408b967), so the first one didn't seen as one-off as I had thought. Wanted to know your opinions.
The first one is an op-ed piece from the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-elites-seem-determined-to-commit-suicide-by-diversity-1497821665?mod=fbads&nan_pid=1860701362&ad_id=6284302&mg=prod/accounts-wsj). No need to say that the WSJ is highly respected, mainstream, intelligent journalism. I think its writing is among the very best. I read it every day with the NYT to get a bit of a balanced view of the news and trends. So I was surprised at the extreme view of this piece. It reminded me a little of the discussions we've had about our natural tendency to want to "stick with our own kind" and whether mixing with other "tribes" is natural or forced. The comments.. well, you know how comments on the internet are. But this is the WSJ, for crissake, not Breitbart.
The subject of the second one was surprising for its audacity. I live in my little liberal Northeast bubble, I know, but I really have a hard time fathoming that a person running for political office in Washington (not just the local town council) would post a billboard like this and get away with it.
I feel that there are so many disturbing, incendiary feelings and beliefs that Trump has taken a lid off of, and I just don't know how it's going to end. I truly am not looking for opinions about what side of these issues you all stand on here. I'm just am curious if you think, like I do, that the whole opening up about this issue is a tinder box that's not going to end well.
Ultralight
6-23-17, 8:07am
My main feeling about the future in general is this: "Brace for impact."
Regarding your first link, I think my grandson and I may have eaten in that guy's restaurant last summer when we spent a few days rafting the Ocoee River down on the Tennessee/Georgia border. I didn't see any evidence of his outlook while there which leads me to believe he's just a kook.
The WSJ article is behind a paywall so I can't comment on whatever it may say other than to posit that based upon the title, I think there may be something to the idea that European culture may be in danger of usurpation by immigration. The popular notion that various cultures should be celebrated and preserved becomes less popular if it's not considered to be a minority culture. Cultural appropriation is, after all, a one way street and attempts to preserve the once dominant culture may be seen as "war" like.
Sorry about the paywall. Here's a couple of paragraphs...
Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?
The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.
It is often argued that our societies are old, with a graying population, and so we need immigrants. When these theories are challenged—by asking, for instance, why the next generation of Germany’s workforce might not come from unemployed Greece rather than Eritrea—we are told that we need low-skilled workers who do not speak our languages because it makes Europe more culturally interesting. It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.
When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.
All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.
Yet still it is possible that the publics will not go along with the instincts of their leaders. Earlier this year, a poll of European attitudes was published in which citizens of 10 countries were asked a tough question: whether they agreed that there should be no more Muslim migration into their countries. Majorities in eight out of the 10 countries, including France and Germany, said they wanted no more Muslim immigrants.
Over recent decades Europe has made a hasty effort to redefine itself. As the world came in, we became wedded to “diversity.” As terrorism grew and more migrants arrived, public opinion in Europe began to harden. Today “more diversity” remains the cry of the elites, who insist that if the public doesn’t like it yet, it is because they haven’t had enough of it.
The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal. The interesting thing to watch in the years ahead will be whether the publics join them in that pact. I wouldn’t bet on it.
In a hyper-liberal society, resistance to The Borg is indeed futile.
I think "culture wars" can be much more broadly defined than various accusations of racism. While racism is real (although I think declining), I don't think Trump took any lids off anything. I think his real strength came from a growing tension between the masses and a liberal elite more fond of denouncing privilege in general than renouncing it for themselves. A class that feels comfortable lecturing their inferiors about inequality and global warming while sending their children to private schools and maintaining huge carbon footprints. A class that produces a candidate who preaches socialism and owns two vacation homes.
But beyond that, I think the term "culture wars" applies to battles on a number of fronts. Abortion for one; but also a more general struggle between traditional concepts of acceptable behavior and a newer set of prescriptive rules aimed at a sort of coercive tolerance. Differing views of whether "rights" are things government can't interfere with or things government must interfere with. Whether the individual or the collective good should be paramount. Whether speech can be violence. The degree to which personal freedom exacts a duty for personal responsibility to be at all meaningful.
