Swap ‘Til You Drop: Multifamily Tax Avoidance Tips from Closing Table to Inheritance

by | BiggerPockets.com

I’ve written three recent BiggerPockets articles on tax avoidance strategies for multifamily (and other) investors. These articles covered tactics to employ before investing, in your first year of ownership, and in ensuing years of operating the asset.

In the first, I encouraged investors and syndicators to hire a tax stratelegist to set up your affairs to minimize taxes. In the second article, I unveiled the powerful strategy of employing cost segregation to slash taxes in the early years of ownership. In the third article, I discussed a variety of strategies to minimize taxes during your holding period.

If you read these articles, two obvious questions may have emerged:

  1. If you employ all these tactics, won’t your efforts just reduce your cost basis to a point where you’ll get absolutely crushed with capital gains and inheritance taxes later?
  2. Why is this guy obsessed with discovering the meaning of semi-boneless ham?

When I first heard about this arsenal of tools to cut taxes to virtually zero, I likewise wondered about the ramifications down the road.

Yes, I understand the time value of money and the power of deferred taxes. But I still hate the thought of eventually getting pounded with a huge IRS bill. Capital gains taxes are bad enough now. What if the rates are raised in the future? (Wait, they would certainly never do that, would they?)

Though the first strategy below is familiar to most of us, I’m guessing the second may surprise you as much as it did me and many I’ve discussed this with.


Don’t Sell Your Apartments—Trade Them in

You’re probably familiar with the 1031 exchange. This is an IRS-sanctioned vehicle that allows you to effectively exchange one asset for another of “like kind.”

Capital gain taxes on the sale of the asset you are selling are not cancelled or avoided, but rather deferred until the sale of the second (or future non-exchanged) property at a later date.

At the time of the “final” (non-exchanged) sale, all of the accrued gain for previously exchanged properties will be paid at once.

You can learn more about selling your asset using a 1031 Starker exchange here.

I must say that this is one of the clearest explanations of the 1031 I have read.

While it may sound better to you to pay it as you go, remember that it’s always much better to avoid taxes for as long as you can. This is math—easily provable and well documented.

Related: 5 Amazing Benefits Multifamily Investments Offer (That Single Family Homes Don’t)

So what is this “like-kind” provision? Does that mean a 300-unit Dallas apartment complex must be traded for another 300-unit complex in Fort Worth? Not at all. The IRS regulations for real estate exchanges are actually very broad.

The website I cited in the link above is very helpful here:

Both the relinquished property you sell and the replacement property you buy must meet certain requirements. Both properties must be held for use in a trade or business or for investment. Property used primarily for personal use, like a primary residence or a second home or vacation home, does not qualify for like-kind exchange treatment. Both properties must be similar enough to qualify as “like-kind.” Like-kind property is property of the same nature, character, or class. Quality or grade does not matter.

Most real estate will be like-kind to other real estate. For example, real property that is improved with a residential rental house is like-kind to vacant land. One exception for real estate is that property within the United States is not like-kind to property outside of the United States. Also, improvements that are conveyed without land are not of like-kind to land.

Real property and personal property can both qualify as exchange properties under Section 1031, but real property can never be like-kind to personal property. In personal property exchanges, the rules pertaining to what qualifies as like-kind are more restrictive than the rules pertaining to real property. As an example, cars are not like-kind to trucks.

The law was derived from the possibility that properties could be swapped, and there would be no cash to pay taxes on the gain. But it was broadened to allow the sale of one property and the purchase of another within just under six months, with the funds from the sale of the first property held by an intermediary.

Time Limits to Complete a 1031 Deferred Like-Kind Exchange

Again from the IRS site:

While a like-kind exchange does not have to be a simultaneous swap of properties, you must meet two time limits, or the entire gain will be taxable. These limits cannot be extended for any circumstance or hardship except in the case of presidentially declared disasters.

The first limit is that you have 45 days from the date you sell the relinquished property to identify potential replacement properties. The identification must be in writing, signed by you, and delivered to a person involved in the exchange like the seller of the replacement property or the qualified intermediary. However, notice to your attorney, real estate agent, accountant, or similar persons acting as your agent is not sufficient.

