Scraping By On $500,000 A Year

[doctalaughs]

less govt spending, less taxes

It's not very conservative to want to take people's stuff just because you think they have too much

Who says your "stuff" is still yours after death?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ignatius J]

Who says your "stuff" is still yours after death?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

So it is cool to steal from dead people? They have earned the money. Assuming it is paid up in tax while living, it is completely against my principals to tax a dead person who isn't there to defend themselves. It's feasting on a dead person. Gross.

They should be able to decide where their earned money goes.

You can't mutilate someone's corpse but apparently you can mutilate their bank account....

 

[urge]

That's the way it used to be before Clinton 42 signed the housing bill in 1997. part of what lead to the housing crash was the change in laws that allowed homeowners to just keep the cash from any profit (if they lived there for 2 out of the 5 years) tax free up to $500k per couple/250k for single. And if u moved within that 24 month period. The profit was pro rated.

Before the 1997 tax law. U had to roll over the gains from the home in order to avoid capital gains on a home (primary homes)

Don't think for a second that law change didn't contribute to the housing boom and crash. It made a huge difference being able to "upgrade" a home. Keep the spare cash. Put very little down on the next home with hope of it appreciating as well.

I hear you but I don't think it makes a difference. People who are in real estate sell one house to buy another pretty quickly. They don't go from owners to renters. It's the mindset they have. Thus, if they are not putting their capital gains back on the market, what you claim was the result of the Clinton law, I don't think that is the reason for boom.

The first real estate bubble was all due to easy credit. The current real estate bubble is due to low interest rates.

 

[deleted480308]

Who says your "stuff" is still yours after death?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

When I die, my stuff should go where I tell it to go. You have no claim on it

 

[GravelRider]

I would rather a lower tax on money that I earn, rather than a lower tax on money that I didn't earn. An inheritance is a windfall and money that I did not work for.

It doesn't matter. Our government's sole purpose...the only reason for its existence...is to make rich people even richer. Wealth is power and minimal estate taxes keeps that power in the hands of the few. Every policy, law, or change to the tax code can be reduced to the question "who is getting rich off of this?"

 

[Man o War]

It's comical to me that you even get taxed when you die. It's really nuts if you think about it on a base level, removing political biases completely.

 

[aneftp]

I hear you but I don't think it makes a difference. People who are in real estate sell one house to buy another pretty quickly. They don't go from owners to renters. It's the mindset they have. Thus, if they are not putting their capital gains back on the market, what you claim was the result of the Clinton law, I don't think that is the reason for boom.

The first real estate bubble was all due to easy credit. The current real estate bubble is due to low interest rates.

It did make a huge difference.

I live in Florida. Let me tell u about all the homeowners I know who defaulted. They all made a killing 200-300k profit. Yet basically put zero down on their next homes. And the housing market collapse.

People do things when tax laws change. Trust me.

Than we had the mortgage and short sell law which basically forgave homeowners on bad debt rather than IRS giving homeowners a big 1099 tax bill for bad debt.

Notice the short sales were never in existence before the housing collapse and
Now that the law has expired. Very few short sales cause of tax law changes.

Yes. Credit was looose back than. But tax law changes under Clinton lead people just to use their homes as ATM machine rather than rolling in profits into the next home.

 

[urge]

It did make a huge difference.

I live in Florida. Let me tell u about all the homeowners I know who defaulted. They all made a killing 200-300k profit. Yet basically put zero down on their next homes. And the housing market collapse.

People do things when tax laws change. Trust me.

Than we had the mortgage and short sell law which basically forgave homeowners on bad debt rather than IRS giving homeowners a big 1099 tax bill for bad debt.

Notice the short sales were never in existence before the housing collapse and
Now that the law has expired. Very few short sales cause of tax law changes.

Yes. Credit was looose back than. But tax law changes under Clinton lead people just to use their homes as ATM machine rather than rolling in profits into the next home.

We are on the same page other than the part where you say the Clintons led to a boom.

They probably helped with the bust since people did not have equity in their house anymore.

 

[aneftp]

We are on the same page other than the part where you say the Clintons led to a boom.

They probably helped with the bust since people did not have equity in their house anymore.

This is the guy responsible for the housing bubble. The main AIG guy who came up with these credit default swaps that the investment banks all went along with thinking there wouldn't be more than a 30% default rate on risky assets.

Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia

 

[GravelRider]

It's comical to me that you even get taxed when you die. It's really nuts if you think about it on a base level, removing political biases completely.

