Kamala Harris for Pres

[LogGrad98]

I don’t see how anybody can support a tax on unrealized capital gains. Unless the goal is to severely reduce the stock market.

Please keep in mind that a lot of the taxes were already in effect in one form or another and in much higher percentages during our Golden age, from the late 40's through the mid-60's. Then they started fiddling with the tax laws, giving huge breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals, spurring us to a rollercoaster of recession after recession and insane national debt. Let's go back to the Golden age of the 50's, minus the racism and bigotry, when everyone had a piece of the American Pie, and not just the crumbs people can scrape off the edge of the plate of the ultra-wealthy and huge oligopolistic corporations. To do this, taxes will have to go up. And no, no matter how much the right tries to fear-monger this, it wont lead to complete societal collapse.. In fact it will lead to better societal balance and prosperity for a majority of Americans. Of course you have to give up ultra-billionaire like musk and bezos, and add some competition into the supposedly "free market economy" we all supposedly love. To me that's a pretty damn good trade. But boy will the death-throes of the ultra-wealthy be fierce! You mean I can only be worth more than 1,000 people can spend in a lifetime and not 10,000? The hell you say!

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Here and a DOJ investigation and suit are some of the evidence...


View: https://youtu.be/ycEczZKYLW8?si=220w6ExBCkctHg61

Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

https://www.agristats.com/doj-lawsuit-against-agri-stats-is-wrong-on-the-law-and-bad-for-consumers/

 

[LogGrad98]

Here and a DOJ investigation and suit are some of the evidence...


View: https://youtu.be/ycEczZKYLW8?si=220w6ExBCkctHg61

Please note that they indicate that about 6 years ago we reached a regulatory low-point in at least a generation. Right in the middle of the Trump presidency. Huh, maybe he was just lining the fat pockets of his rich buddies, who knew?

 

[LogGrad98]

Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

https://www.agristats.com/doj-lawsuit-against-agri-stats-is-wrong-on-the-law-and-bad-for-consumers/

Yep and Bundy claimed he never killed anyone for the first half decade he was in prison. Where there is smoke smoke there is most often fire. And for this one there is a California-wild-fire load of smoke.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Please keep in mind that a lot of the taxes were already in effect in one form or another and in much higher percentages during our Golden age, from the late 40's through the mid-60's. Then they started fiddling with the tax laws, giving huge breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals, spurring us to a rollercoaster of recession after recession and insane national debt. Let's go back to the Golden age of the 50's, minus the racism and bigotry, when everyone had a piece of the American Pie, and not just the crumbs people can scrape off the edge of the plate of the ultra-wealthy and huge oligopolistic corporations. To do this, taxes will have to go up. And no, no matter how much the right tries to fear-monger this, it wont lead to complete societal collapse.. In fact it will lead to better societal balance and prosperity for a majority of Americans. Of course you have to give up ultra-billionaire like musk and bezos, and add some competition into the supposedly "free market economy" we all supposedly love. To me that's a pretty damn good trade. But boy will the death-throes of the ultra-wealthy be fierce! You mean I can only be worth more than 1,000 people can spend in a lifetime and not 10,000? The hell you say!

Nothing you said has anything to do with why taxing unrealized capital gains makes any sense. It’s a really nice word salad, but completely irrelevant.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Oh noes, the stock market

I’d kinda like our economy to do well, and if the stock market crashes…well, I mean, it’s kinda obvious.

 

[LogGrad98]

Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

https://www.agristats.com/doj-lawsuit-against-agri-stats-is-wrong-on-the-law-and-bad-for-consumers/

Google around some more. There is actually a LOT of info out there on this. Some circumstantial, but even that seems to be a bit too circumstantial really. Hard to defend a hell of a lot of it.

And frankly it's very hard to defend the gutting of anti-trust laws and enforcement, which is pretty well-documented.

 

[MTS]

Nothing you said has anything to do with why taxing unrealized capital gains makes any sense. It’s a really nice word salad, but completely irrelevant.

For clarity's sake, you should also probably point out that it only applies to people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Google around some more. There is actually a LOT of info out there on this. Some circumstantial, but even that seems to be a bit too circumstantial really. Hard to defend a hell of a lot of it.

And frankly it's very hard to defend the gutting of anti-trust laws and enforcement, which is pretty well-documented.

Ok, and for what it's worth I was able to talk to my friend at PepsiCo. She doesn't work on their soft drink category, but in their snacks devision, but I trust what she says and that she knows what she's talking about.
She said there is no way there would be any anti competitive working with Coke. She also mentioned some sticky costing on their end that is hurting their margins as a company. They have some ingredient contracts that were agreed upon during shortages that are long term and prevent them from getting better better costing right away. Just a small piece of the puzzle, but from everything I'm seeing as well, raw material costs are still really high.

 

[Safetydan]

I’d kinda like our economy to do well, and if the stock market crashes…well, I mean, it’s kinda obvious.

Yeah it's gonna crash, sure dude.

1. It's not gonna ****ing crash.

2. If the line goes down for a minute, who gives a flying ****. Oh I'll tell you who:



I have a sizable 401k but guess what, we need a way to effectively and fairly tax high-wealth individuals. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. what's your solution?

Here, you get taxed on your house, It's called property tax. I think we can tax other assets too.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok, and for what it's worth I was able to talk to my friend at PepsiCo. She doesn't work on their soft drink category, but in their snacks devision, but I trust what she says and that she knows what she's talking about.
She said there is no way there would be any anti competitive working with Coke. She also mentioned some sticky costing on their end that is hurting their margins as a company. They have some ingredient contracts that were agreed upon during shortages that are long term and prevent them from getting better better costing right away. Just a small piece of the puzzle, but from everything I'm seeing as well, raw material costs are still really high.

Yeah but they brought in record profits and used chunks of that in stock buy-backs, right after a price hike. And coke immediately followed suit. When there are only 2 of you in the sandbox it's not hard to see what the other one is building and build one a little bigger. Still hard to argue that 2 humongous companies controlling any industry are better than many with roughly even shares duking it out. Unless you are looking for what is best for the companies and not the consumers. Free market economics would greatly favor multiple companies, again, for the consumer.

 

[RandyForRubio]

For clarity's sake, you should also probably point out that it only applies to people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years.

And in a few years it’ll get dropped down to a lower level of income. We’ve seen it before.

Regardless, the point is that it doesn’t make sense to tax a gain that hasn’t physically materialized yet. It would be like if your house gained value, you’d have to pay a tax on the amount it increased, every single year, in addition to property tax.