Replacement properties must be clearly described in the written identification. In the case of real estate, this means a legal description, street address, or distinguishable name. Follow the IRS guidelines for the maximum number and value of properties that can be identified.

The second limit is that the replacement property must be received and the exchange completed no later than 180 days after the sale of the exchanged property or the due date (with extensions) of the income tax return for the tax year in which the relinquished property was sold, whichever is earlier.

The replacement property received must be substantially the same as property identified within the 45-day limit described above.

So, what does this mean to you as a multifamily investor? It could mean that you are able to sell (“exchange”) your property and after paying minimal taxes on your returns over a number of years, after paying no taxes on proceeds from a refinance, that you are able to defer the capital gains tax as well.

Here is a great example from an earlier BiggerPockets article by our own Brandon Turner:

In July of 2013, Jason Mak purchased an 81-unit apartment building in Riverside, California. Paying $3.1 million for the property, he immediately set out to improve the building. He worked on the business side, evicting bad tenants and improving management efficiencies, as well as on the physical condition of the property, adding a new roof and elevator, painting, landscaping, and more.

Related: 5 Reasons Single Family Investors Are Turning to Multifamily Apartments

After increasing occupancy from 60% to 95% and stabilizing the entire operation, Jason sold the property for $5.5 million in the spring of 2015. Overall, he netted a final profit of $2 million on the two-year apartment turnaround!

Had Jason simply sold this deal, he would have needed to pay close to $600,000 in capital gains tax, but he knew better. Jason used a 1031 exchange to parlay his cash into two new properties, a 24-unit apartment building, and an upscale office building.

Although reducing the number of units, Jason was able to buy nicer properties in significantly better locations that will be easier to manage and increase his ability to grow wealth.


Die and Pay Taxes?

Is it possible to completely avoid capital gains tax, too?

If you have enjoyed the tax benefits of depreciating your property for a number of years, then performed a 1031 exchange at the time of sale, then perhaps another, you will likely be faced with a very small tax basis—and a very large taxable gain. This is usually still better than paying taxes along the way.

But it may be possible for your heirs to reset the basis of the assets at the time of their inheritance. This is referred to as a step-up in basis.

Their assets could reflect the enormous growth possible from tax deferrals, and they could start with a clean slate: the opportunity to start depreciating these assets again from the beginning. This can often be more tax-efficient than gifting the property to heirs prior to death.

For example, suppose you find a trustworthy sponsor and invest $2 million in multifamily assets. The property basis depreciates down to $1 million over a number of years. In addition to whatever income you received, the property has appreciated to a value of $4 million.

Before your passing, one option is to sell your share in the property and pay a hefty $450,000 capital gains tax on the $3 million gain, leaving heirs with a $3.55 million net inheritance.

If you arrange to pass your direct investment in the assets to your heirs, however, they may be able to step-up their basis in the asset to the value at the time of inheritance of $4 million.

If they choose to sell the asset at that time, their gain would be zero and their net asset value around $4 million. If they hold on and sell later, they will still benefit from the stepped up basis that they received at the time of inheritance.

In an age of confiscatory taxation, I sincerely wonder why our government has allowed investors and their heirs this opportunity to avoid taxes one last time. But I’m not complaining.

Note that there are eight states (community property states) that allow this step-up in basis for your spouse, not just for next generation heirs. There are other ways that you can arrange your affairs to gain this benefit, but that is beyond the scope of this article. You need to ask BiggerPockets writer Brandon Hall about that.

Also note that there may be a cap on the step-up in basis. Ask your CPA or tax strategist for more details.

We’re republishing this article to help out our newer readers.

So what about you? Have you used a 1031 exchange to defer taxes on real or personal property purchases? And are you arranging your estate to allow heirs to take advantage of a step-up in basis?

We’d love to hear how you’ve done it. Have your heirs already inherited property from you? (We actually don’t expect to hear from you in this case.)