You don't pay anything...you are dead. Your estate pays a tax only on money above $5.45 million and that number increase every year. 99.8% of estates do not pay any tax. I don't think you will get much sympathy from the majority of Americans for taxing estates. A few states have an inheritance tax, which is different.

I have no problem with the current estate tax. I do have a problem with taxing W2 employees, like myself, at rates >30%.

 

[Ignatius J]

I would rather a lower tax on money that I earn, rather than a lower tax on money that I didn't earn. An inheritance is a windfall and money that I did not work for.

It doesn't matter. Our government's sole purpose...the only reason for its existence...is to make rich people even richer. Wealth is power and minimal estate taxes keeps that power in the hands of the few. Every policy, law, or change to the tax code can be reduced to the question "who is getting rich off of this?"

An inheritance is another individual's money that has already passed through the tax cycle. It is stealing. Because they can't do anything about it. It is cannibalism. You are feeding on dead people.

And I don't stand to inherit or give away any estate that would require this. It is a matter of principal, imo. The answer isn't always that this person over here has a lot of money so can cough up some coin to Uncle Sam.

 

[deleted480308]

You don't pay anything...you are dead. Your estate pays a tax only on money above $5.45 million and that number increase every year. 99.8% of estates do not pay any tax. I don't think you will get much sympathy from the majority of Americans for taxing estates. A few states have an inheritance tax, which is different.

I have no problem with the current estate tax. I do have a problem with taxing W2 employees, like myself, at rates >30%.

How the hell is "we only rob the richest .2% of the dead" a justification?

 

[GravelRider]

An inheritance is another individual's money that has already passed through the tax cycle. It is stealing. Because they can't do anything about it. It is cannibalism. You are feeding on dead people.

And I don't stand to inherit or give away any estate that would require this. It is a matter of principal, imo. The answer isn't always that this person over here has a lot of money so can cough up some coin to Uncle Sam.

I'm not going to get into a debate over a tax that 0.2% of the population pays while W2 employees are getting killed on income tax. It's not worth the energy. Let's pay zero taxes and abolish the American government because there is always someone who can say a certain tax is unfair. I'm all for anarchy. I think it would be fun.

The provenance argument doesn't work either. All money has been taxed at some point before it got to you. Your patient paid a tax on his income and then paid you income. That money has been taxed before, so should it not be taxed again?

The estate tax is the very least of our problems and griping about something that affects so few is a precious waste of time. I'm done.

 

[GravelRider]

How the hell is "we only rob the richest .2% of the dead" a justification?

How is taking greater than 30% of my income a better way to fund our wars?

 

[deleted480308]

How is taking greater than 30% of my income a better way to fund our wars?

We clearly haven't interacted if you think I advocate for the income tax or our current level of military intervention.

Let's end the estate tax and income tax

 

[GravelRider]

How the hell is "we only rob the richest .2% of the dead" a justification?

Also, you are dead. You don't exist anymore and you are not getting robbed...because you are dead. Dead people can't get robbed because they are...you guessed it, dead.

 

[deleted480308]

Also, you are dead. You don't exist anymore and you are not getting robbed...because you are dead. Dead people can't get robbed because they are...you guessed it, dead.

So if someone shoots your family and cleans out your house They're not a thief in addition to being murder?

 

[Ignatius J]

I'm not going to get into a debate over a tax that 0.2% of the population pays while W2 employees are getting killed on income tax. It's not worth the energy. Let's pay zero taxes and abolish the American government because there is always someone who can say a certain tax is unfair. I'm all for anarchy. I think it would be fun.

The provenance argument doesn't work either. All money has been taxed at some point before it got to you. Your patient paid a tax on his income and then paid you income. That money has been taxed before, so should it not be taxed again?

The estate tax is the very least of our problems and griping about something that affects so few is a precious waste of time. I'm done.

That's not "anarchy". There wasn't even a national income tax until the eve of WWI.

There is an endless list of grievances aired by 0.2% (in some cases 0.00000001% of the population) that people pay pretty damn close attention to. If you are taking the utilitarian point of view, I guess you don't care about fallen soldiers' widows, abortions, or the death penalty? Less than that percentage of patients now die under anesthesia- do you care about those cases that you will inevitably do? My guess is you do and it is because of your principles of being the best professional and humanitarian you can be.

 

[Man o War]

Also, you are dead. You don't exist anymore and you are not getting robbed...because you are dead. Dead people can't get robbed because they are...you guessed it, dead.

