Post New

and NY, it's only right that I offer solutions, again.

Solutions, team trump should meet with Newsom, Hochul, and a few other Dems. 4-5 republicans and three billionaires should join the meeting. For two years both parties should support a 15 % max capital gains tax at the federal level, and a 5 % max rate at the state level. A max tax rate of 20 % combined on LT capital gains would incentivize the superrich to realize significant unrealized capital gains and actually pay the tax. Both parties should make it very clear that they will work together to close all the tax loopholes used by the superrich to avoid taxable events. THATS how you incentivize the rich to pay more rather than move to tax friendly states. Can the two parties work together on anything? It's a ten to 1 shot but team trump should try. What a country.

A max tax rate of 20 % combined on LT capital gains would incentivize the superrich to realize significant unrealized capital gains and actually pay the tax.

Would it? Why? If you're Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, there's no reason for you to ever realize your gains. You don't want the tax hit (whether 20% or not), and you don't want the loss of share ownership in your company that comes with selling.

These multi billionaire types borrow against holdings. Many YT vids about this.

Would it? Why? If you're Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, there's no reason for you to ever realize your gains. You don't want the tax hit (whether 20% or not), and you don't want the loss of share ownership in your company that comes with selling.

Huh? These guys sell shares in their companies all the time. How do you think Blue Origin is funded?

Huh? These guys sell shares in their companies all the time.

Sure, but not for shirts and goggles. They'll sell if they need the money - but they're not going to sell just to sell, or because the tax rate drops from (picks number) 32% down to 20%. They're still just better off holding unless there's some actual, exogenous reason to sell shares.

Sure, but not for shirts and goggles. They'll sell if they need the money - but they're not going to sell just to sell, or because the tax rate drops from (picks number) 32% down to 20%. They're still just better off holding unless there's some actual, exogenous reason to sell shares.


Depends on what they use for income streams, but fair point.

"Sure, but not for shirts and goggles. They'll sell if they need the money - but they're not going to sell just to sell, or because the tax rate drops from (picks number) 32% down to 20%. They're still just better off holding unless there's some actual, exogenous reason to sell shares."

As Mark pointed out, even when they need money they rarely sell shares. They just use the shares as collateral for a loan. The shares increase in price faster than the interest on the loan compounds. That way they never have to pay anything in taxes.

" Sure, but not for shirts and goggles. They'll sell if they need the money - but they're not going to sell just to sell, or because the tax rate drops from (picks number) 32% down to 20%. They're still just better off holding unless there's some actual, exogenous reason to sell shares."


I stipulated that the two parties of self-dealing grifters would act together to close the loopholes, follow? So.

take away the stepped-up basis,
if you borrow against unrealized cap gains, you pay a 20 percent tax on the loan amount,
if you donate unrealized cap gains the charity pays the Fed 25 % of the proceeds from sales as they occur.
all the other loopholes would be taken away as well.

The Dems are currently a 60-40 favorite to win back the white house in 28.

The Dems are a 5 to 1 favorite to take control of the house in 26.

The senate control is a dead heat in 26, even money.

IF you had super wealth would you realize some of those gains into a 20 % max rate or wait to see what progressive Dems propose down the road?

BTW, does anyone support the wealth tax in Cali?

Thank you.

As Mark pointed out, even when they need money they rarely sell shares. They just use the shares as collateral for a loan. The shares increase in price faster than the interest on the loan compounds. That way they never have to pay anything in taxes.

Works well as long as share prices continue increasing.

Could become a sticky wicket in a declining market as Buffet’s tide goes out…… especially as rates and cost of renegotiating loans go up.

Those who build pyramids should not stow thrones…… or something.

BTW, does anyone support the wealth tax in Cali?

No. For one, it's a rather large 4th amendment violation. Up here in WA state the democrats passed an income tax that runs directly against the state constitution. To fight the lawsuits the democrats will argue that "income" is not your property...I expect California democrats to do something very similar.

Second, it directly disincentivizes wealth creation and accumulation, which is not something I think the democrats have thought through.

" Second, it directly disincentivizes wealth creation and accumulation, which is not something I think the democrats have thought through."


What progressives forgot to think through is the percent of wealth that would leave the state to avoid the tax. That's why I'm proposing a tax package that will generate rev and the rich can't move away from.

