The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7740
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Rynar [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Steve Job's heirs will likely be forced to sell off their stakes in both Apple and Disney in order to avoid the hefty capital gains taxes. What this means for Apple is a possible hostile take-over.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2811135/posts?page=3

Author:  Lenas [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

His wife is a smart woman. Like the article says, unless she feels like sitting on boards of Apple/Disney, no reason not to sell the stocks.

Question: Did his $1/yr salary have anything to do with this?

Author:  Rynar [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

No, this has to do with the changing tax laws surrounding capital gains. Totally seperate tax issue. The real news here is the shake up this could potentially lead to at Apple, with more than 5 1/2 million shares of stock being traded on the open market.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

I don't get how people can have $1/yr salaries without falling afoul of minimum wage laws.

Author:  Foamy [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

I never understood what the point of $1 salaries is supposed to be.

Author:  Corolinth [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

It's easy when the person being paid $1/yr doesn't need the job or the money. The point of it all was that Apple needed him more than he needed Apple. Steve Jobs didn't give a **** about the money. Apple was his company. He was taking it back, and nobody was going to stop him.

Minimum wage laws are to prevent children from being exploited in the workplace. There isn't a single court in the United States that would have ruled that Steve Jobs was being exploited. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Author:  RangerDave [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Diamondeye wrote:
I don't get how people can have $1/yr salaries without falling afoul of minimum wage laws.

Certain types of salaried positions (basically, white-collar professional / executive positions) are exempt from minimum wage requirements.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Also interns can be paid $0.

Author:  Micheal [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

In situations like that he receives much in the form of benefits and stock options. The $1/year is makes the point that he is an employee and sets off the personal income tax he would pay if the company paid him in cash. He made much more than any of us make when you cost out the benefits and services, and especially the stock options, the company paid for him.

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

RangerDave wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I don't get how people can have $1/yr salaries without falling afoul of minimum wage laws.

Certain types of salaried positions (basically, white-collar professional / executive positions) are exempt from minimum wage requirements.

This, that is why they are called exempt.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Micheal wrote:
In situations like that he receives much in the form of benefits and stock options. The $1/year is makes the point that he is an employee and sets off the personal income tax he would pay if the company paid him in cash. He made much more than any of us make when you cost out the benefits and services, and especially the stock options, the company paid for him.

Steve Jobs is the 1%, using compensation trickery not available to us mere mortals to avoid paying high marginal income tax rates!

Author:  Hannibal [ Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Maybe this will force a discussion on the estate rape that happens when someone dies. I just love that the goverment can walk up and say, "sorry for your loss, just cut us a check for half their stuff and we will let you grieve in peace".

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hannibal wrote:
Maybe this will force a discussion on the estate rape that happens when someone dies. I just love that the goverment can walk up and say, "sorry for your loss, just cut us a check for half their stuff and we will let you grieve in peace".


I think right now it's not in vogue to care about the monetary grievances of the 1%.

Author:  Müs [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lex Luthor wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
Maybe this will force a discussion on the estate rape that happens when someone dies. I just love that the goverment can walk up and say, "sorry for your loss, just cut us a check for half their stuff and we will let you grieve in peace".


I think right now it's not in vogue to care about the monetary grievances of the 1%.


This. I don't give a **** about the $800M monetary woes of multi billionaires.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

I don't either. I do, however, give a **** that the government thinks someone's death is an excuse to pick at their estate like vultures.

Of all the various sorts of tax, the estate tax is the one I find most appalling. Other sorts of taxes I can see arguments for the merits of one way or the other, but the estate tax is vile in a moral sense.

Author:  Hannibal [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Diamondeye wrote:
I don't either. I do, however, give a **** that the government thinks someone's death is an excuse to pick at their estate like vultures.

Of all the various sorts of tax, the estate tax is the one I find most appalling. Other sorts of taxes I can see arguments for the merits of one way or the other, but the estate tax is vile in a moral sense.



Exactly. I don't care about what other people have or don't have. What I care about are simple things. The fact that the goverment feels entitled to a large sum of an estate just by virtue of the owner passing is wrong. I can't believe that people still get caught up in the class envy bull####. Dammit just because someone dies with two pennies to rub together doesn't mean that the goverment should get one of them.

Author:  Taskiss [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 

Just to play devils advocate, what has one's descendants done to deserve one's estate that the government hasn't done?

I would prefer to be able to direct the disposition of my estate without penalty or interference from the government... but that's my only gripe. I don't think my kids deserve a thing they haven't earned for themselves.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Müs wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
Maybe this will force a discussion on the estate rape that happens when someone dies. I just love that the goverment can walk up and say, "sorry for your loss, just cut us a check for half their stuff and we will let you grieve in peace".


I think right now it's not in vogue to care about the monetary grievances of the 1%.


This. I don't give a **** about the $800M monetary woes of multi billionaires.

You shouldn't, it's really none of your concern if they're multi-billionaires, or of they just have a family farm. It should be your concern that the Gov't feels it can take anyone's money.

