3 ms·
This doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, all stock must be owned by actual people, even if it is through a network of other corporate entities and
by adevine 11y ago
This doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, all stock must be owned by actual people, even if it is through a network of other corporate entities and trusts.
A corporation may transcend the death of its owners, but if I own 50% of a corporation, and I gift my shares to an heir (or even let them purchase it at a discount), the government will still take their cut.
- sjg007 11y agoYou have them owned by a trust and you replace trustees when they die.
- adevine 11y agoIt doesn't really work that way, at least in the US. While there are different ways to use trusts to minimize estate taxes, it's not like you can put all your assets in a trust, maintain control, and then when you die someone else is named the trustee and they get off tax-free.
- sjg007 11y agoYou have them owned by a trust and you replace trustees when they die.
- zepto 11y agoSure - let's assume for a moment that inheritance tax does work to distribute ownership. That simply removes 'ownership' as the instrument for control, positions within the corporate structure would then become the 'title' to the assets, and these would be passed down through nepotism and clan structures as I mentioned.
- adevine 11y agoWhile I'm not a lawyer, it doesn't really work this way, at least in the US. The law defines "ownership" pretty clearly based on who has real control over an asset. You can't really pretend someone else is the owner if you have the real control over the disposition of an asset.
- zepto 11y agoWho says the titles wouldn't provide real control? Do Larry And Sergei legally own all of Alphabet given that they have full control?