Trump didn't open some sort of Pandora's box. He a wasn't even the first plague to slither out of it.
I expect this stuff will work itself out; it always has. Waves of immigration (and conquest, for that matter) are the norm, not some kind of anomaly. This country was built taking in the "poor and dispossessed" and it's worked pretty well--we've historically been a society of innovators and entrepreneurs, traits that come with people energized by new beginnings.
Well, you're very clear about what side of the culture war you're on.
A class that feels comfortable lecturing their inferiors about inequality and global warming while sending their children to private schools and maintaining huge carbon footprints.
I can actually see your point there.
But not here
A class that produces a candidate who preaches socialism and owns two vacation homes.
Bernie does not preach "socialism"--he preaches "Democratic socialism." And it really gets on my nerves when people point fingers at his income as if he were Jay Gatsby in a rumpled trenchcoat. In comparison with almost ALL other politicians in Washington he has nearly the lowest net worth. He does not own two vacation homes. He purchased one modest lake house with the proceeds of his wife's family vacation home. It is a diversionary tactic to nitpick his financial assets, which are a far cry from those of most of his colleagues in Washington. His life is completely consistent with his message, IMHO. Unlike Al Gore.
I have a hard time reading much. But I truly feel that the issue is so complex.......and that is that perhaps civilized peoples are running into problems with instinct versus our attempts to control those instincts. There have always been groups of people who wanted to conquer all the others. But I think the majority of peoples are content to just live among their "tribes" and leave it at that.
But as our brains grew, and we started to be able to think about everything........question everything.......agree or disagree with everything, etc., we started running into problems. I think our instincts are to be with our own kind. But then, I believe that there are nature and nurture reasons for some peoples being more open to "others", while others are defensive and violent against "others". Then you have the europeans coming to america long ago with ideas on how to get everyone to be equal and get along and all have the same rights.......which I think might have been a noble endeavor, but too much against our instincts and our fairly primitive brains. We have been told to ignore those instincts........to ignore that some cultures act different than others......that some cultures have different brain chemistries, etc., etc., etc.
And while the laws/constitution, etc., are set up to force/encourage people to ignore instincts and rise above them, these instincts are very strong and are constantly trying to be expressed.
Like I said, I think the europeans had extremely good intentions, but I'm not sure this experiment can work out. Maybe we are approaching the answer to the question of "Can all cultures/peoples live together in harmony?" Forcing it, doesn't seem to be working.
Maybe some of you are saying I believe these things so I can be a racist........but I'm sincere when I say I've always tried to understand cause/effect sorts of things and understand why things end up the way they do, and it's brought me to this point.
Even if certain cultures were attacked by an aggressor.......they would all be united. But nobody is really subconsciously feeling united anymore because we're all mixed.
I think DNA and brain chemistries are far under-estimated in their demand for expression.
It's sort of a simplistic/utopian plan to make all peoples live together and get along most of the time. I'm not sure I even want that world. I love the different countries and different cultures and I don't want them all to be the same. I want biodiversity in cultures too.
Please don't insult my thinking. I'm a pretty perceptive person, even though I can't read much or talk with fifty cent words.
I'm incredibly connected to nature and feel that man has tried to disconnect himself from it......in behavior, beliefs, etc.
I don't know what the answer is. The horse is waaaay out of the barn at this point. Like I said, I'm just trying to understand how we got to this point of such turmoil.
Bernie does not preach "socialism"--he preaches "Democratic socialism." And it really gets on my nerves when people point fingers at his income as if he were Jay Gatsby in a rumpled trenchcoat. In comparison with almost ALL other politicians in Washington he has nearly the lowest net worth. He does not own two vacation homes. He purchased one modest lake house with the proceeds of his wife's family vacation home. It is a diversionary tactic to nitpick his financial assets, which are a far cry from those of most of his colleagues in Washington. His life is completely consistent with his message, IMHO. Unlike Al Gore.