I stipulated that the two parties of self-dealing grifters would act together to close the loopholes, follow? So.

take away the stepped-up basis,
if you borrow against unrealized cap gains, you pay a 20 percent tax on the loan amount,
if you donate unrealized cap gains the charity pays the Fed 25 % of the proceeds from sales as they occur.
all the other loopholes would be taken away as well.

I mean it's an interesting thought experiment, but it's never going to happen. Sure, if you start from the premise that, "Hey, rich people, we're about to make the tax code a whole lot worse for you - but for a short time only, you've got a window where it's not too terrible for you and you can cash out that one year," maybe you would get some takers. But that initial premise isn't very realistic. If I had super wealth I wouldn't either realize some of those gains into a 20% max rate or wait to see what progressive Dems propose down the road - I'd take affirmative steps to make sure that the Congress isn't going to "act together to close the loopholes." My billions are better spent there than paying taxes.

For one, it's a rather large 4th amendment violation.

Fifth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is searches and seizures - the Fifth Amendment is what prevents taking of private property for public use.

" If I had super wealth I wouldn't either realize some of those gains into a 20% max rate or wait to see what progressive Dems propose down the road - I'd take affirmative steps to make sure that the Congress isn't going to "act together to close the loopholes." My billions are better spent there than paying taxes."


Wow, listen to you. The billionaires can always buy the politicians? Let's make it three years until tax year 29, if the new rules aren't extended. Let's actually tax the super-rich do you oppose that concept?

Wow, listen to you. The billionaires can always buy the politicians?

"Always?" Not always, of course. But given history, it's not unreasonable to think that the rich and powerful will be able to exercise the perquisites that come from being rich and powerful.

Plus, inertia is one of the most powerful forces in both politics and history. Sure, great changes are possible - but for the most part, most things that are happening now will continue to happen in the near future.

Let's actually tax the super-rich do you oppose that concept?

The concept? Not at all. I think the super-rich should be taxed, just as nearly all people should be taxed. The concept that the super-rich should not be able to avoid taxation through various mechanisms (like not realizing gains) is a bad concept.

The problem, though, is in translating the concept of "the rich should be taxed on unrealized gains" into an actual tax system in the real world where the benefits are more significant than the downsides.

" The problem, though, is in translating the concept of "the rich should be taxed on unrealized gains" into an actual tax system in the real world where the benefits are more significant than the downsides."


I'm sure you know more than half the wealth the Cali tax is targeting has already moved out, right? The vote is currently 45-55 to not pass and the money is leaving anyway. The govt is going to need more rev to pay the interest on 45-50 trillion in federal debt, going forward.

I'm sure you know more than half the wealth the Cali tax is targeting has already moved out, right?

That's certainly one of the operational things that get in the way of translating a concept that everyone supports ("the rich should pay their fair share") into actual policy. Taxes often create incentives for people to avoid the tax (not evade, but that too).

The govt is going to need more rev to pay the interest on 45-50 trillion in federal debt, going forward.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that they'll be able to pass any given loophole closure through Congress, much less a big package of them.

As Mark pointed out, even when they need money they rarely sell shares. They just use the shares as collateral for a loan. The shares increase in price faster than the interest on the loan compounds. That way they never have to pay anything in taxes.

So don't they ever have to pay off these loans? Don't the lenders ever collect? And if they do, where to the billionaires get the funds to pay?

So don't they ever have to pay off these loans? Don't the lenders ever collect? And if they do, where to the billionaires get the funds to pay?

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that these loans don't get paid off while the owner is alive. They get paid off when the owner dies. The assets pass into the estate, which receives the benefit of the stepped-up basis. Assets can then be sold to pay off the loans before distribution to the beneficiaries.

The loan gets paid back, but not until all of the tax liability on the capital gains has been washed away by the death of the owner.

I'll try to add some context to this issue as the web has spread much incorrect information.

As of the beginning of this year, the 200 or so billionaires still in CA have about $2.2T in wealth. The tax (if passed) would generate about $20B/year.

The BBB continuation of the federal tax cuts for the wealthy amount to about $1T in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%. The BBB reduction in federal Medicaid spending results in about a $20B/year hole in the CA budget. It is logical to recover that lost federal tax revenue, to cover the associated reduction in federal aid. Given the CA budget is around $350B, there are other ways to make this work if needed.

As far as people leaving CA, we are still short on both water resources and housing resources (at least one million housing units short) for our current population size. I plead for people to leave as we are way overcrowded. While under our democratic leadership the state continues to make ends meet, a population reduction would be very helpful.
Alan

I think the super-rich should be taxed, just as nearly all people should be taxed. The concept that the super-rich should not be able to avoid taxation through various mechanisms (like not realizing gains) is a bad concept.

