Lie-awatha is at it again

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"She was sitting in an endowed chair and bought several homes that people unfortunately lost and sold them to her family."

Which is fine.

The problem is, she attached banks for doing the same thing she did. She also got very rich off the backs of students who took out loans to pay her massive salary, but again, she says it's immoral for anyone else to profit off student loans.

No hypocrisy there? None?

"then support Mnuchin"

I generally have no use for Manchin (is that you you mean?), he talks like a Republican at home to get votes, then goes to DC and votes like Chuck Schumer. I don't like him, but I'm glad he torpedoed this bill. Though I'd bet he's holding out for more pork for WV, I don't believe he actually voted on principle. He has positioned himself as the most powerful person in the country right now. Even the president has to kiss his ring.

But I doubt you were critical of McCain when he killed Republican attempts to revise Obamacare. If that's heroic, so is what Manchin did. What's good for the goose...

First of all she didn’t make her money thru flipping foreclosures.
And an endowed chair is funded thru an endowment, not tuition and the person is chosen because of their status in their field.

Mnuchin was the guy who was called the foreclosure king.
During Mnuchin’s reign, IndyMac carried out more than 36,000 foreclosures, tossing former homeowners (including active duty military servicemen and women) onto the street without hesitation or pity by any means necessary. According to a memo obtained by investigative reporter David Dayen, OneWest, the new name that Mnuchin and his billionaire posse coined for Indybank, of which Mnuchin was now CEO and chairman, “rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.”

The Koch brothers still own a lot of real estate, but their best investment may be the Manchin they bought in West Virginia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all she didn’t make her money thru flipping foreclosures.
And an endowed chair is funded thru an endowment, not tuition and the person is chosen because of their status in their field.

Mnuchin was the guy who was called the foreclosure king.
During Mnuchin’s reign, IndyMac carried out more than 36,000 foreclosures, tossing former homeowners (including active duty military servicemen and women) onto the street without hesitation or pity by any means necessary. According to a memo obtained by investigative reporter David Dayen, OneWest, the new name that Mnuchin and his billionaire posse coined for Indybank, of which Mnuchin was now CEO and chairman, “rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.”

The Koch brothers still own a lot of real estate, but their best investment may be the Manchin they bought in West Virginia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, if someone follows the law, i don’t have a huge problem
with them flipping foreclosures. I have no problem
with Warren making money by flipping foreclosures. What i have a problem with, is when she says it’s evil when others do it.

if she can do it, so can everyone else.

And i have a huge problem with her calling someone a free loader who helped create 71,000 jobs in the US and who is going to pay $11 billion in federal income come tax in a year. He’s the exact opposite of a free loader, he’s contributing tons to the public good and taking little public money for himself. His money comes from smashing success in the free market.

Very few people who have ever lived, have been a better “deal” to the public, than he has.

Healthy people
who choose welfare over work are free loaders. Not Elan Musk. He’s a huge, huge, huge net positive for the public.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Elon Musk has with the aid of his corporate structure and paid lobbyists decimated middle America
All the corporatists are killing the America that was great.
The middle class is consistently shrinking

Since 1995, the top 1% took 38% of all additional wealth. The bottom half took 2%.

The last time things were this imbalanced was the period right before the Great Depression. Hard for people to survive when all the money goes to those who don't need it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Buy borrow die.

How the ultra rich avoid taxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since 1995, the top 1% took 38% of all additional wealth. The bottom half took 2%.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

took or created?...whose wealth did Elon Musk take?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

took or created?...whose wealth did Elon Musk take?

exactly, exactly, exactly.

Liberals can’t concede the notion of creating wealth. to them, it can only be stolen. To Pete, wealth is finite, it’s like a pizza. If Musk takes. ire for himself, that means there’s less for the rest of us. It’s laughably stupid. they act as if GDP is a fixed number, it never changes.

I’d love to see him respond to this.