Asserting that Bernie isn't as rich as Nancy Pelosi strikes me as a pretty weak argument for his tribune-of-the-people bona fides. He still maintains a position in the top 5% by income, and even if he has to be satisfied with a modest $575K shack on the lake, I would say he's doing pretty well.
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-criticized-twitter-users-having-three-houses-587721
As to the distinction between a "democratic socialist" and the unadulterated variety, I don't see much difference in the desired end result.
Wow, that guy's billboard should read "Make America blonde again"!
Just a simple question. Do you as an individual or country decide to respond to those in desperate need due to war, persecution and risk of annihilation or turn away and deny support based on your and their race, religion etc?
Just a simple question. Do you as an individual or country decide to respond to those in desperate need due to war, persecution and risk of annihilation or turn away and deny support based on your and their race, religion etc?
I don't agree with turning away based on race, religion, etc.
I do think there is a limit as to what we can afford to do for other countries.
Look at the living conditions for our neediest and it seems irresponsible to be sending any money outside the US.
He still maintains a position in the top 5% by income, and even if he has to be satisfied with a modest $575K shack on the lake, I would say he's doing pretty well.
So you're saying that no current senator can be a "of the people" person. After all senators currently get paid $175,000 and a household income of $166,200 puts one in the top 5% of income. I would disagree. Some politicians, our current president notwithstanding, are capable of having empathy for people other than and unlike themselves and actually acting on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States
A $575K house doesn't mean much these days. Around here, the simplest cottage imaginable goes for that or more. Bernie seems to me to have been the farthest thing from a greedy oligarch all his life; he's been walking the talk for decades.
A $575K house doesn't mean much these days. Around here, the simplest cottage imaginable goes for that or more. Bernie seems to me to have been the farthest thing from a greedy oligarch all his life; he's been walking the talk for decades.
So, when Bernie asked "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all", the sentiment only applied to others, not himself? It occurs to me that if you preach the evils of greed and excess while maintaining three homes, you're not quite "walking the talk".
Bernie does not preach "socialism"--he preaches "Democratic socialism." What exactly is the difference?
So, when Bernie asked "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all", the sentiment only applied to others, not himself? It occurs to me that if you preach the evils of greed and excess while maintaining three homes, you're not quite "walking the talk".
So, what do you propose that he and his wife should have done with the money from the house she inherited? Buy some hair shirts or something?
I think there may be something to the idea that European culture may be in danger of usurpation by immigration.
Indeed. I suspect the Native Americans would agree with you there.
I don't agree with turning away based on race, religion, etc.
I do think there is a limit as to what we can afford to do for other countries.
Look at the living conditions for our neediest and it seems irresponsible to be sending any money outside the US.
That's what I believe too. Constantly taking in so many people can bring down the quality of life for those already there. I can see aiding them with money/food (with the help of other nations) to an extent......but when we have so many poor in our country already, why would we want more?
I'm sorry, but to think that we should/can save the world is just not right. It just can't be done.
As far as race/religion.......in these scary times, it's hard to not want groups who have the most terrorists to come . I feel like anyone at this point in time, wants to immigrate here, then they need to be people who will definitely contribute in a positive way to this society, and not be just another burden. And how many more people do we want? Do we want to fill up the west? Do we want to fill up every empty space from sea to shining sea?
If you had a family and some of the children already didn't always have food or clothing, or a good education, would you want to take in all the ones that came knocking at your door? Yes, it might be heartbreaking, but it's just not fair to your own children (as an example).
The world has gotten too small, and we can't keep trying to save everyone everywhere. It's definitely a difficult thing to figure out. And I don't understand when people feel this way (saying no to people who want to come here)........and make us feel like we're just being cold and selfish. You have to think of consequences of every action. I think we are fairly spoiled in this country and don't have a clue what having too many people and too few resources would possibly be like.
