re: Dumb f**ks that scream “tax the rich more!”

Person As dividends will be treated as ordinary income. Single person A will get only $16.1 K deductible. He'll be paying a lot more than $4,418 in taxes.

He will not qualify for any government benefits, he makes to much just from the dividends.

quote:

---

Commies always claim their tax hikes won’t chase away the wealthy and profitable companies and are wrong 100% of the time

---

Absolutely, good point.

If wealthy people could just decide whether or not to pay taxes at will, they'd be completely indifferent to tax policy, and they're not.

quote:

---

I say tax the rich less. Tax the middle class less. Tax everyone less.

---

Better reform SS, Medicare, and Medicaid first.

And I don't necessarily agree with "tax everyone less." In other countries with robust social networks, they are usually far less progressive than we are. They tax their poor people just like everybody else. We don't.

I would say we need to start taxing everyone.

quote:

---

It is <1% of US population there Bucky.

---

He's run off to a safe-space.

I'd have happily helped with the fact that (though it's all best guess) ~4% of US households hold financial assets of $2M+. The % drops to ~2% of individuals. Both exceed his <1% estimate.

Then again that really wasn't exactly the OP's premise.

His premise was $2M+ as a gift to a young recipient which obviously implies a different paradigm of wealth from the parents' household.

An alternative to the "gift" is both parents are deceased, and he's an only child inheriting. In that scenario, the portfolio could be passed on to him taxfree, complete with a with a step up.

In that instance, as a twenty-something w/ a >$2M portfolio, he'd fall into the upper 0.1-0.2% of individuals in that age group. So the OP's concern is that 1-in-1000 20-somethings would not have to work if they settled for a permanent $95K/y income. Of course, in nominal terms, that $95K income would be less enticing in 20-30yrs.