This makes no sense. So if a patient dies at the hospital I should be able to just take the bag of belongings they came in with?
Their car if they drove themselves?

 

[GravelRider]

This makes no sense. So if a patient dies at the hospital I should be able to just take the bag of belongings they came in with?
Their car if they drove themselves?

Well, technically that is now part of the estate. You would be stealing from the patient's estate, not the patient. The patient is dead. A dead person no longer has the ability to do anything...let alone possess something.

 

[GravelRider]

So if someone shoots your family and cleans out your house They're not a thief in addition to being murder?

No, that person is a thief...they've robbed the estate. However, I have not been robbed because I don't exist anymore.

 

[deleted480308]

No, that person is a thief...they've robbed the estate. However, I have not been robbed because I don't exist anymore.

so we're in agreement that the estate tax makes the govt (and you for supporting it) a thief......we're just quibbling over the semantics as to the victim's identity?

 

[Man o War]

so we're in agreement that the estate tax makes the govt (and you for supporting it) a thief......we're just quibbling over the semantics as to the victim's identity?

Yep. I'm scratching my head.

 

[GravelRider]

so we're in agreement that the estate tax makes the govt (and you for supporting it) a thief......we're just quibbling over the semantics as to the victim's identity?

I was responding to your example of shooting me and my family. You are not the government and taking tangible items out of a house was not a law passed by representatives of an elected government. So no, taxation is not stealing. Taxation is a different concept from stealing. You cannot use an example of stealing to prove your point that taxation is stealing.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion about taxation and it's various forms then you have to stop using "stealing" as an equivalent concept.

 

[urge]

If you want to have a reasonable discussion about taxation and it's various forms then you have to stop using "stealing" as an equivalent concept.

I agree. "Theft" is more recognized when talking about taxes.

Speak properly.

 

[Psai]

This makes no sense. So if a patient dies at the hospital I should be able to just take the bag of belongings they came in with?
Their car if they drove themselves?

What are they gonna do with it? Drive it?

 

[Man o War]

What are they gonna do with it? Drive it?

What do we normally do with a patient's stuff when they die alone at the hospital?

 

[GravelRider]

I agree. "Theft" is more recognized when talking about taxes.

Speak properly.

Theft is the unlawful taking of a person's property. Unfortunately, taxes are very lawful. As a society, we've agreed to pay them. And how can it be theft if you willingly give it over? You buy things and pay a sales tax. You can refuse to buy things. You can refuse to pay any taxes and take a chance. You can try to find a country that doesn't collect any taxes and live there. You've got options.

 

[GravelRider]

Yep. I'm scratching my head.

Just saying that dead people can't do things like possess money or have things done to them like be taxed or robbed. You no longer exist when you are dead. It's not semantics when they are actually philosophical and legal concepts.

This idea that the estate tax is a tax on money that has already been taxed is untrue. A large portion of the money collected from the estate tax is on unrealized capital gains. So if it were not for the estate tax then a large portion of the money that heirs to a large fortune would receive would have never been taxed.

 

[urge]

Theft is the unlawful taking of a person's property. Unfortunately, taxes are very lawful. As a society, we've agreed to pay them. And how can it be theft if you willingly give it over? You buy things and pay a sales tax. You can refuse to buy things. You can refuse to pay any taxes and take a chance. You can try to find a country that doesn't collect any taxes and live there. You've got options.

How many men?
How many men? is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the concept of taxation as theft. The experiment uses a series of questions to posit a difference between criminal acts and majority rule. For example, one version asks, "Is it theft if one man steals a car?" "What if a gang of five men steal the car?" "What if a gang of ten men take a vote (allowing the victim to vote as well) on whether to steal the car before stealing it?" "What if one hundred men take the car and give the victim back a bicycle?" or "What if two hundred men not only give the victim back a bicycle but buy a poor person a bicycle, as well?" The experiment challenges an individual to determine how large a group is required before the taking of an individual's property becomes the "democratic right" of the majority.[13]

Taxation as theft - Wikipedia

 

[urge]

. Unfortunately, taxes are very lawful. As a society, we've agreed to pay them. And how can it be theft if you willingly give it over?

There are so many in agreement here that we collectively spend days, months or even years looking for ways not to pay taxes.

 

[GravelRider]

Taxation as theft - Wikipedia

You can say that about any law passed in any country. Tyranny of the majority is a concept discussed often when talking about a democracy.