So, what do you propose that he and his wife should have done with the money from the house she inherited? Buy some hair shirts or something?
I think he should do whatever he wants with his family money, but I also think he should allow the same courtesy to others. A more authentic person might be expected to practice what he preaches, or perhaps not to preach at all.
And I think that just has we have a progressive income tax, so too should there be a progressive inheritance tax. Or at an absolute minimum that there shouldn't be a "get out of capital gains tax free" benefit for assets at the time of death. There's no reason in the world, other than rich people avoiding tax, that the cost basis for assets should be reset at the time of a person's death.
And I think that just has we have a progressive income tax, so too should there be a progressive inheritance tax. Or at an absolute minimum that there shouldn't be a "get out of capital gains tax free" benefit for assets at the time of death. There's no reason in the world, other than rich people avoiding tax, that the cost basis for assets should be reset at the time of a person's death.
I don't understand why the government feels entitled to another person's wealth. Have you ever wondered how many times, in the course of one year, is every single dollar in circulation taxed? I once read somewhere that every dollar in circulation returned approximately 84 cents in taxes during the course of a year. Of course, that's cash not hard assets, but shouldn't 84% of all money in circulation be enough without also claiming a portion of whatever wealth a person accumulates for their descendants?
If the government wanted more money, shouldn't they be doing everything possible to grow the economy, thereby putting more money into circulation, rather than confiscating hard assets.
ApatheticNoMore
6-23-17, 1:52pm
A $575K house doesn't mean much these days. Around here, the simplest cottage imaginable goes for that or more. Bernie seems to me to have been the farthest thing from a greedy oligarch all his life; he's been walking the talk for decades.
it's like a crack house in the ghetto around here. Either the neighborhood is terrible, it needs massive repairs and is half termite eaten or has a cracked foundation, etc.. I mean true he has multiple houses but "the house costs $575k!" is just like: giant eye roll.
I don't understand why the government feels entitled to another person's wealth. Have you ever wondered how many times, in the course of one year, is every single dollar in circulation taxed? I once read somewhere that every dollar in circulation returned approximately 84 cents in taxes during the course of a year. Of course, that's cash not hard assets, but shouldn't 84% of all money in circulation be enough without also claiming a portion of whatever wealth a person accumulates for their descendants?
If the government wanted more money, shouldn't they be doing everything possible to grow the economy, thereby putting more money into circulation, rather than confiscating hard assets.
And I don't understand why my dad was able to purchase stocks decades ago, hold them until his death and then I could inherit them and reset the cost basis to their value at the day of his death. These stocks sitting in my dad's brokerage account and now my etrade account for a combined total of more than 30 years are doing nothing to grow the economy.
And Kansas has pretty much put to death the concept that ultra low taxes are the salvation of the economy or government finances. The republican legislature there admitted as much when they recently overrode Brownback's veto on their tax increase. Looking at GDP growth by state it appears that taxes don't necessarily play that big of a role in what the economy does. After all, I may be incorrect on this, but I assume Texas's taxes are significantly lower than California, yet both are in the top 5 in GDP growth from 2015 to 2016. It actually appears that the state's GDP is much more dependent on what types of industry are dominant as to whether the economy is growing.
http://muninetguide.com/2016-state-gdp-growth/
And I don't understand why my dad was able to purchase stocks decades ago, hold them until his death and then I could inherit them and reset the cost basis to their value at the day of his death. These stocks sitting in my dad's brokerage account and now my etrade account for a combined total of more than 30 years are doing nothing to grow the economy.