About Author

Paul Moore

After graduating with an engineering degree and then an MBA from Ohio State, Paul started on the management development track at Ford Motor Company in Detroit. After five years, he departed to start a staffing company with a partner. They sold it to a publicly traded firm for $2.9 million five years later. Along the way, Paul was Finalist for Ernst & Young's Michigan Entrepreneur of the Year two years straight. Paul later entered the real estate sector, where he completed 85 real estate investments and exits, appeared on an HGTV Special, rehabbed and managed dozens of rental properties, developed a waterfront subdivision, and started two successful online real estate marketing firms. Three successful developments, including assisting with development of a Hyatt hotel and a multifamily housing project, led him into the multifamily investment arena. Paul co-hosts a wealth-building podcast called How to Lose Money and is a frequent contributor to BiggerPockets, producing live video and blog content on a weekly basis. Paul is the author of The Perfect Investment—Create Enduring Wealth from the Historic Shift to Multifamily Housing (2016) and is the Managing Director of two commercial real estate funds at Wellings Capital.


  1. Tim Sabo

    Sounds like a scheme set up to allow those who have wealth-through real estate-to keep and grow that wealth, without having to pay any or most of the taxes from the appreciation. WOW! I’ll bet this whole 1031 Exchange idea was created by Congress for wealthy real estate donors! Cause it is clear, this benefits no one except those who have real estate and want to avoid paying taxes, as you suggest, perhaps forever. Is that really what America is all about: creating schemes to provide a way for people to NEVER pay even a reasonable amount of tax on something at some time? I realize I may sound like a crazy liberal here, but this idea just speaks to me of greed and graft; how the wealthy get and STAY wealthy without even having to pay a smidgen of tax. Meanwhile, so many people in this great land can’t even afford basic housing, health care, or a decent education. Capitalism or just plain greed: I think the latter.

    • Christopher Smith

      The tax policy that created these “schemes” was/is quite contrary to all that you have have stated or implied by your comments. Point of fact, these provisions of the Federal income tax law (which have long since been supported by both parties), were specifically intended to encourage the increased availability of real property for both affordable housing and commercial development.

      In other words, to permit those who are willing to bear the many risks of real property ownership (when so many are not), to invest, and then maintain that investment through additional reinvest, without CURRENTLY being burdened by taxes attributable to the personal capital they have tied up in the provision of affordable rental property housing to others.

      As soon as that string of real property ownership is broken and cash is made available from the disposition of such property, then tax must and will be paid. So this DEFERRAL of tax exists ONLY as long as the investors have their capital permanently tied up in the real property. If this were not the case, and these investors (or their heirs) were forced to pay tax while they maintained their ownership in real property, it would vastly increase their cost of capital which would then by necessity be passed on to the tenants who occupy the real property owned by these investors.

      In other words, the RENTS of the tenants who occupy these rental real properties (the owners of which that are presumably benefiting from these “schemes”) would need to be dramatically increased making the cost of affordable housing to the “so many people in this great land” vastly LESS affordable, not more affordable.

      Perhaps a better understanding of the economics and the tax law policies surrounding this issue might be illuminating to you.

      • Tim Sabo

        Mr. Smith. Thank you for the lecture, or should I say the fairy tale that you have been told and repeated to yourself and your children. I, too, have heard the ‘reasons’ why these policies were created, as I also was told and read about other policies, like why we went into Vietnam, just to name one major lie our government told us. We sir, are not fools; well, I am not. You may wish to argue about the supposed risks of carrying property and the inherent value of such, but that is NOT what your article is all about sir. Your article addresses one specific piece of the law that does provide specific relief to those who have real property and then use this specific rule to avoid paying taxes…forever. You may choose to preach, or ignore me, I don’ t mind either, but this provision IS designed with one very real outcome; to assist those who have made a capital gain from real property avoid paying Uncle Sam some or most of that gain. That sir, regardless of your disappointing argument about tax policy or history, does not change the facts. America is in financial straits, and policies such as this permit and in fact, condone, those who have real property to invest and use this ‘scheme’ to avoid contributing to the financial support required to operate this nation. It is interesting: I wonder if you would be so content with this policy if the government could no longer afford defense of this nation due to so many real property owners using 1031 exchanges to avoid paying any real tax? Sir, my argument is not with you, but with the greed that we have permitted and made legal: greedy land and property owners supported this and pushed for this just as drug companies today push for laws allowing them to continue to sell tons of opiates to anyone they want; it’s why oil companies continue to reap billions in profit each year yet receive subsidies; the simple truth here is this. Money created this policy, and money keeps It in place, even in an era when the nation can no longer afford it, because money talks in our land louder than freedom. And that sir, is the disgusting truth.