 

[deleted480308]

You can say that about any law passed in any country. Tyranny of the majority is a concept discussed often when talking about a democracy.

thus the non aggression principle

 

[GravelRider]

thus the non aggression principle

Did you do anything to pollute the environment this week? I bet you did.

Come on. We have a long way to go before you can start talking about the non-aggression principle and the American government.

 

[deleted480308]

Did you do anything to pollute the environment this week? I bet you did.

Come on. We have a long way to go before you can start talking about the non-aggression principle and the American government.

ending the estate tax is a reasonable first step on the journey, same for income tax

 

[Ignatius J]

Just saying that dead people can't do things like possess money or have things done to them like be taxed or robbed. You no longer exist when you are dead. It's not semantics when they are actually philosophical and legal concepts.

This idea that the estate tax is a tax on money that has already been taxed is untrue. A large portion of the money collected from the estate tax is on unrealized capital gains. So if it were not for the estate tax then a large portion of the money that heirs to a large fortune would receive would have never been taxed.

Then the capital gains carry over and when the benefactor trades in the gains he is then taxed on them. Easy. You don't need a 30% tax on it. This is a non-sequitur. The capital gains taxes have nothing to do with the estate tax.

 

[aneftp]

Getting back on subject with the 500k income. Couple just has to curb their lifestyle choices (house cars vacay). Sure they have a lot of student loan debt. But their income to student loan debt is manageable.

There is something called "delayed gratification". My plastic surgeon buddy (we known each other since age 18 freshmen year in college through med school roommates) didn't start rolling in the money till he was almost 40. It takes 5 plus years to build up a plastic surgery office so it's not all glamor as people expect.

Could have purchased a 1.5 million dollar home but purchased more modest 600k home and did 150k in renovation. You DO NOT NEED that 1.5 million dollar home as a first home folks or even a 2nd home.

My sister and brothers all have 1.5, 1.7 and 1.9 million plus homes. It's their 3rd or 4th homes and they live in super expensive areas out west coast and northeast. No one has a 1 million dollar mortgage. It's just crazy. They all put big money down.

One can run into a lot of trouble with $4000-5000 a month mortgage very quickly. Even physicians. U figure u need to have 100k cash reserves just to make it 6 months with those types of expenses that hypothetical couple has. And if it were me. I would want 12 months cash as w2 employee since temp disability can be a pain to kick in. And 20 plus months liquid cash as self employed

 

[GravelRider]

ending the estate tax is a reasonable first step on the journey, same for income tax

Well, guess what. It's not happening. It won't happen now, it won't happen 20 years from now, and it certainly won't happen in your lifetime. Maybe you can organize a rebellion and attempt to overthrow the government if you think the tax represents a tyranny, but short of that, taxes aren't going anywhere. How else would the politicians give themselves top-notch health insurance and retirement plans?

 

[doctalaughs]

ending the estate tax is a reasonable first step on the journey, same for income tax

I would in principle be OK with ending income tax if we could still reasonably provide for basic infrastructure, law enforcement/justice and national defense.

Estate tax is harder, because the way the US and to some extent world economy is setup, massive wealth is a "multiplier" making it much easier to accumulate more wealth. It's reasonable to say someone "earned" an income accumulating 5, 10, 100 times the average citizen. However when you have an individual who "earned" 100,000 times or a million times the average citizen and passes this money along you are creating dynasties that continue to use this money, not unlike the feudal societies of long ago. The later generations certainly didn't "earn" the money. They continue to use the multiplier effect to control the system and make more money.

If we could change that multiplier effect it would be fair to abolish the estate tax.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

I would in principle be OK with ending income tax if we could still reasonably provide for basic infrastructure, law enforcement/justice and education.

Estate tax is harder, because the way the US and to some extent world economy is setup, massive wealth is a "multiplier" making it much easier to accumulate more wealth. It's reasonable to say someone "earned" an income accumulating 5, 10, 100 times the average citizen. However when you have an individual who "earned" 100,000 times or a million times the average citizen and passes this money along you are creating dynasties that continue to use this money, not unlike the feudal societies of long ago. The later generations certainly didn't "earn" the money. They continue to use the multiplier effect to control the system and make more money.

If we could change that multiplier effect it would be fair to abolish the estate tax.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I'm sympathetic to this arguement. However, no one seems to care about multipliers in government like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. that exact a lot more control on power than Bill Gates' kin ever will. Why is that?