And Kansas has pretty much put to death the concept that ultra low taxes are the salvation of the economy or government finances. The republican legislature there admitted as much when they recently overrode Brownback's veto on their tax increase. Looking at GDP growth by state it appears that taxes don't necessarily play that big of a role in what the economy does. After all, I may be incorrect on this, but I assume Texas's taxes are significantly lower than California, yet both are in the top 5 in GDP growth from 2015 to 2016. It actually appears that the state's GDP is much more dependent on what types of industry are dominant as to whether the economy is growing.
http://muninetguide.com/2016-state-gdp-growth/
So, the only real impact of the estate taxes you mentioned earlier would be to ensure that someone doesn't get their full due if everyone (through government confiscation) can't have a slice?
I think he should do whatever he wants with his family money, but I also think he should allow the same courtesy to others. A more authentic person might be expected to practice what he preaches, or perhaps not to preach at all.
For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a man with three houses to credibly lecture others about their excessive possessions.
Just a simple question. Do you as an individual or country decide to respond to those in desperate need due to war, persecution and risk of annihilation or turn away and deny support based on your and their race, religion etc?
Is our moral obligation, if any, discharged by accepting refugees? Do we have a similar obligation to intervene in the places that are persecuting these people, thereby saving everyone rather than a few? If that's the case, is it immoral to maintain an inadequate military capability?
So, the only real impact of the estate taxes you mentioned earlier would be to ensure that someone doesn't get their full due if everyone (through government confiscation) can't have a slice?
So it's my full due that I should get a tax free gift when my father dies? I guess I consider it reasonable for people, including myself, to pay taxes for all of the benefits that we get from living in this country. But then I've never thought that my success was entirely self-made. A sizable chunk of it comes from simply being fortunate enough to be born in this country as opposed to, say, Zimbabwe. Others may feel differently I suppose, and they can advocate for shutting down and disbanding the federal government so that they can keep "their full due".
So it's my full due that I should get a tax free gift when my father dies? I guess I consider it reasonable for people, including myself, to pay taxes for all of the benefits that we get from living in this country. But then I've never thought that my success was entirely self-made. A sizable chunk of it comes from simply being fortunate enough to be born in this country as opposed to, say, Zimbabwe. Others may feel differently I suppose, and they can advocate for shutting down and disbanding the federal government so that they can keep "their full due".
On a more personal level, let's say that as a teenager (perhaps 18 or 19 years of age), your parents bought you a car. Should you pay income tax on that?
Or, let's say that they paid your way through four years of college at a cost of approximately $100,000. How much of that benefit do you then owe the government in the form of taxes?
Assets have their basis marked-to-market upon death, because they are then taxed as part of the estate. It would rock if I could pass along assets to my kid through the estate at their basis... You probably won't like what that produces though.
There are some other practical reasons for marking assets to market (for instance, determining the basis of a stock my aunt held for 60+ years is a bit tricky now that she's dead...), of course. A simple investigation of the matter would turn up a bunch.
Assets have their basis marked-to-market upon death, because they are then taxed as part of the estate. It would rock if I could pass along assets to my kid through the estate at their basis... You probably won't like what that produces though.
I suppose I should be going "Yippee! We got one over on uncle sam!" Because despite resetting the basis his estate was below the estate taxable rate so we didn't have to pay that either. Apparently your estate is just going to be too large. I suppose I should feel bad for you.
On a more personal level, let's say that as a teenager (perhaps 18 or 19 years of age), your parents bought you a car. Should you pay income tax on that?
Or, let's say that they paid your way through four years of college at a cost of approximately $100,000. How much of that benefit do you then owe the government in the form of taxes?
Those are excellent examples. If my dad had chosen to buy me a car or pay for my education while he was alive he could have done a couple of things. He could have paid for them with money from his bank account. In that case any interest that had accrued from his deposits would have been taxed annually when he filed his income taxes. So no tax due. Or he could have paid for these things by selling assets such as stocks. In that case he would have paid tax on the capital gains at the time he sold the stock, before he paid for the car or education.
The flaw in your thinking seems to be that you think the stocks I inherited were somehow mine before my dad died. They weren't. They were his. And at the time of his death when they became mine it would make sense for the government to have collected taxes on the capital gains that had accrued up to that point. Or for the government to at least carry the tax due for those capital gains on to me, the new owner of those assets as of the moment he died.