Then apply that same concept DOWN, not just UP.

Sell your house for a LOSS, TAX WRITE-OFF (cap loss, right?).

Income goes down, income averaging or tax write-off (same rationale). The asset (your labor VALUE = ASSET) has gone down, so CAPITAL WRITE-OFF. People already pay taxes on the increase in that labor capital asset via immediate higher taxes on the income. But no way to *recover* the lost capital value of the asset when it goes down.

Ditto for cars. Debt of pretty much all types. And so on.

AI can do it INSTANTLY and save everyone TRILLIONS !!

I claim 10% commission payable to ME for this VALUABLE OWNED CONCEPT !!

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that these loans don't get paid off while the owner is alive. They get paid off when the owner dies. The assets pass into the estate, which receives the benefit of the stepped-up basis. Assets can then be sold to pay off the loans before distribution to the beneficiaries.

So not even the interest has to be paid off during the life of the billionaire? The lenders are just fine being out the 200 million that a new superyacht might cost? And might not be able to collect anything for 50+ years? Where can I get such a sweet loan?!

" As far as people leaving CA, we are still short on both water resources and housing resources (at least one million housing units short) for our current population size. I plead for people to leave as we are way overcrowded. While under our democratic leadership the state continues to make ends meet, a population reduction would be very helpful.
Alan"


As usual it's hard to tell when some of you are kidding or are serious. I'll assume you are serious. Nuf said.

" Sure. But that doesn't mean that they'll be able to pass any given loophole closure through Congress, much less a big package of them."


IF both parties of self-dealing grifters acted in concert to do what is best for the nation, WHO is going to stop them, the homeless? You believe big money owns and controls both parties? Progressive Dems don't really support taxing the superrich?

So not even the interest has to be paid off during the life of the billionaire? The lenders are just fine being out the 200 million that a new superyacht might cost? And might not be able to collect anything for 50+ years? Where can I get such a sweet loan?!

I mean, I'm sure it varies. Some of the loans might get serviced with interest, some might have "normal" repayments within whatever the billionaire wants to pay out of realized income. Some might build up the amount owed until the billionaire passes - sort of a zero-coupon bond.

It's easy to get such a sweet loan, provided you're a megabillionaire. Bankers desperately want to have their business, and swallowing a little of the vig on a loan is a really small price to pay to be Elon's Banker. That's an oversimplification, of course - I'm sure he has lots of bankers - but given the amount of wealth that's spun off from his various operations (the Space X IPO alone! And also the Twitter and xAI acquisitions), it's worth covering his bar tab to have your name on the list of bankers he turns to.

Let's be honest - it is really, really hard to "spend" a ton of money relative to your holdings at that level of wealth. Sure, you have some amount of hideous large consumption; but almost everything you're buying that matters at that scale is you purchasing an asset (a house, a piece of art you love, jewelry) rather than consumption. Yes, all your payroll and your transportation/vacations and your meals and whatnot....but is that really much more than an eight-figure spend? The stuff you're paying for that isn't itself an asset that maintains value? When you're a Zuckerberg or a Page or a Brin or whatever, that's going to be 0.03% of your net worth. And when you die, it just takes 1-2% of your estate to pay off your lifetime expenses put on the tab. Super-easy to get some institution to finance you at a reasonable interest rate....they know you're good for it, and it's totally worth the trivial amount of interest.

IF both parties of self-dealing grifters acted in concert to do what is best for the nation, WHO is going to stop them, the homeless?

The same people who have stopped every other effort to close loopholes, whether the carried interest loophole or attempts to get rid of the stepped-up basis. Rich people, lobbyists, special interests, and plain old inertia - to say nothing of the many folks who believe it is bad policy to finance the government using these kinds of taxes.

You believe big money owns and controls both parties? Progressive Dems don't really support taxing the superrich?

I believe that both parties have a lot of institutional and other incentives not to aggressively change the tax code to bring in more money by taxing the superrich.

The GOP is obvious - there's huge tranches of that party that are based on hating spending, and part of hating spending is hating taxation.

The Democrats is less obvious, but approximately 61 of the party's 212 House members are from CA and NY. About 30% of the party. Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Those states have huge incentives to keep the billionaire classes happy and stable where they are. Nothing so overt as being "owned or controlled," but also that almost all the individuals who are in positions of power within the party would find it difficult to stand up to concerted opposition of the industries that power their state's GDP. It's the same reason the Democrats don't aggressively take on unions - not that the party is owned or controlled by unions, but that any single individual legislator will find it rough sledding if the unions want to get them out.