        • Tim Sabo

          Thank you Mr. Thomas for your kinds words. You know, it is interesting how when someone disagrees with someone-especially concerning money-out of the mouths, or in this instance, at the end of fingertips, come the insults. Mr Thomas, I am nowhere near clueless, sir, on this subject or any other for that matter. But since you have must have a limited imagination or vocabulary, perhaps due to your upbringing, I will excuse it; you simply can not help act the way you do.

          And alas, my point; this is what money, and the pursuit of it solely, does to people: instead of having a respectful, discussion-even debate-about the merits or foibles of the 1031 exchange, people who can not defend their own position lower themselves into the gutter and begin to deride others. Whether this is legal or not is not the question; whether it spurs investment is not really in question. My question is simply is it fruitful and healthy, economically and otherwise, in our society to create rules that promote and provide for wealthy people to gain wealth and never have to pay any reasonable tax on that gain? This provision we have created is NOT for investment but for maintaining wealth. You see, Mr Thomas, the concept of the 1031 exchange follows the concept of Trickle-down-economics, which suggests that if we provide tax relief to those who own something-whether that be a business or property or whatever-than those people will use that relief to create new jobs or prosperity for those in our society who have little or no wealth. Unfortunately, sir, this economic voodoo has been proven to not provide economic or employment opportunities for those without: what policies like 1031 exchanges DO is keep wealthy Americans wealthy, and poor Americans poor, and while YOU may like that, it is probably because you have never been poor. On top of that, economically, as a nation, the US can longer afford these luscious ‘bonuses’ for the wealthy at the expense of the poor AND the nation as a whole. But, Mr Thomas, I’m as certain as the Sun will come up tomorrow that you sir, will never see that, nor understand it, nor care. So save your ugly comments for someone else: if you want to fight sir, do it with respect. I won’t tolerate fools, and your rude comments beg that you fall into that category.

        • Tim,
          If the federal govt responsibly used its confiscatory power to actually efficiently do what it was created to do and nothing more per the 10th amendment, I would be more inclined to agree with your response. But it doesnt and it wastes tax dollars with blowted and redundant federal agencies. While corrupt politicians use their power to enrich themselves and the cronies that donated to their campaigns. In such an environment i feel it is morally responsible for me to avoid paying as much in taxes as i can avoid by legal means so that i can put the money towards what i believe will actually make a difference for the next generation, instead of giving it to a bloated amoral federal govt, that clearly has no regard nor feels any responsibility to the citizens from whom it confiscates property. It exists to maintain stability and control for the elite, and little more. You appear to believe your view of morality and what is right to be the only logically supportable argument and that everyone who believes differently is either unintelligent or morally corrupt. If the federal govt is morally corrupt, then it woukd be moral to avoid giving it your means as much as possible.

        • Tim Sabo

          Tyler, first let me thank you for being civil: the tone in here is akin to a political debate. Secondly, I have not suggested folks are “unintelligent” nor “morally corrupt:” in fact, if you re-read the response of others to my comments, it was others that stated that I needed a better understanding of economics and tax laws, or that I am clueless. Trust me, my friend, no one likes being called clueless.