Musk has created 71,000 jobs in the US and is about to pay $11B in taxes. And he’s a net negative to America, because he’s not an uber liberal. Notice they aren’t attacking warren buffet or jeff bezos.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since 1995, the top 1% took 38% of all additional wealth. The bottom half took 2%.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2018, the top 1% paid 40% of total federal income tax. Thats pretty in line with their percentage of wealth.

Pete in another post, you bragged about how the uber wealthy are now democrats. Yet here you are demonizing them. Which is it?

Also, if our tax system is way too friendly to the wealthy, why aren’t democrats ( who run everything) doing anything to fix it?

It was always be imbalanced, and in a healthy economy that imbalance will grow, because they have more money to invest. if the s&p500 grows by 20% next year, and i have $100,000 in the stock market but warren buffer has $20 billion in the stock market, he profits more than i do.

Who cares? He will pay taxes on it, spend some, put some in the bank, invest some, give some
to charity, all of which helps the country.

How would you change that? would you pass a law that says after your net worth exceeds some amount, you have to keep all your money in your mattress?

They aren’t stealing from you, not much anyway. They get some subsidies for sure that they don’t need.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...e-us-taxes.amp

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Buy borrow die.

How the ultra rich avoid taxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in 2018, the top 1% of earners paid 40% of all federal income tax. how much more of other people’s money are you entitled to? is there any limit?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...e-us-taxes.amp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

If you work full-time at the federal minimum wage you qualify for food stamps and Medicaid (which we all pay for).

Stop asking if businesses can afford higher wages and start asking why we're all paying to subsidize their low wages.

Remember when you’re claiming that the wealthy are to be worshipped that if companies were really "forced to raise prices" because of inflation they would have been "forced to lower prices" after they got $1.9 trillion in tax cuts. But they didn't - they raised prices then, too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In 2018, the top 1% paid 40% of total federal income tax. Thats pretty in line with their percentage of wealth.

Pete in another post, you bragged about how the uber wealthy are now democrats. Yet here you are demonizing them. Which is it?

Also, if our tax system is way too friendly to the wealthy, why aren’t democrats ( who run everything) doing anything to fix it?

It was always be imbalanced, and in a healthy economy that imbalance will grow, because they have more money to invest. if the s&p500 grows by 20% next year, and i have $100,000 in the stock market but warren buffer has $20 billion in the stock market, he profits more than i do.

Who cares? He will pay taxes on it, spend some, put some in the bank, invest some, give some
to charity, all of which helps the country.

How would you change that? would you pass a law that says after your net worth exceeds some amount, you have to keep all your money in your mattress?

They aren’t stealing from you, not much anyway. They get some subsidies for sure that they don’t need.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...e-us-taxes.amp

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Total thefts per year: $13 billion
Wage theft by companies per year: $15 billion

News stories this year on shoplifting: 11,600
News stories this year on wage theft: 2,000

Total police officers: 700,000
Investigators focused on wage theft: 765
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you work full-time at the federal minimum wage you qualify for food stamps and Medicaid (which we all pay for).

Stop asking if businesses can afford higher wages and start asking why we're all paying to subsidize their low wages.

Remember when you’re claiming that the wealthy are to be worshipped that if companies were really "forced to raise prices" because of inflation they would have been "forced to lower prices" after they got $1.9 trillion in tax cuts. But they didn't - they raised prices then, too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some businesses can afford higher wages, some absolutely cannot.

not every job in our economy was designed for an adult to support a family on. Go to your local mom and pop pizzeria, tell them they have a moral obligation to pay bus boys and cashiers $40,000 a year. when they stop laughing, tell me what they said.

people won’t eat out if a large pie costs $50.

I never said i worship the wealthy, i’m sure plenty of them are jerks. But i don’t irrationally demonize them either. No one would be better off if they all burned their money and became poor. They do a ton to relieve the financial burden on the rest of us.

one day you’re bragging that the wealthy are now democrats, now you’re demonizing them.