"Makes sense" is something that can't be stated so simply without looking at the entirety of the code.
For instance, should capital gains be inflation-indexed if they are going to be taxed in this fashion? We recently inherited a home from my mother-in-law. She paid about $9000 for it, ~60 years ago. It's worth $750k or so now. What's a fair method to treat such a thing?
I have a 3" small ceramic pot on my shelf she gave me. Her cost was $0, the artist gave it to her many years ago, they were friends. It's worth 6 figures. How should this item be reckoned when evaluating the estate and calculating estate tax? Multiply that by the hundreds of other similar pieces of art she had strewn around the place, including some paintings by some O'Keeffe person she used to live with.
Should we be able to take losses as well, in this Brave New World of extra fun tax stages? Because she left me some real estate she paid a fortune for, that's worth pennies on the dollar. Can I use those losses against my own gains?
What about gift taxes? Bargain sales? And dozens of other things?
I agree with you that inflation overvalues the capital gains of long held assets, but if we're going to address that we need to address that across the board, not just with estates.
And I agree that if she had capital losses you should be able to offset her gains with her losses.
And I will also agree with you that life is complicated. But I still don't think that means we should have get off tax-free cards just because someone died.
I agree with you that inflation overvalues the capital gains of long held assets, but if we're going to address that we need to address that across the board, not just with estates.
And I agree that if she had capital losses you should be able to offset her gains with her losses.
And I will also agree with you that life is complicated. But I still don't think that means we should have get off tax-free cards just because someone died.
I don't understand what you mean by tax-free cards. Say your granddad bought a Mason Hamlin grand piano for 3000 dollars in 1935. You inherit it today and it is worth 50000. Why on earth should the government be able to get money from you? It's the same principle at work.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-17, 11:19am
Say your granddad bought a Mason Hamlin grand piano for 3000 dollars in 1935. You inherit it today and it is worth 50000. Why on earth should the government be able to get money from you? It's the same principle at work.
I don't think they do get that money until you sell the piano, and at that point 50k is 50k, whether it's from inheriting a piano or working (not how they treat it maybe, but it would make sense as it spends like 50k regardless).
I don't understand what you mean by tax-free cards. Say your granddad bought a Mason Hamlin grand piano for 3000 dollars in 1935. You inherit it today and it is worth 50000. Why on earth should the government be able to get money from you? It's the same principle at work.
I'm suggesting that if I inherit it and sell it for $47,000 more than was paid for it I should pay capital gains tax on it. Just the same as I would if I owned a piano store and was buying and selling pianos as my business. If I inherit it and keep it then no, I shouldn't pay capital gains tax on it. What I'm suggesting should not happen is that I inherit it at a value of $50,000, sell it for $50,000 and pay zero tax on the $47,000 profit.
Among the assets I inherited from my father was one thousand shares of AT&T that he bought in the mid 80's for somewhere between $8-9 per share. At the time of his death they were worth $34.91/share. That $25-26/share capital gain will never be taxed because my cost basis if I ever sell them will be the $34.91 price on the day he died. If I were to sell them today at their current value of $37.95 I'd only pay capital gains on $3.04/share. And if I don't sell them and then pass them on to someone else the cost basis will go up yet again to whatever they are worth on the day of my death creating still more untaxed capital gains.
bae has a valid point regarding inflation. According to the BLS inflation calculator that $3,000 spent for the hypothetical piano in 1935 is actually the same, inflation adjusted, as slmost $54,000 today. If we were to take inflation into account when determining capital gains then no, the $50,000 sale today wouldn't be a capital gain. But we don't adjust capital gains for inflation on other assets, so we shouldn't on this piano either.
This is why I suggested that pulling on a single thread of the sweater is a bad idea, and not "simple".
