|
UP / Thumb of Michigan | Douglas - 7/1/2020 14:33
^ Don't think either 1 or 2 are correct. 1 the wealth wealth in this country is financial investments (75%) and homes. 2. The secretary that gets stock vs. wages has to treat the stock as payment for services and is taxed the same as wages when received. Wages could be invested in stock and earn tax advantaged gains.
I think you and I are on the same page on wealth in this country, except my description might have been misunderstood. My point was simply that there are few people who own farm land in the USA, both active farmers and others. I used to know that number, but don't anymore. The total value of that land is pretty large, and is divided over relatively few people. Which leads to my contention that most folks don't really care or are affected by capital gains treatment on farm land.
Homes get very preferential treatment when it comes to capital gains, and I'd really be surprised if that was changed much.
As far as #2- yes, she could be taxed earned income on the replacement of cash wages with stock. Or, maybe not. Or, a combination of ways to get compensated that could be tax friendlier. My bigger point was that Warrens statement wasn't really telling the entire picture of how his secretaries tax rate was higher than his. His compensation and net worth isn't entirely wages or earned income. | |
|
I guess stepped up basis is considered a loophole
