Sunday, January 09, 2011


How ironic that liberals demand that CEOs and other high income earning corporate officials take smaller salaries. What is funny about it is that these very same liberals want the CEO's to pay more taxes, but by forcing lower earned income, taxes for those same executives are lower.

Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs salary was $1.00 which means his compensation will be through his Apple stock prices which have skyrocketed. He receives stock options and other benefits, but those benefits can be taken in ways that reduce and delay his tax liabilities. He can sell stock for his income, and use stocks not applicable to short-term capital gains taxes where the tax costs are lower than on earned-income.

Once again, liberal's effort to steal from executives, even a way-out liberal like Jobs, have the opposite effect that they seek. And, once again…it's typical liberalism doing the opposite of its intentions. One would think that after 60 years of back-firing liberalism, they'd get a clue. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

1 comment:

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

The new tax bill changed this, but you might find it interesting to read how the GOP sunset of the estate tax actually resulted in inheritors in 2010 having to pay capital gains based on the value of property/stocks on the date that the decedent purchased, received or inherited the property.

So while the sunset had the effect of eliminating the estate tax for everyone for a single year, it also had the single year consequence of rejecting the step-up in basis. Previously if someone inherited their mother's only significant asset, say a house valued at 100,000, then there would be no real tax consequences. Say that mom bought the house for 50k, lived in it for 30-40 years and when she dies in 2010, son turns around and sells it for 100k.

In any other year, son would be able to get an appraisal valued at the day of death (actually in any other year he wouldn't need to spend 3-6,000 for this, because a 100k house wouldn't matter under the previous or the now current tax regimes, but because of the sunset it does) and he'd get a step up in basis. His "basis" value for the home would be the date of death value, or the value 6 months later, whichever he preferred. So if the DOD value was 100k, and he sold it for 100k, there would be no capital gains tax, and since it was only 100k, it would have fallen below the estate tax for the last 20 or so years.

However in 2010, the GOP also repealed the step up in basis. So now when son sells the house for 100k, he has to pay capital gains tax on the 50k profit, because his taxable basis is still the original 50k purchase price. So while his mother's estate would have owed no tax in any of the previous dozen years, the GOP desire to cut the estate tax for people leaving more than 3.5 mil to someone other than a heterosexual surviving spouse results in around $7,500 in individual income tax to someone for inheriting property.

I'm sure democrats, liberal indies, rinos and other people you don't agree with voted for that measure as well. A lot of people did. It wasn't a purely partisan measure, although I'm sure you'll turn my snarky explanation into a socialist rant.

Sure... you have no proof that I'm a law student. Or that I worked with a boutique estate planning and wealth management tax firm. Sure, you can think or suggest that I just made all of this up, but its true. I can cite code sections for you, but in my experience, citing evidence just makes you rail against me as a "liberal" all the more.

The Lonely Artist Club