BBO Discussion Forums: What is meant here? - BBO Discussion Forums

I think that line in the speech may have been referring to the loophole regarding inherited property. When the property is passed on, the basis is reset to the current value of the property. Unlike when a property is sold, no tax is paid on the gain; the gain during the original owner's lifetime is essentially wiped from the books. If it keeps on getting passed on, the basis will keep getting stepped up. If and when it's eventually sold, tax will only be paid on the gain since the last inheritance.

That seems to describe "accumulated wealth" that they avoid paying tax on. And my understanding is that he made a specific proposal to change this aspect of estate tax.

Maybe that's it. If so, he could have been clearer.

barmar, on 2015-January-21, 16:51, said:

Sounds like another name for gift tax loophole. Just to show complicated the tax laws are and the "gift tax laws".

barmar, on 2015-January-21, 16:56, said:

Another example of just how complicated this stuff is see the use of the word "property".

A good example is taxable income, the definition runs thousands of pages and on top of that the definition changes, often.

I mean this stuff keeps getting back to the main question, what do you mean by that?

My sister in law is a top tax lawyer/law partner out of Sidley and Austin firm who has worked with Buffett and many others out of NY and Chicago. Many of my friends back In Chicago have worked for the IRS for 30+ years. They tell me This stuff can get confusing.
-----

Keep in mind it is very common for the Congress and President to propose and pass tax laws and then the IRS will spend months or longer trying to decide what they mean.

mike777, on 2015-January-21, 18:10, said:

Out of Sidley, out of Austin, out of NY and out of Chicago?
Is there a reason lawyers always have to get out of places??
Joking, joking

kenberg, on 2015-January-21, 19:12, said:

tell me, I married into a whole family of lawyers, then there are lawyers on my side and I went to Law school, though I never practiced law.


BTW she is single, never married and just bought her first car and single family house. She is a partner in the firm.

mikeh, on 2015-January-21, 16:01, said:

Mike, if the client was a US citizen, he had the gift tax law backward. The recipient of the gift does not pay the tax - the person making the gift pays the tax.

The reason for this is that the estate tax law and the gift tax law are part of a unified structure. One can pass wealth from generation to generation by making gifts during lifetime and by making gifts at the time of death by will or otherwise. It is the privilege of transferring property from generation to generation that is being taxed. The US federal estate and gift taxes provide for a unified system. Under current law, an individual can transfer up to $5,430,000 (2015) before paying any gift or estate tax. I assume that the incident that you are referring to occurred a number of years ago. As recently as 2001, the amount that one could pass by lifetime gifts or gifts at death was "only" $675,000. So, it is quite possible that a very wealthy family would have to pay gift tax on a gift of $300,000 from mother to son if there were significant prior gifts. But, again, it is the one making the gift that pays the tax, not the one receiving the gift.

There was a concept of a net gift - the gift made was net of the gift tax. This would involve a circular computation, since the amount of the tax removed from the gift would reduce the amount of the gift, thus reducing the tax, and on and on. It would be one of the few times that one would use algebra in computing a tax liability. I don't know if this concept still exists, as I have not heard it being discussed in years. I wrote a research paper on the subject of net gifts in law school. So, if the client received a net gift, he might think that he was paying the gift tax.

kenberg, on 2015-January-21, 12:38, said:

Yes, I would say it is actually quite normal. To be precise, in the Netherlands the rate is that you pay 1.2%* of tax over the wealth that exceeds € 21 330 (US$ 24 755) (the tax exemption for 2015).
Excluded from this wealth are:
- The value of your first home
- The value of property in normal use (your car(s), laundry machine, clothes, laptop, you get it.)
- Any money in government based social security
- Any money in the pension system. (which is built up in collective, private funds where employers and employees are allowed to put money, up to a given amount, from the gross income, which is deductable for income taxes.) The pension will pay out its benefits, in essentially the same amount (perhaps corrected for inflation) each year, after the age of 67.
- Certain insurances


So, every year, banks report to the individual tax payer, and the tax office, how much wealth each tax payer has in:
checking accounts
savings accounts
stocks
bonds
mutual funds
options
etc.

(I am no financial expert)

In addition, each city annually appraises the value for all property. (City taxes are calculated based on the value of property. People with an expensive home pay more city tax than people with a a cheap house or renters. That is fair since a large part of the city taxes go into protection against flooding: the more you have to protect, the more tax you pay.) So, if the property is not your first home, you will pay tax on its value.

Rik

* The official wording of the tax code is that it is a tax on income from wealth, supposed to tax interest, dividends, etc. So, officially, the tax code says that you are expected to get a 4% return on all your assets or investments. (This 4% is fixed and does not change with the markets, the economy, or the type of investments you make.) This return is taxed at a fixed rate of 30%, translating into a tax rate of 1.2% per year on the value of your assets that exceeds the exemption.
But since the 4% and 30% are fixed, nobody views this as a tax on income, since there is no relation between the actual interest or dividend that was obtained and the amount of tax that needs to be paid. In practice this means that -at the current interest rates- people pay more taxes on their savings (exceeding the exemption) than they get in interest. Given that currently the interest rate on a savings account is 1%, this means that the income from interests above the exemption is taxed at a rate of 120%.

wank, on 2015-January-21, 13:36, said:

Obama should know. After all "rich people" includes him, does it not?

mgoetze, on 2015-January-21, 14:04, said:

Clearly being financially successful is reprehensible and should be punished.