          And I totally agree with you: the government IS morally corrupt, bankrupting itself and all of us in the process. And while I never wish to give Uncle Sam one cent more than I need to either, this is where we are, and it sickens me. You see, Tyler, the corruptible people that put this 1031 exchange into effect are the same people that would greedily gobble up every cent they can to spend on their own pet projects. Using anything they can collect for their own distorted purposes is a violation of every citizen ethic: however, passing corrupt laws and rules for the benefit of the few also sickens me. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist to think that folks on here-who are used to looking for more ways to make money through real estate-would entertain an idea about ridding ourselves of laws designed to continue the age-old practice of taxing the have-nots while giving a free ride to the haves.

          We have invested in real estate for years, and have never entertained using 1031 exchanges: the whole idea of trying to avoid paying some tax-not that we are trying to give anything to Uncle Sam, but to so many who are in need and supported through government programs-is an obligation. And yes, we also work to preserve our own resources, because like you, we also believe we are more likely to identify better ways to employ assistance locally than letting the government decide how to first waste it, then dispense it.

          In sum, there is not a perfect system, but simply having a policy that permits folks to avoid paying some tax forever seems to me to be every bit as corruptible as the government: in essence, when we employ corruptible practices, we too become corrupt.

        • Tim, I had similar thoughts despite feeling myself being caught up in the scheme in order to better take care of myself and family. Truthfully I was here at this article as I was for the first time in my life having a hard time paying taxes. Taxes on my “investment” property, a.k.a my old home that I couldn’t afford to live in anymore or pay to sell in ’09! Since then I have poured months of work into the place that renters willfully destroyed and racked up credit cards to keep it afloat. Now the market is up and paying 15% of my “gains” from my former home just seems wrong. I appreciate you calling out the amoral idea that we should try to never pay taxes. As opposed to Mr. Smith’s opinion, I feel the most patriotic thing we can do outside of military service, is to pay taxes, whether we support everything the GOV does or not. If you don’t like how taxes are being spent either tell your congressman or start a revolution. Back to 1039s, and playing devil’s advocate. In one situation mentioned, the landlord doubled the value of the property, would he have not doubled the property taxes paid on the property? (Assuming he didn’t get some break from local politicians.) Which we can all ultimately agree are probably used more efficiently and for the betterment of the community then federal dollars. Thanks for the dialogue.

        • Tim Sabo

          Hoby, thank you. At long last, another person that still believes in dialogue. I’m not trying to suggest I’m right or wrong, but it does beg the question, which is why I asked. Unfortunately, religion and politics aren’t the only things one should never discuss: money fits that category also. I don’t like what the Gov does all the time either, but I agree with you, work to change it, which I do daily. BTW, I did serve my country honorably for 10 years in the USAF, for the record. It is our right and obligation to discuss gov policies so we can change those that no longer make sense.

        • Justin R.

          @Tim Sabo; Is it the 1031 exchange that you take issue with, or is it the step up in basis at death that is your primary concern?

          From your comments, it’s really the step up in basis that allows for avoiding taxes… and that applies to more than just real estate.

          Also of note is that very successful investors will have their estate taxed at death (in theory), so taxing the property separately would be akin to double taxation. Obviously, there’s a big soft spot below the estate tax minimum where taxes can be avoided entirely. Depending on one’s view, AFAIC, this is a potential loophole worth considering closing.

    • Warren Vasser

      Haters gotta Hate, Why complain?? The Government is out of control in putting tax liabilities on Americans backs. We cannot control where our hard earned money goes but we can sure see that there is massive corruption at the hands of those who control this country. Do you really believe the absurd amount of taxes is acceptable? The tax laws for REI professionals is to protect us from double taxation on purchasing and then selling the property, in addition to constantly moving cash into and out of investments sometimes in 1 day you can have 3 homes bought and sold are you so willing to pay possible hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes a day? Think about the amounts of taxes levied on the front to backend property transactions and you’ll understand why you need the legal loopholes.

        • Paul Moore

          Hi Hoby,

          Thanks for your earlier comments and question. I didn’t feel the need to insert myself in the argument above, but I see your question is unanswered.

          As a broker and real estate investor, I can tell you that there are at least 2 taxes that could be paid on a purchase/sale in the same day.