Taskiss wrote:
Just to play devils advocate, what has one's descendants done to deserve one's estate that the government hasn't done?

Perhaps they have a child with health problems that will entail lifelong healthcare bills, perhaps they saved the parent's life from a deadly bunny rabbit attack...perhaps they don't want to leave a cent to their kids, and would rather fund the local home for hookers...

Taskiss wrote:
I would prefer to be able to direct the disposition of my estate without penalty or interference from the government... but that's my only gripe.

That's the point, it should be up to the decedent what happens to their money, not the Gov't.

Taskiss wrote:
I don't think my kids deserve a thing they haven't earned for themselves.

The Gov't doesn't agree with you there, either, but it should be your choice.

Author:  Corolinth [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

My father is a strong opponent of inheritance taxes. Frankly, I don't give a flying **** what anyone else thinks about my worth regarding his legacy.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Taskiss wrote:
Just to play devils advocate, what has one's descendants done to deserve one's estate that the government hasn't done?

I would prefer to be able to direct the disposition of my estate without penalty or interference from the government... but that's my only gripe. I don't think my kids deserve a thing they haven't earned for themselves.


The problem with the question is that it assumes the question is one of "who deserves it"?

This has nothing to do with it; you are essentially asking the wrong question. The question is, what are the wishes of the person who's estate it was? If they wish to will it to the government, so be it. If they will it to their descendants, so be it. If they leave no will, society should assume they left it to their loved ones in accordance with normal human conduct.

Utilitarians might argue since the person is dead, that their interests no longer exist and can no longer be harmed, and that the ethical thing to do is confiscate it for the public good. This has 3 problems however:

1) Like most utilitarian arguments, it assumes that taking for the good of the many is ok whenever a person is unaware of it
2) It ignores the fact that if this is public policy, any person will be aware of it while alive, and thud the harm to their desire to take care of their family when gone is not actually avoided
3) It presumes that the public benefit from their wealth is greater than the benefit that their family will realize for no better reason than that the family is fewer people that the public. Like most utilitarian arguments, it violates its own precepts because simply counting people does not accurately weigh benefit and harm. A few descendants are likely to benefit significantly from 867 million dollars, but the size of the country as a whole is such that this money makes no meaningful difference to the public at large.
4) It ignores the public good in being able to provide for one's family. You may not believe your kids deserve what they haven't earned, but society at large disagrees.

Author:  Talya [ Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

Huh.

There are no gift or estate taxes in Canada. I find the entire concept rather...horrifying.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Technically, you're supposed to file a 1099-R and declare all gift income in the United States. If the person who gave the gift paid the taxes, you must provide documentation of them paying the gift taxes. If they did not, you have to pay them. Likewise, the Obama Administration and Pelosi squeezed some changes through into Estate and Capital Gains Taxes that negatively impact most everyone. Honestly, I laugh every time some American liberal or talking head says we don't pay enough taxes in the United States. I laugh when they blame the Bush Tax Cuts but ignore the fact that Obama's payroll tax holiday "cost" us more money using their calculations than the Bush Tax Cuts have to date.

Oh well, I watch all these protests, read all these blogs, newspapers, magazines, watch these new digests, etc.; and in the end, I know how; I even know why. I figure soon we'll have a Democratization movement again in the United States, and just like every time prior ...

The poor will get poorer, lose more freedom, and have to shoulder more labor all while voting for their own "freedom".

Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

The United States is one of the lowest taxed first-world nations. As far as I know only Chile, Hong Kong, and Kuwait pay less, and Hong Kong isn't really a country. Taxes as a percentage of GDP in the US are under 25%, there are first world countries above 50%. I know you don't like that metric but I haven't seen a better one and I highly doubt a "better" way of measuring is going to affect the rankings much.

Author:  Talya [ Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Xequecal wrote:
The United States is one of the lowest taxed first-world nations. As far as I know only Chile, Hong Kong, and Kuwait pay less, and Hong Kong isn't really a country. Taxes as a percentage of GDP in the US are under 25%, there are first world countries above 50%. I know you don't like that metric but I haven't seen a better one and I highly doubt a "better" way of measuring is going to affect the rankings much.


Canadians pay much less tax than Americans. (It's not immediately apparent, but it's true.)

Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jobs Estate Facing $867 Million Tax Bill

Talya wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
The United States is one of the lowest taxed first-world nations. As far as I know only Chile, Hong Kong, and Kuwait pay less, and Hong Kong isn't really a country. Taxes as a percentage of GDP in the US are under 25%, there are first world countries above 50%. I know you don't like that metric but I haven't seen a better one and I highly doubt a "better" way of measuring is going to affect the rankings much.


Canadians pay much less tax than Americans. (It's not immediately apparent, but it's true.)


The US pays 24-26% of its GDP in taxes, depending on which source you look at, (Heritage Foundation, OECD) while Canada is at 31-33%.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/