See, two can play this game.

blackshoe, on 2015-January-21, 20:24, said:

As MikeH has pointed out, taxes are not punishments. Taxes provide the infrastructure of our society.

The more you own, or the more income you have, the more you use this infrastructure. So, it is only fair that people who own/earn more, pay more in taxes, since they benefit more.

Note that this argument does not contain any moral or social reasons why the rich should be taxed more than the poor. It is a pure cost/benefit, let me call it "free market", argument.

When the rich are taxed at a lower rate than the poor (since the rich can exploit constructions that are unavailable to the poor) this simply means that the rich are paying less than their fair share: The poor are net facilitating the accumulation of wealth by the rich by financing the infrastructure that the rich use to accumulate their wealth.

Now, I know that you are not into socialist ideas of the rich helping the poor, but I find the idea of taxing the poor to help the rich get richer alien, if not -to use your word- "reprehensible". And I think that some rich, financially successfull people, such as Warren Buffet, agree with me on this.

Rik

blackshoe, on 2015-January-21, 20:22, said:

Not according to Forbes. I understand his assets are under $10M and his Chicago home is mortgaged. Comfortable, for sure, but not rich by a long shot.

PassedOut, on 2015-January-21, 22:20, said:

I guess his assets are well under $10M if he is not rich!

PassedOut, on 2015-January-21, 22:20, said:

So, if Obama would live in the Netherlands (and his assets would be $10M) he would pay:

$10 000 000
$       24 755 -
$  9 975 245
                  1.2% x
$     119 702

in tax over his assets in 2015.

Rik

ArtK78, on 2015-January-21, 19:58, said:

Right, I'm pretty sure this is a US/Canadian difference. In Canada the person receiving the money/inheritance owes taxes on it (potentially). In the US it is the giver (potentially).

The OP question about Obama was definitely talking about primarily the stepped up basis that Barmar accurately described (although note in Obama's proposal it would only be once you clear a certain amount of capital gains would you have to worry about this - again just the very, very rich. See here for more). From the accompanying slides you can see that:

Closing the "Trust fund loophole" will raise $210 billion dollars (possibly including raising the top bracket capital gains rate to the 28% that it was under Reagan instead of the 23.8% it is currently). You can see that:

81% of that $210 billion - $170.1 B - come from the top 0.1% of families.
18% - $37.8 B - come from the rest of the top 1%.
And the last 1% - $2.1 B - come from the rest of the top 5%.

Note based on 2012 numbers:

Top 0.1% average net worth $72.8 million (every family worth >= $20.6 M is in the top 0.1%; these folks own 22% of all the wealth)
The rest of the 1% average net worth is $7.29 million (every family worth >= $3.96 M is in the rest of the top 1% - taken as a whole the top 1% average $13.84 million net worth; these folks own 19.8% of all the wealth - 41.8% if you count the top 0.1% with the rest of the top 1%)
To make the rest of the top 5% you need about $1.4 million net worth.

The stepped up basis loophole was closed in the repeal of the Estate Tax in 2010. When the Estate Tax was brought back in 2011, the stepped up basis came back as well.

There have been attempts to eliminate stepped up basis in the past. None has survived.

blackshoe, on 2015-January-21, 20:22, said:

POTUS's finances are kept in a blind trust while he's in office. So he has no way of knowing.

Ok, I will trust that Obama meant what barmar and Mbodell says he meant.

Might he have been clearer? I don't know, and I have no reason to learn, what "stepped up basis" means. When someone says he is going to close the loopholes on the tax on accu,ulated wealth, I figure he means something along the lines of what Rik describes in the Netherlands. Or really, I have no idea what he means. It could be of interest to survey members of congress and find out how many of them know what "stepped up basis" means, but anyway I don't know what it means and I had no idea that was what was being referred to.As to 1% and 99%, my guess is that at least well over 90% of the audience also had no idea what was meant. But of course closing loopholes always gets applause. Who could object to closing loopholes.

1a : a small opening through which small arms may be fired b : a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation


I can think of a few people who might object to closing loopholes.

kenberg, on 2015-January-22, 10:36, said:

Well, you may not have any reason to learn what stepped up basis means, or you may but just don't know that you do.

Under current US tax law, when a person dies, his or her property is inherited by the heirs with a tax cost equal to the fair market value of the property on the date of death. The tax cost is also known as the "basis" of the property. The basis of the property is the starting point for determing gain or loss on the sale of the property. If one sells 10 shares of IBM stock for $1,000, and the original price paid for the 10 shares of IBM stock (the "basis" of the IBM stock) was $500, one has a gain of $500 on the sale.of the IBM stock. However, if one inherited the stock from someone who died one month ago, and the value of the stock was $990 on the date of death, the gain on the sale of the stock would be only $10. It doesn't matter that the person who died bought the stock for $500 many years ago. The basis of the stock for the heir is "stepped-up" on the death of the previous owner. The potential capital gain in the hands of the original owner disappears upon his death, and his heir gets the stock with a basis equal to the value on the date of his death.

Basis can also be "stepped-down" if the value of the stock on the date of the decedent's death is lower than what the decedent paid for it. But it is unusual for that to happen, as prices tend to rise over time. So we usually refer to basis being stepped-up upon the death of the decedent.

So, if this is the loophole that Obama was referring to, then he intends to eliminate the step-up in basis and have the heirs inherit the property of the decedent with the same tax cost as the decedent had. This will result in more capital gains on the sale of the decedent's property by the heirs.