>>>>
>>>>Unless you have a plan to circumvent the currency, these people have the world by the short and curlies. Why? Because I can't think of a way to target unearned wealth vs self-made people who deserve it all.
>>>
>>>It's pretty easy, really.
>>>90% tax rates on inherited wealth and much higher tax rates in the very high income brackets.
>>>I'm flexible on the deductible amounts, but passing along billions is unacceptable.
>>>Those rates were in place after WWII - and the country prospered - but they were gradually eroded by the anti-government rants of the wealthy.
>>
>>It didn't work on the very rich then and it won't work today. If it did work then please explain the Ford, DuPont, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan etc. families
>
>If I tax $10 billion at 90%, the heir is still a billionaire.
>
The math is correct but the truth is the heir(s) will still have about $10 billion. The Walton family is a good example. When Sam Walton died in 1992 he was worth about 8.6 billion and the estate tax rate was 55%. He left most of his money to his wife and 4 children. Estimated estate tax - $0. His wife Helen died in 2007- estate tax rate 45% - estimated estate tax - 0. Sam's son John died in 2005 leaving his money to his widow Christy and son Lukas - estate tax rate 47% estimated estate tax-0. Lucas, Sam's grandson is now about $5 billion richer than his mother and the 4th richest Walton at $17.6 billion and #70 on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and behind his uncles Rob $49.7 billion #12, Jim $49.1 billion #14 and aunt Alice $48.4 billion #17.
I do not begrudge any of them 10¢ of their money.
>If the heir just puts the billion in municipal bonds, that heir's heir will probably also be a billionaire.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only