We have to tax the wealthy to keep them from getting too much power but senators and Presidents can set up shop in Washington for as long as they and their offspring want to?

 

[Ignatius J]

Well, guess what. It's not happening. It won't happen now, it won't happen 20 years from now, and it certainly won't happen in your lifetime. Maybe you can organize a rebellion and attempt to overthrow the government if you think the tax represents a tyranny, but short of that, taxes aren't going anywhere. How else would the politicians give themselves top-notch health insurance and retirement plans?

This country was founded on a rebellion from "improper" taxation. Every bit of it. So your statement is light years away from a true American spirit.

WE are the government, and we have a right to decide what and how much we should be taxed. This concept is as American as apple pie.

"Sit there and take it" is what my ancestors ran away from.

 

[LePepe]

I'm sympathetic to this arguement. However, no one seems to care about multipliers in government like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. that exact a lot more control on power than Bill Gates' kin ever will. Why is that?

We have to tax the wealthy to keep them from getting too much power but senators and Presidents can set up shop in Washington for as long as they and their offspring want to?

Isn't that due to social capital?

Is it even possible to tax that?

 

[Ignatius J]

Isn't that due to social capital?

Is it even possible to tax that?

If we can legally take money away from dead people, I am sure we can figure out a way. Start with term limits.

 

[deleted126335]

If we can legally take money away from dead people, I am sure we can figure out a way. Start with term limits.

A dead person owns nothing. The estate tax is a tax on the transfer of that ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Ignatius J]

A dead person owns nothing. The estate tax is a tax on the transfer of that ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Incorrect or there would be no use for a living will. They own their property and have a right to delegate where it will be used when they are no longer here. The legal case isn't on your side. If you were correct, the government would just seize the dead's assets with no questions asked.

Next time you think the dead have no rights, try taking a corpse and see where that gets ya.....;-)

If you come across a guy in an alley who appears lifeless, are you just going to take his wallet and wander on (after ACLS of course)?

 

[pjl]

Then the capital gains carry over and when the benefactor trades in the gains he is then taxed on them. Easy. You don't need a 30% tax on it. This is a non-sequitur. The capital gains taxes have nothing to do with the estate tax.

Doesnt the cost basis step up when passed to estate?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app

 

[Ignatius J]

Doesnt the cost basis step up when passed to estate?


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app

I know armies of lawyers try to mitigate the tax burden and the effective tax rate varies.

Is that what you were asking? Unfortunately, this isn't a problem I have had to deal with or will have to deal with.

 

[GravelRider]

This country was founded on a rebellion from "improper" taxation. Every bit of it. So your statement is light years away from a true American spirit.

WE are the government, and we have a right to decide what and how much we should be taxed. This concept is as American as apple pie.

"Sit there and take it" is what my ancestors ran away from.

I'm all for revolution if needed. That's why I suggested it. It was not tongue in cheek. I don't think we are living under a tyranny...yet. However, if you do then maybe it's time to organize a true rebellion and attempt to convince a large portion of the populace. In the meantime, taxes are not going anywhere and trying to convince that populace that a tax on the wealthiest 0.2% is unfair might be difficult. At some point ideals like the "non-aggression principle" take a backseat to the actual politics and compromise that are required to keep a democratic society together.

 

[Ignatius J]

I'm all for revolution if needed. That's why I suggested it. It was not tongue in cheek. I don't think we are living under a tyranny...yet. However, if you do then maybe it's time to organize a true rebellion and attempt to convince a large portion of the populace. In the meantime, taxes are not going anywhere and trying to convince that populace that a tax on the wealthiest 0.2% is unfair might be difficult. At some point ideals like the "non-aggression principle" take a backseat to the actual politics and compromise that are required to keep a democratic society together.

Fair enough. I will refuse, however, to bargain principals because "it is only 0.2% and no one will care". You don't need a rebellion. Sometimes all you need is awareness and subsequent action.

Also, it doesn't appear that the populace needs to be convinced. They have already introduced the bare bones bill. ;-)

Just need some politicians to come on board. That is the hard part. Principals don't often exist in the Swamp.

 

[deleted126335]

Incorrect or there would be no use for a living will. They own their property and have a right to delegate where it will be used when they are no longer here. The legal case isn't on your side. If you were correct, the government would just seize the dead's assets with no questions asked.

Next time you think the dead have no rights, try taking a corpse and see where that gets ya.....;-)

If you come across a guy in an alley who appears lifeless, are you just going to take his wallet and wander on (after ACLS of course)?