" Those states have huge incentives to keep the billionaire classes happy and stable where they are. "


HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, what percent of the wealth targeted in Cali has already left the state? Is this a trick question? Does it sound like they were happy and stable?

Fifth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is searches and seizures - the Fifth Amendment is what prevents taking of private property for public use.

Thanks - I thought that felt off.

Bankers desperately want to have their business, and swallowing a little of the vig on a loan is a really small price to pay to be Elon's Banker.

Never heard "vig" used before so had to look it up:

Vigorish (also called the cut, the house edge, juice, the margin, the take, under-juice, or the vig) is the fee charged by a bookmaker for accepting a gambler's wager. In American English, it can also refer to the interest owed to a loanshark in consideration for credit. The term came to English usage via Yiddish slang (Yiddish: וויגריש‎, romanized: vigrish) which was itself a loanword from Russian (Russian: вы́игрыш, romanized: výigryš, lit. 'gain, winnings').[1][2]

Obviously if you don't care about New York, Cali, etc, going bankrupt down the road the tax change can be at the federal level only. The superrich will move from high tax states and pay the max federal rate of 15 % on LT cap gains in states with no state tax.

I say the Fed will realize more rev at a lower rate from the superrich. We already know with 1000 percent certainty how the rich will respond to the treat of a net worth tax at the state level.

The US will have well over 45 trillion of debt by the 28 elections, who in which party has a realistic plan to service the debt and stop increasing it? Forget about paying it down, neither party cares about that issue.

rich will respond to the treat of a net worth tax at the state level."

treat = threat

So don't they ever have to pay off these loans? Don't the lenders ever collect? And if they do, where to the billionaires get the funds to pay?

Sure. To super-simplify, I am a tech billionaire. I go to the bank and get a $20m loan, using, say $30m in my stock as collateral.

I spend the $20m during the year, buying yachts, artwork, whatever. At the end of the year I owe the bank $1m in interest. I roll over the loan, using the same $30m in collateral, and ask for another $21m in loan collateralized by another tranche of $32m in stock. I pay the $1m interest out of the new loan, and at the end of the year I will owe them another $1m for the second year’s loan. The amounts increase, but barely compared to what I have to play with.

Jeff Bezos has $200 billion in stock, (that’s 1,000 20-millions) so he can keep doing this forfuckingever, never actually selling a single share of stock before he dies. And when that happens, his heirs pay off the loans, which are probably in the neighborhood of (30 years x $20m/yr) $600 m, plus accumulated interest, say $40 m, and then drown themselves in the appreciated stock certificates which are still worth over $200 billion or probably much more.

The loans get paid off. No taxes have ever been paid. The heirs are wealthy beyond imagnation. Bezos has lived off “loans” his entire life. And you and I have paid for the roads, schools, Pentagon, Social Security, and all the rest that taxes are needed for.

As usual many here are, factually challenged, to be kind. “ Jeff Bezos has sold over $30 billion worth of Amazon stock in taxable transactions since 1998 to fund philanthropic efforts, Blue Origin, and personal expenses. Notably, he sold roughly $13.6 billion in 2024, paying an estimated $2.7 billion in federal taxes, and recently sold an additional $5.7 billion after relocating to Florida to avoid state capital gains taxes.Key details regarding Bezos's stock sales:2024-2025 Sales: Following a pause in 2022–2023, Bezos sold over $13.5 billion in shares in 2024, and continued selling in 2025, including a planned 50-million-share sale designed to capitalize on Florida's lack of state capital gains tax.Tax Impact: By moving to Florida, Bezos saved an estimated $140 million on a single $2 billion sale and over $600 million on a broader, pre-planned sale, as reported by Yahoo Finance and CNBC.Historical Sales: Since 2017 alone, he has sold over $36 billion in shares, according to analysis from Inequality.org.Remaining Stake: Despite these sales, Bezos remains one of the largest shareholders of Amazon, with an ownership stake that was still around 9%–10% as of late 2024–2025.These sales are considered taxable events because they are treated as long-term capital gains, and he has not purchased significant amounts of stock to offset these sales.“

As usual many here are, factually challenged, to be kind.

