Wealth Distribution in the US: Challenges and Solutions

[ray b]

You seem to have a very limited grasp of what you're talking about. Essentially every claim here is false ("created out of thin air", "retain far more stock", "not subject to any tax"), but more importantly you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.



I favor high estate taxes, personally, but to say that estate taxes are not double taxation is simply false. True, stepped-up bases avoid capital gains taxes -- but that means that the gains are only single-taxed. All wealth subject to estate taxes were earned at some point and thus subject, at some point, to taxation.

Also, most states have special generation-skipping inheritance taxes; the feds may have one too, I'm not sure.

most corps issue only a small % of stock in a IPO
and ''give'' far more to the board, E O 's, banks and others to arrange the IPO
and the creators most times retain the larger numbers along with any VC's involved
or simply let the corp's retain the common shares on it's books or as a shell corp ect
and take out their ''share'' in preferred stock or some other trick

stock does have ''rules'' to do a IPO
but the is little to dispute the original IPO shares are madeup
most big stock holders are in at the beginning and are given the shares
or given reduced price shares ie options
and not subject to taxes at issue date

 

[russ_watters]

Ray, the concept of "stock" really isn't all that hard to grasp. Stocks are ownership of a company. I believe all corporations have stocks - that's how you define who owns the company. In sole proprietorships, there is a single owner of all the stock in the company. He/she can choose to hold it or sell it, but either way, all that stock is is ownership of the company and the value of the stock is a reflection of peoples' perceptions of the value of the company.

When a company decides to issue stock publicly, of course the owners of the company will retain much of the stock for themselves! The point of an IPO is to sell partial ownership of the company in order to generate capital (cash) for the company.

Also, you seem to be against the idea that stocks aren't taxed while they are held. Why would they be? Are you taxed on the money you have in your bank account or the value of the TV in your living room? I suppose the government could tax for any reason it wanted, but those would have a tough time being logically justified.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

Try looking at it from the other side of the coin: how can reduced profits (much less losses) create jobs?

 

[WhoWee]

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS

lets not mix up STATE and FED taxes you can move to a better taxed state
even if you move out of the USA FEds tax laws still apply if you remain a citizen


personal property is a state tax in some states NOT A FED TAX

luxury taxes is a very limited list of things taxed and mostly dead now
bringing it back is not a bad idea

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings without working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

there is no nonsense in my post but a lot in yours
and a whole load of neo-conned spin and BIG LIES too

ray b, I posted links to support my comments. You need to do the same. Why don't you start with this "the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS".

When you're done with the SEC, please post specific evidence to support your claims of "BIG LIES"- or retract your nonsense.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why? It's not clear (to me) from the rest of the discussion.

It doesn't follow from the rest, it's a sidenote. I mention it only because it's relevant: while a claim like "estate taxes are not double taxation" would support my dislike of estate taxes, I disagree with it because it's wrong.

Edit: Since you're looking at that post of mine already, any comments on my examples?

 

[WhoWee]

...at a very high cost that comes from lower employee wages and higher product prices.

Actually, I was referring to Aflac policies. They fall under Section 125 or "Cafeteria" plans. The Aflac policies are paid by the employees (individual choice - not mandatory) and monthly premiums typically cost less than 2 to 3 times the workers hourly wage - usually less than $50 per month.

The company saves money and the employees have some protection at a low cost.

 

[ray b]

Ray, the concept of "stock" really isn't all that hard to grasp. Stocks are ownership of a company. I believe all corporations have stocks - that's how you define who owns the company. In sole proprietorships, there is a single owner of all the stock in the company. He/she can choose to hold it or sell it, but either way, all that stock is is ownership of the company and the value of the stock is a reflection of peoples' perceptions of the value of the company.

When a company decides to issue stock publicly, of course the owners of the company will retain much of the stock for themselves! The point of an IPO is to sell partial ownership of the company in order to generate capital (cash) for the company.

Also, you seem to be against the idea that stocks aren't taxed while they are held. Why would they be? Are you taxed on the money you have in your bank account or the value of the TV in your living room? I suppose the government could tax for any reason it wanted, but those would have a tough time being logically justified.

this board is over moderated by the rightwing
who are very active suppressing extreme views

I never said I had anything against stock ownership
I have owned some myself

what I am against is the super rich like gates or buffet being taxed at such low rates
or never taxed on billions earned by stock value growth
except maybe at their death
while the neo-conned bleat about the rich being over taxed
when the true fact is most of the wealth never is taxed or way under taxed
let alone the false claim it is double taxed

yes most of the funds in my bank account was taxed both income and SS
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

any interest earned from that account is taxed at my full rate
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

my tv was taxed at 7% state sales tax plus a tax on the power it uses
but bill gates never paid a dime on his wealth of billions

only workers pay double taxes income and SS
most of the real rich don't pay much income or SS tax

 

[D H]

this board is over moderated by the rightwing
who are very active suppressing extreme views

 

[berkeman]

this board is over moderated by the rightwing
who are very active suppressing extreme views

This thread is now locked pending moderation and cleanup. Sorry Ray.