Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: S. Doo <none@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:57:37 -0500
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:36:28 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
That is simply a lie. A trustee is not an owner.
This is simply a lie.
A trustee *is* the legal owner of property in the trust.
To quote Britannica on "Trusts" [a source, something Georgists are
not big on to back claims:]
"The legal owner of the property (the ?trustee?) [!!!] has the right
to possession, the privilege of use, and the power to convey those
rights and privileges. The trustee thus looks like the owner of the
property to all the world except one person, the beneficial owner
(?beneficiary?). As between the trustee and the beneficiary, the
beneficiary receives all the benefits of the property.
"The trustee has the fiduciary duty to the beneficial owner to
exercise his legal rights, privileges, and powers in such a way as to
benefit not himself but the beneficiary. If the trustee fails to do
this, the courts will require him to account to the beneficiary and
may, in extreme cases, remove him as legal owner [!!!] and substitute
another in his stead."
And due to such legal ownership, e.g., in the US a trustee must obtain
a taxpayer identification number and pay income taxes on income
received from such trust property. FYI, in 2007 the federal income tax
rates imposed on trusts are:
Income not over $2,150: 15% of the taxable income.
Over $2,150 but not over $5,000: $322.50 plus 25% of the excess over
$2,150.
Over $5,000 but not over $7,650: $1,035.00 plus 28% of the excess over
$5,000.
Over $7,650 but not over $10,450: $1,777.00 plus 33% of the excess
over $7,650
$2,701.00: plus 35% of the excess over $10,450.
(Note that these are substantially higher than tax rates on other
forms of income.)
[Another source!: IRS.gov.]
To say a trust is not the legal owner of property is the same thing as
saying a corporation or an estate is not a legal owner of property.
The trustee, executor, and CEO have fiduciary obligations to act in
the interests of other parties (trust beneficiaries, estate
beneficiaries, the shareholders and other legal creditors of the
corporation, etc., respectively.)
But to say a trust, estate, or corporation is not the legal owner of
the property it owns and manages on behalf of others is absurd. The
title deed to the property is in its name!
Thus, the Georgist again lies while accusing others of lying, and so
is the very worst kind of hypocrite -- unless he wishes to enter the
lesser plea of being mentally incompetent due to an irresistible
compulsion to imagine he lives in a fantasy world as his ideas need it
to be, contrary to all factual reality.
Which shall it be?
(For others' information, the only trusts not deemed owners of
property are "revocable" or "grantor" trusts, for legal and tax
purposes respectively, since the creator of same can himself disregard
it until a specific event causes it to become effective -- that is, it
is ineffective against him so it also is against everyone else, and it
thus isn't in effect until the trigger event happens ... oh, but why
boggle a Georgist's mind with such fine legal distinctions when he
doesn't even know what a "trustee" is, or owns?) .
But a trustee can be an excluder. The trustee has possession and
control...
Because the trustee is the legal owner, period. see Britannica, above.
Never make the mistake of arguing on a Georgists' terms after assuming
anything he claims to be true is so, no matter how simple and
easy-to-check the claim may be.
What does he need ownership for? Ownership is an abstraction, a
verbal construct. Possession and control of the asset are the realities.
There are no Forests in the real world. Only this tree and that tree.
If you keep on reifying abstractions your brains will liquify and run
out your ears.
If you think a trustee's legal ownership of trust property is an
"abstraction" then become a trustee, don't pay the taxes due on income
you receive from trust property, and make that argument to the IRS
when it knocks on your door. ;-)
Bob Kolker.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: royls
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Mark M.
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- References:
- Re: georgist crank
- From: w_b_ryan
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Michael Scheltgen
- more on georgist claptrap
- From: w_b_ryan
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Michael Scheltgen
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: S . Doo
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: royls
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Beal
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: royls
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Beal
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: royls
- Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: georgist crank
- Prev by Date: multiplier effect use by individuals
- Next by Date: Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- Next by thread: Re: Relative Appropriation of Economic Rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading