Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Tells you the last time I checked the exemption . . . :laugh:

Well in that case, nobody is paying 40%, because anyone with that kind of money is setting up trusts and utilizing other work arounds.

As one who puts those work arounds together, I can tell you that they closed many of them, most years ago. Look up the Gallo rule sometime, named after the wine family. They doubled the tax if you skip a generation in a gift, to grandchildren. So 80%.

There is a way to get around it though. A couple in fact. Not including the doubling of the exemption to $24 million for a couple that I already mentioned.

Index funds will outpace the taxes so if they simply take the income from the index fund they will not only maintain the wealth, likely forever, but will grow the estate. How much can you spend anyways? Bezos has $157 billion. Five percent a year of $157 billion ain't bad. Also you can do a backdoor Roth IRA. Only on the retirement assets, but then all growth will be tax free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIRK

Al Smith

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
7,116
3,714
Tells you the last time I checked the exemption . . . :laugh:

Well in that case, nobody is paying 40%, because anyone with that kind of money is setting up trusts and utilizing other work arounds.

I remember my estate tax class in law school was a history of new tax/avoid tax/fix tax avoidance/new tax avoidance etc. the government has basically been a step behind for over 100 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy99 and KIRK

Fogel

Analytics please
May 10, 2010
1,758
278
PA
To be fair it Moderna is based on an entirely new concept, RNA Technology, which is genetic engineering to turn our bodies into drug making factories inside your body.

Can mRNA disrupt the drug industry?

To judge them as a traditional drug company, with a what drugs have they produced so far, when they are very new and the entire technology is novel, is misleading at best.

It is like saying the inventor of the steam engine should be ignored and to continue using horse power because it never had been done before.

The question is more whether that new process has actual merit. So far, the answer seems to be yes a thousand times over. The results are extremely encouraging and seem poised to turn vaccine production on its head.

I think it is fair to say that drugs and treatments utilizing RNA manipulation are still in their infancy and for the most part they have been mostly theoretical lab solutions than practical ones. I am interested in seeing if there are medium to long term complications vs. short term ones considering this is a new technology and we've never really used the technology in humans outside a handful of clinical trials.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jaded-Fan

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh


pick_me_kitten.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColePens

Shady Machine

Registered User
Aug 6, 2010
36,691
8,111
Two points on that.

First.

As I said, jobs and entire professions will be eliminated. But historically when there are great upheavals and advances such as this, new jobs entirely are created. You do not get this massive group of unemployed. But people need to be adaptable. It is one reason why the US is very very well positioned for this new world. Assuming that we remain mostly as we are. Most of the rest of the world controls the economy from the top down to one degree or another, much more that has been the case here. China especially has banked on that. Having a population which is adaptable will be the key to the next century. We have that. But also historically it has led to unrest and wars because you have a lot of people who are frightened of the changes, displaced from the jobs that they knew.

Second.

As for concentration of wealth, it is a straw man political punching bag. We have a 40% federal estate tax for those over $11 million dollars, so you can make hay while alive but you lose almost half when you die. I might jigger with that and make it at least 50%, but it is a good system. Reward the Bezos's and Bill Gates of the world for creating something, but do not make it a new aristocracy. Very few of the great fortunes of 100 years ago and names remain wealthy. The Vanderbilts who were the crowns of the guilded age ended up pretty much blowing it all in a couple of generations. Most of those families did.

It's not a strawman. We have seen real wages stagnant for decades at the 10th and 50th percentiles, while the top 10 percentile has increased significantly (even worse if you focus on the 1%). Minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation, while education costs have skyrocketed.

Future automation is going to exacerbate these problems. Automation will be a net job loss and will obviously enrich some, while hurting others. How can that not increase income inequality?

The St Louis Fed did an economic study on this in 2018 and it indicated exactly what I am stating, of course with caveats. The conclusion from the analysis was (paraphrasing): analysis indicates an increase in income inequality in every scenario. That said, the analysis above does not consider how the labor market would adjust to automation. There will be changes not only in wages, but also in employment flows across industries, creation of new industries, etc. This topic deserves more attention from policymakers and researchers.

Their most likely scenario included a 20% reduction in wages for those impacted. Someone else is making that 20%, therefore, increases in inequality, all else equal. That's where the role of government needs to come into play.

The Impact of Automation on Inequality | St. Louis Fed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
14,303
6,344
Two points on that.

First.

As I said, jobs and entire professions will be eliminated. But historically when there are great upheavals and advances such as this, new jobs entirely are created. You do not get this massive group of unemployed. But people need to be adaptable. It is one reason why the US is very very well positioned for this new world. Assuming that we remain mostly as we are. Most of the rest of the world controls the economy from the top down to one degree or another, much more that has been the case here. China especially has banked on that. Having a population which is adaptable will be the key to the next century. We have that. But also historically it has led to unrest and wars because you have a lot of people who are frightened of the changes, displaced from the jobs that they knew.

Second.

As for concentration of wealth, it is a straw man political punching bag. We have a 40% federal estate tax for those over $11 million dollars, so you can make hay while alive but you lose almost half when you die. I might jigger with that and make it at least 50%, but it is a good system. Reward the Bezos's and Bill Gates of the world for creating something, but do not make it a new aristocracy. Very few of the great fortunes of 100 years ago and names remain wealthy. The Vanderbilts who were the crowns of the guilded age ended up pretty much blowing it all in a couple of generations. Most of those families did.
It's not a political punching bag, it's a very real issue. I'll take your word that the estate tax it is 40%. That means for any truly rich family that owns some corporation, they need only to increase their valuation from inheritance to death by 66%, to maintain their wealth. Plus I'm sure these ultra-wealthy are able to launder a significant portion of their wealth past the IRS.

And for your comment about the Vanderbilts, the country was much more egalitarian from the 1930s-1970 than it has been the 5 decades since. Plus, the key to breaking up these massive amounts of acquired wealth hasn't been the estate tax, it's been rich families having lots of kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shady Machine

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
It's not a strawman. We have seen real wages stagnant for decades at the 10th and 50th percentiles, while the top 10 percentile has increased significantly (even worse if you focus on the 1%). Minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation, while education costs have skyrocketed.

Future automation is going to exacerbate these problems. Automation will be a net job loss and will obviously enrich some, while hurting others. How can that not increase income inequality?

The St Louis Fed did an economic study on this in 2018 and it indicated exactly what I am stating, of course with caveats. The conclusion from the analysis was (paraphrasing): analysis indicates an increase in income inequality in every scenario. That said, the analysis above does not consider how the labor market would adjust to automation. There will be changes not only in wages, but also in employment flows across industries, creation of new industries, etc. This topic deserves more attention from policymakers and researchers.

Their most likely scenario included a 20% reduction in wages for those impacted. Someone else is making that 20%, therefore, increased in equality, all else equal. That's where the role of government needs to come into play.

The Impact of Automation on Inequality | St. Louis Fed.


I am not going to delve much further in this as it will devolve into a political discussion appropriate elsewhere as we have been warned a hundred times and derail the thread. I will simply agree to disagree.
 

KIRK

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
109,700
51,216
I’d be willing to bet a sizable sum of $$ (if I had it) that this doesn’t end the “debate”.

Because people can point to 'studies' both ways and because the last final nail in the HCL coffin turned out to be a completely fraudulent study?

Questions (just curious): Reading this, was a Z-Pak given with the HCL? Additionally, the mortality rate either way was 25%, so really we're only talking how effective HCL (alone?) is with predominantly the most seriously ill patients only, yes?

Anyone who catches something addressing these questions, please point out . . .

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

EDIT: Adding this qualifier . . . I don't trust anyone anymore, so the questions aren't coming from a 'side'. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Smith

KIRK

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
109,700
51,216
Oh JFC, this is a preprint and NOT certified by peer review. Between this and the fraudulent study everyone touted a month ago, how can any objective person trust this at face value?