We're not "factually challenged." No one is saying that billionaires never realize capital gains on their holdings, or ever sell stock. Bezos has sold - as has Musk, rather famously, to fund his purchases of Twitter. There are other ways to reduce your capital gains exposure besides taking out loans. Especially if one of your interests is philanthropy, since charitable donations have a lot of tax benefits that can be used to lighten the tax load. And if one of your goals in selling stock is to diversify your assets, rather than simply to raise liquid cash to fund ongoing expenses, you can't achieve that goal without triggering a taxable event.

But the build, borrow, die strategy is one that the uber-wealthy can also use to minimize capital gains tax exposure during their lifetimes. Which is why (to return to the original idea) one would expect only modest uptake if, against all odds, the Democrats and Republicans joined forces to provide a limited period of discounted cap gains taxes.

I spend the $20m during the year, buying yachts, artwork, whatever. At the end of the year I owe the bank $1m in interest. I roll over the loan, using the same $30m in collateral, and ask for another $21m in loan collateralized by another tranche of $32m in stock. I pay the $1m interest out of the new loan, and at the end of the year I will owe them another $1m for the second year’s loan. The amounts increase, but barely compared to what I have to play with.

Thanks, great explanation. And, wow, am I ever (financially) naive!

Would it? Why? If you're Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, there's no reason for you to ever realize your gains.

Especially when you can just borrow against your wealth for your lifetime and then pass it on the your heirs tax free.

This is why we need a wealth tax.

“ Which is why (to return to the original idea) one would expect only modest uptake if, against all odds, the Democrats and Republicans joined forces to provide a limited period of discounted cap gains taxes.“. If the net worth tax passes in Cali how much actual money, dinero, rev, will it generate? How much damage will it do to the state of Cali , its economy and its finances , going forward? Thank you.

If the net worth tax passes in Cali how much actual money, dinero, rev, will it generate?

Either zero, or a modest amount. Zero, in that there are some constitutional objections to the proposal that might end up defeating collections altogether. If it survives, then a modest amount, in that avoidance and legal challenges and the like will end up reducing the total collected to well below what advocates hope for.

How much damage will it do to the state of Cali , its economy and its finances , going forward?

Also a modest amount. Some small number of billionaires will have moved their permanent residency out of California....but those folks don't actually have a single place where they live to begin with, so it doesn't have much of an impact. Also, the folks who are willing to move over this are folks that were never going to realize any big tax payments to California anyway - like Bezos, they'll move out of state once they're ready to do any big asset sales so they don't expose themselves to state income tax.

Again, this is why the Democratic party (including Newsome) didn't push for anything like this. It came from a petition. The political leaders don't want to do this to Silicon Valley. Which is why expectations that Democrats and Republicans (or even just Democrats) are going to come together to eliminate tax loopholes, when that's almost never happened in the past, are unrealistic.

" Again, this is why the Democratic party (including Newsome) didn't push for anything like this. It came from a petition. "


Seriously, a petition wrote itself? Do Khanna, Sanders, unions and the usual suspects in the party vigorously support this insanity?

I forgot how much I enjoy you. ::))

Seriously, a petition wrote itself? Do Khanna, Sanders, unions and the usual suspects in the party vigorously support this insanity?

It didn't write itself. It (mostly) came from the SEIU, whose members would benefit the most from a big pot of new revenue that could only be spent on health care.

I am sure that there are some individual Democrats that support this measure, particularly from the economic left wing of the party. But that is very different from suggesting that Democratic politicians or the Democratic party as a whole supports this measure. Generally, they do not - again, which is why the California Legislature never tried to adopt something like this (even though that's much easier than a referendum), and why Newsome and other Democratic leaders do not "vigorously support" this measure.

There are a lot of institutional reasons why the Democrats do not, as a party, end up burying the needle on trying to "eat the rich" - notwithstanding the fact that there is a non-trivial portion of the party that very much would like to. It's one thing to note that there exists some wing of the party that wants to go hard on taxing the rich, but it's an entirely different thing to suggest that it's realistic that the party would actually adopt measures that go hard on taxing the rich. There's a very good reason why the party has historically not done that, even in states where they have a supermajority (like CA), and even during times when they've held a trifecta at the federal level.

Good characterization of the loan part.

For the inheritance part, as only $15m is excluded from taxes, 99.99%+ of that (assuming $200b is his death estate size) will get taxed so it won't be a complete exclusion. The realization of tax revenue just happens a lot later - maybe 20-25 years from now as he's like, early 60s.