Make up your mind, are you proud the wealthy vote democrat, or not? Which is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Billionaires can write-off private jets on their taxes, but teachers can only write-off up to $250 for school supplies on theirs.

This is what happens when we allow billionaires to buy our politicians.

Get dark and corporate money out of politics and elect an unbought Congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Billionaires can write-off private jets on their taxes, but teachers can only write-off up to $250 for school supplies on theirs.

This is what happens when we allow billionaires to buy our politicians.

Get dark and corporate money out of politics and elect an unbought Congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you dodged my question.

i taught public school, teachers have absolutely nothing to complain about. nothing. their benefits absolutely dwarf anything available to normal people in the private sector.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

teachers have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nobody complains more...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Billionaires can write-off private jets on their taxes

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and fly them to Davos to complain about climate change....I bet you get carbon tax credits for the amount of complaining you do about climate change at those conferences...probably hand them out like free drink coupons

[Pete F.]

Jim seems to thinks you’re better off to be a teacher than a poor mistreated billionaire, hmm
And Scott thinks he’s the only one allowed to complain, seemingly about not getting free drinks though it looks like he may have had too many
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim seems to thinks you’re better off to be a teacher than a poor mistreated billionaire, hmm
And Scott thinks he’s the only one allowed to complain, seemingly about not getting free drinks though it looks like he may have had too many
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you hear an awful lot of things, which no one has ever said. have you noticed that?

i said teachers are treated well, and that’s true. i’ve taught, and i’ve worked in the private sector. i’m in a decent position to say that. teachers, especially in Ct where your salary can easily be 100k and you can start collecting a 75k a year pension before age 60, are treated well. they’re not super wealthy, but certainly a married couple who both teach, are upper middle class. pretty good deal for a public servant. and once you get tenure, you basically can’t get fired except for egregious offenses.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Billionaires can write-off private jets on their taxes, but teachers can only write-off up to $250 for school supplies on theirs.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i taught public school, teachers have absolutely nothing to complain about. nothing. their benefits absolutely dwarf anything available to normal people in the private sector.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim seems to thinks you’re better off to be a teacher than a poor mistreated billionaire, hmm

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you hear an awful lot of things, which no one has ever said. have you noticed that?

i said teachers are treated well, and that’s true. i’ve taught, and i’ve worked in the private sector. i’m in a decent position to say that. teachers, especially in Ct where your salary can easily be 100k and you can start collecting a 75k a year pension before age 60, are treated well. they’re not super wealthy, but certainly a married couple who both teach, are upper middle class. pretty good deal for a public servant. and once you get tenure, you basically can’t get fired except for egregious offenses.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was pretty clear what you said, do you buy your own supplies for you and your cubical mates at the insurance company?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It was pretty clear what you said, do you buy your own supplies for you and your cubical mates at the insurance company?

no you heard things i never came close to saying. i said teachers have no right to complain, and i said the wealthy as a group, contribute a lot to society.

why you heard, is that i feel
teachers have it better than billionaires. never came close to saying that.

you constantly hear things that have never been said.

i rarely buy my own supplies. and rarely did it when i taught. it’s not necessary despite what you hear. if teachers want more money for supplies, they can agree to have the same benefits that everyone else in the private sector has, then you’d have enough to buy all the supplies anyone could want .

i told you why i’m in a cubicle. once i reached my financial goals ( i can probably retire on the interest my nest egg generates and leave the entire principal to my kids), i took a demotion and i work a little less than full time. why work harder than i have to, if i don’t need the money?

if you see that as a character flaw, you are entitled to think that. i don’t need more money, i certainly don’t need more stress. i need more time
to fish with my kids. I’m at a point where i can give up some salary in exchange for more time, and i have a job i can do in my sleep, which gives me enough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Billionaires can write-off private jets on their taxes, but teachers can only write-off up to $250 for school supplies on theirs.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
i taught public school, teachers have absolutely nothing to complain about. nothing.

Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Jim seems to thinks you’re better off to be a teacher than a poor mistreated billionaire, hmm


OK

[PaulS]

Here's what Warren is talking about:

This is the story of the incredible cloning tax break.

In 2004, David Baszucki, fresh off a stint as a radio host in Santa Cruz, Calif., started a tiny video-game company. It was eligible for a tax break that lets investors in small businesses avoid millions of dollars in capital gains taxes if the start-ups hit it big.

Today Mr. Baszucki’s company, Roblox, the maker of one of the world’s most popular video-gaming platforms, is valued at about $60 billion. Mr. Baszucki is worth an estimated $7 billion.

Yet he and his extended family are reaping big benefits from a tax break aimed at small businesses.

Mr. Baszucki and his relatives have been able to multiply the tax break at least 12 times. Among those poised to avoid millions of dollars in capital gains taxes are Mr. Baszucki’s wife, his four children, his mother-in-law and even his first cousin-in-law, according to securities filings and people with knowledge of the matter.

The tax break is known as the Qualified Small Business Stock, or Q.S.B.S., exemption. It allows early investors in companies in many industries to avoid taxes on at least $10 million in profits.

The goal, when it was established in the early 1990s, was to coax people to put money into small companies. But over the next three decades, it would be contorted into the latest tax dodge in Silicon Valley, where new billionaires seem to sprout each week.

Thanks to the ingenuity of the tax-avoidance industry, investors in hot tech companies are exponentially enlarging the tax break. The trick is to give shares in those companies to friends or relatives. Even though these recipients didn’t put their money into the companies, they nonetheless inherit the tax break, and a further $10 million or more in profits becomes tax-free.

The savings for the richest American families — who would otherwise face a 23.8 percent capital gains tax — can quickly swell into the tens of millions.

The maneuver, which is legal, is known as “stacking,” because the tax breaks are piled on top of one another.

“If you walk down University Avenue in Palo Alto, every person involved in tech stacks,” said Christopher Karachale, a tax lawyer at the law firm Hanson Bridgett in San Francisco. He said he had helped dozens of families multiply the Q.S.B.S. tax benefit.

Early investors in some of Silicon Valley’s marquee start-ups — including Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Zoom, Pinterest and DoorDash — have all replicated this tax exemption by giving shares to friends and family, according to people who worked or were briefed on the tax strategies.

So have partners at top venture capital firms like Andreessen Horowitz, who have figured out ways to claim tens of millions of dollars in tax exemptions for themselves and relatives year after year, according to industry officials and lawyers.

Representatives of those companies declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Lyft spokesman said the company’s two co-founders didn’t take the tax benefit. A Roblox spokeswoman declined to comment.

The story of the tax break is in many ways the story of U.S. tax policy writ large. Congress enacts a loophole-laden law whose benefits skew toward the ultrarich. Lobbyists defeat efforts to rein it in. Then creative tax specialists at law, accounting and Wall Street firms transform it into something far more generous than what lawmakers had contemplated.
“Q.S.B.S. is an example of a provision that is on its face already outrageous,” said Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago. “But when you get smart tax lawyers in the room, the provision becomes, in practice, preposterous.”

Manoj Viswanathan, who is a director of the Center on Tax Law at the University of California, Hastings, estimates the tax break will cost the government at least $60 billion over the coming decade. But that doesn’t include taxes avoided by stacking, and so the true cost of the tax break is probably many times higher.

The Biden administration has proposed shrinking the Q.S.B.S. benefit by more than half. But the plan wouldn’t restrict wealthy investors from multiplying the tax break.

The likely result, said Paul Lee, the chief tax strategist at Northern Trust Wealth Management, would be even more tax avoidance. “You’ll end up having more people doing more planning to multiply the exclusion,” he said.