And again, it's not about whether or not it works for me. HCL? HCL and Z-Pak? I don't have any skin in this game. Just wondering if people actually look at the 'studies' or even the summaries or if they just saw the tweets and chuck them up without the slightest consideration.
 

Al Smith

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
7,116
3,714
EDIT function isn't working again, but here's a direct quote from the preprint that is 'the final nail in the coffin' (that link I provide in the previous post is from the series of tweets @MIB links) . . .

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Because people can point to 'studies' both ways and because the last final nail in the HCL coffin turned out to be a completely fraudulent study?

Questions (just curious): Reading this, was a Z-Pak given with the HCL? Additionally, the mortality rate either way was 25%, so really we're only talking how effective HCL (alone?) is with predominantly the most seriously ill patients only, yes?

Anyone who catches something addressing these questions, please point out . . .

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.

EDIT: Adding this qualifier . . . I don't trust anyone anymore, so the questions aren't coming from a 'side'. :(

I’ve added HCQ to arguments on religion, abortion, and 87’s handshake as topics on which you will never convince the other side of their folly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIRK

KIRK

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
109,700
51,216
These are the actual bed numbers in Florida (note that the info for a lot of smaller counties in terms of beds isn't included, but you can see in the COVID hospitalizations tab the number of people by county in hospital)

Workbook: Public

EDIT: One thing that's impossible to know is the breakdown for ICU beds among COVID and non COVID cases.
 

KIRK

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
109,700
51,216
I’ve added HCQ to arguments on religion, abortion, and 87’s handshake as topics on which you will never convince the other side of their folly.

Not about sides for me. As I said, I don't have skin in the game.

I just think it's funny that, after the fraudulent study that was exposed a few weeks ago, anyone in the medical community would cite a preprint that hasn't been reviewed by peers and, in its own words, shouldn't be used to guide clinical practice, says it nonetheless qualifies as the final nail in coffin.
 

Al Smith

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
7,116
3,714
Not about sides for me. As I said, I don't have skin in the game.

I just think it's funny that, after the fraudulent study that was exposed a few weeks ago, anyone in the medical community would cite a preprint that hasn't been reviewed by peers and, in its own words, shouldn't be used to guide clinical practice, says it nonetheless qualifies as the final nail in coffin.

It’s really crazy how a potentially effective treatment (I’m like you; I’m not smart enough to know if it helps) has generated such political vitriol. Really a sad commentary on where we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,407
78,003
Redmond, WA


Ignore the politics to just focus on the spread on opinions of re-opening schools. I find it insane that re-opening is at -31 among everyone, but only -20 among parents. I really wonder if people are responding "it will be safe" because they want their kids to be in school, not because they think it will be safe. It's even more mindblowing that it's a partisan issue:



Republicans are +32 about schools being safe to open, like I genuinely can't understand it. Like it's downright lunacy.
 

Ms Maggie

Registered User
Apr 11, 2017
2,759
1,869


Ignore the politics to just focus on the spread on opinions of re-opening schools. I find it insane that re-opening is at -31 among everyone, but only -20 among parents. I really wonder if people are responding "it will be safe" because they want their kids to be in school, not because they think it will be safe. It's even more mindblowing that it's a partisan issue:



Republicans are +32 about schools being safe to open, like I genuinely can't understand it. Like it's downright lunacy.

Republicans are moving their convention activites outside. (In Florida. In August. ) Due to virus.

But it's ok for kids to go to school, inside.
 

Ms Maggie

Registered User
Apr 11, 2017
2,759
1,869
You know damn well the Bezo's and Gates' of the world aren't the idiots paying a 40% estate tax. Not with the loopholes designed for them. Nah, the guy paying 40% is the one who comes from nothing, busts his ass, manages to build 2-3 million in wealth so he can leave his family more than he had, and then after a lifetime of taxing the **** out of him, the government takes another 40% for good measure.
Estate assets under 5 million (10 million for a couple) not subject to estate tax. After that sliding scale that maxes out at 40%. So your example is incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->