Among the assets I inherited from my father was one thousand shares of AT&T that he bought in the mid 80's for somewhere between $8-9 per share. At the time of his death they were worth $34.91/share. That $25-26/share capital gain will never be taxed because my cost basis if I ever sell them will be the $34.91 price on the day he died. If I were to sell them today at their current value of $37.95 I'd only pay capital gains on $3.04/share. And if I don't sell them and then pass them on to someone else the cost basis will go up yet again to whatever they are worth on the day of my death creating still more untaxed capital gains..
Actually, those gains *were* taxed, and they are taxed upon each successive death. They were taxed as part of the estate tax, the marked-to-market valuation included in the valuation of the estate during the calculation of the estate tax due. The rate paid however was 0%, because a certain amount of each estate is *exempted*, much as a certain amount of your personal income each year is *exempted* when you do the final calculations.
It went through the taxation process, at the current market value on the date of death. There's some wiggle room there, you are sometimes able to elect to use an alternative valuation date of 6 months out from the date of death.
I've been handling two large estates the past year or so. For my mother-in-law and father-in-law. In both cases, these simple college professors blew the lid of the estate tax exemption limit, simply by living into their 90s, being frugal, and adopting a buy-and-hold strategy for most everything. Houses and stocks held for 60+ years tend to creep up in value.
My mother's art collection, which was part of her research collection as a cultural anthropologist, is worth a huge amount (more than the house), and luckily we're not in the position of having to sell off the materials in order to be allowed to keep the rest... (Seriously, who wants to pay the IRS tens of thousands of dollars to be allowed to keep a painting that's been hanging in their bedroom since they were a child...).
I think my piano example was a little skewed-- a 1930 Baldwin grand cost 1450, so a Mason Hamlin was probably no more than 1750. And no, I don't think the government should get a cent in taxes if you inherit the piano and sell it for 50k.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-17, 2:57pm
And no, I don't think the government should get a cent in taxes if you inherit the piano and sell it for 50k.
then why should it get a cent in taxes if say you work for a year and earn 50k? It's the same 50k either way, if you went out and spent it noone is going to distinguish between the two.
Actually, those gains *were* taxed, and they are taxed upon each successive death. They were taxed as part of the estate tax, the marked-to-market valuation included in the valuation of the estate during the calculation of the estate tax due. The rate paid however was 0%, because a certain amount of each estate is *exempted*, much as a certain amount of your personal income each year is *exempted* when you do the final calculations.
Then we need to revise the estate tax so that it doesn't have a 0% rate for 699 out of 700 people.
I think my piano example was a little skewed-- a 1930 Baldwin grand cost 1450, so a Mason Hamlin was probably no more than 1750. And no, I don't think the government should get a cent in taxes if you inherit the piano and sell it for 50k.
What if you inherit a piano store and sell 20 pianos for $50,000 apiece? Should you still not have to pay tax? Or are pianos sold in a store different from pianos sold on craigslist or ebay?
ToomuchStuff
6-24-17, 4:06pm
What if you inherit a piano store and sell 20 pianos for $50,000 apiece? Should you still not have to pay tax? Or are pianos sold in a store different from pianos sold on craigslist or ebay?
Piano's sold in a store, were bought by a business, with a tax exemption, as inventory. The tax is collected at the time of sale, from the purchaser. That sales tax has been paid already on previously owned, privately sold ones.
Also, depending on how the business is setup, while it and the owners taxes are linked, they are not the same. (sole proprietorship, has different issues then a corporation which could have several family members, etc)
Somethings forgotten in several arguments. Innocent until proven guilty. Not everybody keeps good records, or are mentally all there at the end, so finding out what the basis for a piano bought long ago is, and if it had options (extra inlay, real ivory, etc) that added to its cost, would be a MAJOR burden for both the grieving person, and for the government workers trying to get the income. So are the fed's supposed to take over antiques roadshow for all these "dues"?