Disqualifying the Ducks

The idea for this tax break came from the venture capital and biotech industries in the early 1990s. Venture capital firms were raking in huge profits from early investments in high-flying start-ups like Gilead Sciences and MedImmune.

That stuck them with hefty capital-gains tax bills. The Q.S.B.S. exemption would shield at least a chunk of their future profits from taxation.

With the economy in a recession, Democrats branded the tax break as a boon to small businesses and an engine of job creation. In Congress, an original backer was Senator Dale Bumpers, and he had the support of the National Venture Capital Association. “This is a modest tax incentive that holds great promise for hundreds of thousands of small firms with good ideas but not enough capital,” he said in early 1993.

Mr. Bumpers was friends with his fellow Arkansas Democrat, President Bill Clinton, whose new administration embraced the cause within weeks of taking power.

The exemption became law in August 1993. It allowed investors in eligible companies to avoid half the taxes on up to $10 million in capital gains (it would later be changed to eliminate all taxes on the $10 million) or 10 times what the investors paid for their shares.

There were a few restrictions. To be eligible for the tax break, investors had to hold the shares for at least five years. Industries like architecture and accounting were excluded. And, at least in theory, the companies couldn’t be big: They had to have “gross assets” of $50 million or less at the time of the investments.

That number wasn’t picked at random. At the time, a new professional hockey team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, had just been created with a price tag of $50 million. The team was owned by the Walt Disney Company. Lawmakers feared that if Disney stood to benefit from the tax break, it risked a public backlash, according to a congressional aide who worked on the legislation.

The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t publicly disclose data on how frequently the Q.S.B.S. tax break is used. But tax lawyers said it was slow to gain popularity. It would be decades before Silicon Valley figured out how to fully exploit it.

A Flurry of Gifts

A few years after graduating from Stanford University in 1985, Mr. Baszucki started a software company, Knowledge Revolution. He sold it in 1998 for $20 million.

Around 2004, after a brief detour into radio, Mr. Baszucki teamed up with a former colleague, Erik Cassel, on a new venture. Mostly using Mr. Baszucki’s money, they spent two years writing the computer code that would become an early version of Roblox, which they publicly introduced in 2007.

Roblox was a hub for players to find and play video games featuring virtual pets and murder mysteries and much more. The platform allowed users to create games and receive a portion of whatever revenue the games generated.

About a decade ago, after outside investors had begun kicking in millions of dollars, Mr. Baszucki and his wife, Jan Ellison, gave Roblox shares to their four children and other family members, according to people familiar with the matter.

The gifts appeared to be the product of estate planning. If Roblox ever became a Silicon Valley powerhouse, the Baszuckis could avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in future gift and estate taxes because they gave away shares when the company wasn’t worth much.

And because Roblox met the criteria for the small-business tax break, the gift recipients could also become eligible for millions of dollars in profits free of capital gains taxes.

Children for Tax Avoidance

In the past few years, a procession of blockbuster tech I.P.O.s has showered Silicon Valley in well over $1 trillion of new wealth, according to Jay R. Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida. The unprecedented explosion — and the corresponding tax bills — has made the Q.S.B.S. tax break more enticing.

Tax experts had discovered a big loophole. While the law said that the benefit was off-limits to people who bought shares from other investors, there was no similar restriction on people who received the shares as gifts.

If investors gave shares to family or friends, they, too, could be eligible for the tax break. And there were no limits on the number of gifts they could make.

Stacking was born — and it became a rite of passage for a select slice of Silicon Valley multimillionaires, according to lawyers, accountants and investors.

One tax adviser said he was helping a family, whose patriarch founded a publicly traded tech company, avoid any taxes on more than $150 million in profits by giving shares to more than seven of his children, among other maneuvers.

Mr. Karachale, the San Francisco tax lawyer, said he jokes to clients that they should have more children so they can avoid more taxes. “It’s so expensive to raise kids in the Bay Area, the only good justification to have another kid is to get another” Q.S.B.S. exemption, he said.

Investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and law firms like McDermott Will & Emery have advised wealthy founders and their families on the strategy, according to bankers, lawyers and others.

Stacking has become so common that it has spawned other nicknames. One is “peanut buttering” — a reference to the ease with which the tax benefit can be spread among the original investor’s relatives.

‘An Act of Patriotism’

In 2015, Rachel Romer Carlson helped found an online education company, Guild Education, that was eligible for the Q.S.B.S. tax break.

Guild was recently valued at nearly $4 billion, and Ms. Carlson owns about 15 percent of the company. She will face an enormous capital-gains tax bill if and when she sells her stake. To mitigate that, she said, a tax adviser urged her to distribute her shares into trusts to multiply the exemptions.

“You can then take this an infinite number of times,” she recalled the lawyer saying. The adviser, whom she wouldn’t identify, told her that some lawyers will recommend creating 10 or more trusts but that his more-conservative advice was to limit the number to five.

Ms. Carlson said she rejected the advice because she thought the strategy, while perfectly legal, sounded shady. “I believe paying taxes is an act of patriotism,” she said. (When she sold about $1 million worth of Guild shares last year, the Q.S.B.S. exemption saved her roughly $200,000 in taxes.)

Venture capitalists that invest in start-ups — the same group that pushed for this tax break in the first place — potentially have the most to gain.

The founder of a successful start-up might get this tax-free opportunity once in a lifetime. At large venture capital firms, the opportunity can present itself several times a year.

Partners at venture capital firms often acquire shares in the companies in which their firms invest. For each Q.S.B.S.-eligible company that a partner has invested in, he can avoid capital gains taxes on at least $10 million of profits. If he gives shares to family members, those relatives get the tax break, too.

In a good year, partners at a large firm can collectively rack up more than $1 billion in tax-free profits, according to former partners at two major venture capital firms.

‘A Welcome Relief’

As the tax break’s popularity has grown, the strategies for exploiting it have grown more aggressive.

The Q.S.B.S. tax break is limited to either $10 million in tax-free capital gains or 10 times the “basis” of the original investment. The tax basis is the cost of an investment — the money you spent or the assets you contributed in exchange for shares. One way to expand the value of the tax break is to find ways to inflate the basis.

The strategy is called “packing.”

Say you invested $1 million in a Q.S.B.S.-eligible business called Little Company. Your basis would be $1 million, which means you’d be eligible to avoid taxes on $10 million of future profits.

But let’s say you want to save more. Here’s how you can pump up the basis. Little Company developed software patents, and you put those patents into a new company that you also own. The patents grow to be worth $5 million. Then you merge the two companies. The basis for your investment in the original Little Company has now soared to $6 million. That means you are eligible to avoid taxes on 10 times that — $60 million — even though your out-of-pocket investment remains $1 million.

One tax lawyer said he recently used such a strategy to help a pair of clients completely avoid taxes on more than $100 million in capital gains.

Another increasingly common strategy has been to put shares into multiple trusts that benefit the same children.

In August 2018, the Trump administration’s Treasury Department proposed regulations to curb such tax avoidance. The rules included hypothetical examples of abusive transactions in which children were given multiple trusts.

But opposition mounted quickly. The next month, the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, a trade group of tax lawyers who advise the wealthy, wrote to the I.R.S. that the proposal was “overbroad” and “an impermissible interpretation of the statute.”

By the time the Treasury’s rules were completed in early 2019, the proposed crackdown on trusts had been watered down.

It was, the accounting giant EY declared in an online alert, a “welcome relief.”

A Gift From Grandma

Roblox says that more than 47 million people use its platform each day. It has branched out beyond gaming, becoming a venue for virtual concerts by the likes of Lil Nas X.

In early 2020, Andreessen Horowitz and others invested $150 million in the company, valuing it at about $4 billion. Shares of tech companies were racing higher, and Roblox planned to go public in late 2020 or early 2021.

The Baszuckis were about to become billionaires.

The family took steps to help insulate their fortune from future federal taxes.

Giving away the shares before the I.P.O. — which was likely to drive the stock’s value higher — would make it easier to avoid federal gift and estate taxes.

Mr. Baszucki and Ms. Ellison had already given away so many shares that future large gifts would be subject to the 40 percent gift tax. (A married couple can give about $23 million over their lifetime without incurring the tax.)

But Mr. Baszucki’s mother-in-law, Susan Elmore, had not. In the fall of 2020, she began giving away Roblox shares to about a dozen relatives, including Mr. Baszucki’s four children, according to people familiar with the matter.

Ms. Elmore’s nephew, Nolan Griswold, said he was among those to receive shares last fall.

Ms. Elmore’s shares were eligible for the Q.S.B.S. exemption; now that exemption was replicated for the recipients of her gifts.

In March 2021, Roblox went public. Its market value hit $45 billion.

That day, Mr. Baszucki’s brother Gregory, whose large Roblox stake made him a billionaire, began selling shares. The resulting capital gains taxes could be defrayed in part by the Q.S.B.S. exemption.

[Jim in CT]

you couldn’t post a longer thread?

Musk paid $11,000,000,000 in federal income taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you couldn’t post a longer thread?

Musk paid $11,000,000,000 in federal income taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you don't want to read - ignore it.

You're not a moderator who has to read and comment on every post in this forum.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you don't want to read - ignore it.

You're not a moderator who has to read and comment on every post in this forum.

true.

he paid $11b and created 71,000 jobs. that’s a deadbeat? or is he a deadbeat because he’s not liberal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

true.

he paid $11b and created 71,000 jobs. that’s a deadbeat? or is he a deadbeat because he’s not liberal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if he decided not to sell stock how much would his tax bill had been? Actually it's my understanding that's his 2021 tax bill, so how much in taxes did he pay the year before when he was so rich that when he finally decided to sell his stock and pay capital gains he incurred an 11 billion dollar tax?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And if he decided not to sell stock how much would his tax bill had been? Actually it's my understanding that's his 2021 tax bill, so how much in taxes did he pay the year before when he was so rich that when he finally decided to sell his stock and pay capital gains he incurred an 11 billion dollar tax?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if he didn’t sell the stock, he’d have no taxable income come. therefore he’d pay nothing. which his what the law says.

Paul, Warrens party controls the federal government. if the current system is bad, what’s stopping them
from fixing it?

you voluntarily paying federal income tax on your unrealized gain from your house and car being worth more today?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And if he decided not to sell stock how much would his tax bill had been? Actually it's my understanding that's his 2021 tax bill, so how much in taxes did he pay the year before when he was so rich that when he finally decided to sell his stock and pay capital gains he incurred an 11 billion dollar tax?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and you dodged my question? is Mysh contributing more to the public coiffers more the. anyone, or is he a deadbeat?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if he didn’t sell the stock, he’d have no taxable income come. therefore he’d pay nothing. which his what the law says.

Paul, Warrens party controls the federal government. if the current system is bad, what’s stopping them
from fixing it?

you voluntarily paying federal income tax on your unrealized gain from your house and car being worth more today?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I paid income tax on my income which I have no way to decide how much income I will recognize. Elon Musk chooses how and when he will recognize that income. In the past he has paid little to no taxes in many years yet he can lead a lavish lifestyle if he chooses based the tax code that is what she is talking about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and you dodged my question? is Mysh contributing more to the public coiffers more the. anyone, or is he a deadbeat?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not a moderator here so get over yourself and don't expect people to answer every question you want. I have no interest in spending all my time on this site like you do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you don't want to read - ignore it.

You're not a moderator who has to read and comment on every post in this forum.

it's just obnoxious to have to scroll through and maybe Jim has aspirations....