          1. There is typically a real estate transfer tax that is paid to the state. That tax would be incurred by the seller and/or buyer depending on the state. This rate varies widely, from under 0.1% to 2% (wow Delaware!).

          2. There is a short term capital gains tax paid. This can be up to 39.6%. So a real estate wholesaler who buys an asset for $500k, and sells the same day for $600k, would be taxed up to $39,600 on his $100k profit.

          Assuming that sale took place in a state with a transfer tax (#1 above) of 0.3%, that would add $1,800 to the tax burden. Leaving our wholesaler friend with a profit of $58,600, a little over half of the $100k he earned.

          I hope this helps.

    • Richard Kaye

      Tax laws reward those who invest in real estate due to the fact that 25-30% of the entire economy is derived, tangentially, from real estate activity. Incentivizing the continued purchasing of real estate through tax benefits benefits society as a whole, not just the rich, “greedy” real estate investor. Furthermore, think of all the people who profit from these transactions, from the realtors to the construction companies, the lenders and everyone in between, these people derive their incomes from real estate activities and pay taxes on that income which is made possible by “greedy” investors and their purchasing and selling of real estate.

      The bottom line is congress did not create these tax laws to benefit the “greedy” real estate investors, they created these tax friendly incentives with regards to real estate because they understand that real estate activity is a yuuuuge driver of the economy and that rewarding investment in real estate more than pays for any of the “tax breaks” afforded to the people who keep the economy healthy by investing and thereby creating jobs. The laws are a road map congress begs people to follow for the betterment of the whole of society, not to give some unfair edge to the “greedy” real estate investors.

      This is that “you got a successful business? You didnt build that” mentality and its a disease that is evil and destructive.

  2. Nick B.

    Nice write up, Paul.
    I have a rather technical question about 1031 process and 45 days window to find a replacement property.

    I heard many times that meeting 45 days deadline can be quite challenging and sometimes investors rush to buy anything that remotely looks like a good deal just to meet the deadline.

    Is it possible to find that replacement property and put it under contract BEFORE the sale of the old one? In this case an investor can avoid 45 days time constraint and make the entire transaction a lot less stressful.


    • Brandon Hall

      Hi Nick – yes you can place the replacement property under contract prior to the current property being sold. Your CPA and 1031 intermediary will thank you for making it easy 🙂

      The dates that matter are the date you actually sell versus the date you actually buy.

      • Nick B.

        Thank you for confirming my assumption Brandon. Why, then, investors don’t follow this technique en mass? Don’t they know when they decide to sell their current property that they would need to buy another one?

        • Paul Moore


          Great question. Thanks Brandon. It would seem that is a good plan, but it is usually harder to time than you may think. Most of the 1031s I am involved in have a timing snag. More reasons than can be listed here.

  3. Tim Sabo

    Thank you Paul for the article: articles, as conversations, are designed to permit all sorts of discussions, whether they be about the ‘legal process’ or the ‘subjective merits.’ Some here, obviously, may be familiar with the First Amendment which give us the freedom of speech: in other words, where one may grow tomatoes, another may grow flowers, and we can all just get along. But, the thread of this conversation suggests that this nation is more splintered even with simple dialogue than suspected.

  4. Lana Nguyen

    Nick B, I recently completed my first 1031, and found some very interesting replacement property before I closed escrow on property to be sold. This is possible in a “reverse” exchange where you first identify and buy the exchange property, then sell your current investment property. But it takes about 2 weeks to set up that kind of exchange before you can even buy a property for the 1031 exchange, and costs $2000+ instead of $1000 for standard deferred exchange. So it’s a bit preemptive, but might be worth considering for high value properties that are difficult to exchange.

    But in our case, we used that period while “sell” house was in escrow to study the market to buy. That could add an additional 30 days. The day we closed escrow, we started making offers on properties in Sacramento. We didn’t win 2 properties, and got our 3rd accepted 10 days after closing escrow on “sell” property.

    So yes you have 45 days to “identify” the potential exchange properties. But the moment you close escrow on the “sell” property, you should be ready to make offers on “buy” properties. Then you have 45 days to enter purchase agreement(s).