If you don't think your paying too much in taxes, why wouldn't you just write them an extra check?
I believe it would take an amendment/modification of the constitution to go from our currency, to something that the government would probably like. Think about all the electronic transactions taking place and digital payments (card, online billing, etc). The government could then implement a pay taxes on all purchases, new and used, including people who try to pay with cryptocurrency, and you might see a bigger barter economy spring up in retaliation. That would even cover things like electronic filings of deeds, personal property, etc. (and you would have to come up with the money to obtain the property)
That would hurt more American's then the ones your worried of, who would "invest" in out of the country things, to make that money only taxable on the electronic part they pull in.
As for the original posters first article, while I understand the argument of people would like to live in a leave it to beaver, or such world, that isn't reality, anymore then reality tv, which people strive to be. (former neighbor who achieved their dream of being on Springer) As for Kooks, that does look like something David Duke would have had on his presidential run years back.
WSJ isn't available to non digital subscribers, which is a LOT of people.
Piano's sold in a store, were bought by a business, with a tax exemption, as inventory. The tax is collected at the time of sale, from the purchaser. That sales tax has been paid already on previously owned, privately sold ones.
Also, depending on how the business is setup, while it and the owners taxes are linked, they are not the same. (sole proprietorship, has different issues then a corporation which could have several family members, etc)
But after the store sells the piano, assuming that they sold it for more than they purchased it for, there's also income tax due on the gain.
If you don't think your paying too much in taxes, why wouldn't you just write them an extra check?
It's not that I think I specifically should be paying more, it's that I think estates across the board should be paying more. And, frankly, my dad didn't arrange his assets with tax avoidance in mind. When he retired he reallocated into almost entirely conservative blue chip dividend paying stocks and then never touched anything again. By the time he died 20 years later his brokerage account was almost 50% cash, all of it dividend income that was taxed during his lifetime. He could have pursued a strategy of buying growth stocks that didn't pay dividends and avoided a lot of his annual income tax bill but chose not to for other reasons.
ToomuchStuff
6-24-17, 6:06pm
But after the store sells the piano, assuming that they sold it for more than they purchased it for, there's also income tax due on the gain.
Business income and as stated, that in part depends on how the business is setup, as well as estate tax from business dispersal (more complicated then just an estate).
It's not that I think I specifically should be paying more, it's that I think estates across the board should be paying more. And, frankly, my dad didn't arrange his assets with tax avoidance in mind. When he retired he reallocated into almost entirely conservative blue chip dividend paying stocks and then never touched anything again. By the time he died 20 years later his brokerage account was almost 50% cash, all of it dividend income that was taxed during his lifetime. He could have pursued a strategy of buying growth stocks that didn't pay dividends and avoided a lot of his annual income tax bill but chose not to for other reasons.
And?
His choice, wasn't your money, not your choice.
And?
His choice, wasn't your money, not your choice.
Yep. And I'm good with it. Especially since his thought process was probably to make sure that my mother would have easy to access, steady income in the actuarially likely scenario where she outlived him. He took good care of our family his whole life and it's kind of cool to know that he planned to continue doing so after his death.
I would have been equally good with things if he and mom had decided to spend retirement traveling around the world and spending all their money. Dad's the one that worked for it, not me.
Then we need to revise the estate tax so that it doesn't have a 0% rate for 699 out of 700 people.
It's not that I think I specifically should be paying more, it's that I think estates across the board should be paying more.
Why?
Then we need to revise the estate tax so that it doesn't have a 0% rate for 699 out of 700 people.
If the current law excludes the first $5.5 million or so from an individual's taxable estate, how much would you reduce the exclusion to tax more dead people? I would think going much below that would make it difficult to pass family farms and businesses between generations.
Or is this one of those "Hoarding the American Dream" issues, like 529s or the mortgage interest deduction, that makes it easier to stay in the upper middle class and puts people trying to break in at a disadvantage? Are we trying to achieve more of a generational reset here?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.