" It didn't write itself. It (mostly) came from the SEIU, whose members would benefit the most from a big pot of new revenue that could only be spent on health care."


With all due respect, we aren't communicating. At most IF this passes it will generate 25 % of the rev projected as more superrich run away and move out. The point is to pass laws that will actually raise REV, a 5 % max state rate for three years on cap gains would raise rev and limit moving, imo. It's worth the try before Cali runs out the job creators, the entrepreneur's, the capitalists, the dreamers. Sanders supports this bill, what else do you need to know? :)

The goal of this initiative from the nurses union was to replace the federal Medicaid payments eliminated by the BBB. Forbes has been misreporting the billionaires in CA, but once adjusted for reality the initiative will bring in about $15B/year, helping bridge the gap to the lost $20B. As Albaby pointed out, court challenges may eliminate any gains.

With the current red hot stock market CA is minting billionaires fairly rapidly. The high end housing market in CA is robust with mostly cash buyers.

We heard similar arguments when CA implemented the "millionaires" income tax, but the impact was nearly unmeasurable.

Leaving CA will have a MUCH, MUCH larger impact on lifestyle than the cost of this tax. Some of those leaving are making a political statement, and some of them would have left anyway for other reasons. I would suspect this is just one of many factors. For instance, I know several families my age that are leaving so they can be closer to family. Living in CA is VERY expensive so many relocate to lower cost areas.

It is easy to underestimate the size of the CA economy, which currently has a GDP of $4.25T, with a population of around 39.5M.

IF this policy is implemented it will likely follow the path of the millionaires tax and be much ado about nothing.
Alan

It is easy to underestimate the size of the CA economy, which currently has a GDP of $4.25T, with a population of around 39.5M.

It is bigger than Russia, GDP wise. As are a couple other bigger states. If RU didn't have nukes, they would be an afterthought.

The point is to pass laws that will actually raise REV, a 5 % max state rate for three years on cap gains would raise rev and limit moving, imo.

I understood your point - I just think it's factually incorrect. Lowering the state tax rate for income to 5% would almost certainly result in a massive loss of revenue. Sure, you might induce some small subset of people to take a capital gain early when they might otherwise wait - but you also have three years of capital gains that would have been incurred in due course that end up being taxed at the lower rate. The losses from the latter will dramatically outweigh the former.

Sanders supports this bill, what else do you need to know? :)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sanders supports a lot of things that don't have support of the party generally.

What makes CA so hot is the fact it is THE center of multiple tech industries. That can not be replicated anywhere else. So, those who "have an idea" bring it to CA--because there is pretty much nowhere else with the wide range of expertise in so many diverse areas. Plus, if someone DOES like the idea/concept, they *might* be able to do more than just "like it". They might want "in" because they see something they think is likely of great value (multiple meanings of that word).

Taxes? Business only owes income taxes on PROFIT. So, is your business profitable yet? If not (or only slightly), then business taxes are irrelevant. Business is also allowed to recover losses incurred in prior years, so taxes OWED don't happen until prior year(s) losses have already been fully recovered.

For the inheritance part, as only $15m is excluded from taxes, 99.99%+ of that (assuming $200b is his death estate size) will get taxed so it won't be a complete exclusion. The realization of tax revenue just happens a lot later - maybe 20-25 years from now as he's like, early 60s.

Inheritance has different valuations, and you can place restrictions, etc. that reduce it. I remember once listening to a lawyer brag how he had reduced the value of a an estate from 55 million to 3 million dollars. Quite a reduction. eh?

This is making the rounds:

Bernie Sanders
@berniesanders
Google founder Sergey Brin's wealth. has DOUBLED to $311 billion since Trump's election.
Now he's spending $57M to oppose a 5% billionaires' wealth tax in California.
He'd rather millions lose healthcare than pay his fair share in taxes. This kind of arrogance is unacceptable.

" This is making the rounds:

Bernie Sanders
@berniesanders
Google founder Sergey Brin's wealth. has DOUBLED to $311 billion since Trump's election.
Now he's spending $57M to oppose a 5% billionaires' wealth tax in California.
He'd rather millions lose healthcare than pay his fair share in taxes. This kind of arrogance is unacceptable."


Most reasonable Americans agree the superrich have to pay more. The question is, how to actually raise more rev, not just threaten BS that causes citizens to move. PLUS, demonizing and vilifying ALL the super-rich with a broad brush is ALWAYS wrong, ALWAYS!

Post New

Markel FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.