    Otherwise, you could always park it in an UPREIT.

  5. Zach Kaskey


    I think other readers’ concerns may have something to do with your choice of forum. You wrote of greed on a website called, “Bigger Pockets.”

    Your prose become hyperbolic, and contentious, when you defend your right to free speech, attack a responder’s “limited vocabulary,” and inform that there is no subject on which you are “clueless.”

    I do not believe the former is in question, as you have not been challenged on your right to your opinion(s). Only the ideas have been challenged, and we would not want to stifle the rebuttals; as the stifling would be hypocritical.

    As for your unkind words for Ryan. You used the veil of courtesy to create the illusion of a high brow response. We both know this tactic is similar to writing, “with all due respect..,” all the while knowing that you plan on writing something disrespectful.

    The latter point, on your omniscience, does not warrant further explanation.

    You went fairly non sequitur by touching on the opioid epidemic and big oil, but I think I understand most of your other points. Very salient thoughts, and I thank you for your service.

    • Tim Sabo

      Thank you Zach, thank you…for whatever it is you said. Than k you. It is almost amusing how so many people can see the space inside a circle never realizing there is an entirely different space right outside that same circle. Thank you, Zach, for, well, I can’t decipher it, but I’m sure you fed the beast with your comment. Thank you.

      • Zach Kaskey

        You should give reading a try; earnestly reading. I think your response to mine was adequate, as I do not care what you say and your written word leads me to believe you are just a bellicose individual that would be dangerous if you didn’t get so tuckered out after your days of defending the American gold standard. I am glad you solved the unique living situation I have: I live inside a very symmetrical circle, but I cannot see over the wall. I do wish I could see people of your ilk read Chomsky in a space just outside the circle I’m stuck in.

        Apologies if you were unable to decipher my writing. The stylings/prose were written for an adult audience.

  6. JL Hut

    Alright everyone, quit spending all your time talking to Tim. Let’s turn our attention and energy to the wonders of semi-boneless ham. I just bought one and set it on the table and have been staring at it for two hours and I am awe-struck. Does it affect everyone the same way? Does age or your socioeconomic status change how your perceive it?
    I want at least as many responses as Tim had or I will be offended. Also, so there is no misunderstanding, I paid a tax when I bought the ham and don’t intend to resell it.

    • Paul Moore

      Mr. Hut,

      I am truly gratified by your willingness to share with the forum the visceral joys of semi-boneless ham. I am only saddened that this upcoming national holiday has chosen the lesser joys of a feather-clad bird, that is… let’s be honest here… chock full of bones of various shapes and sizes.

      Here’s to waiting for a better holiday… and better food… in just under 7 weeks.

  7. Josh Collins

    @Tim Sabo – I would like to disagree with you to a certain extent on whether this is about “Capitalism or just plain greed” as you reference. I realize you think it’s “just plain greed” and can certainly see your side of the story. I prefer to believe that the tax code in this situation is more of an incentive to invest in real estate than it is to provide some rich dudes with a way to protect their already vast wealth. I have two reasons why I am suggesting that it’s an incentive; 1.) Many people use loans to buy real estate which is a way that money is actually created (it’s borrowed into existence) and 2.) I got into real estate because of the tax incentives. Reason 1 helps the Feds increase the money supply which helps them attain their inflation goals, which helps them reduce their debts to other countries, and so on (I’m sure I’m missing other big reasons). Reason 2 is important in that I’m no different than most any other schmoe off the street. I’m just looking to improve my family’s future. If that happens and a rich dude gets richer, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. Okay, some sarcasm there, but the point I’m trying to make is that I want to see people do well for themselves and their families. And once they do well for themselves because they worked their butts off, I don’t think they should get a huge tax hit as long as they are using their proceeds to keep investing. In the end, I just see it as an incentive to get people to invest in real estate (for the reasons above) just like solar panel credits, electric vehicle credits, CRP and CREP incentives for farmers to not plant cropland and on an on.

Leave A Reply

Pair a profile with your post!

Create a Free Account


Log In Here