Kamala Harris for Pres

[fishonjazz]

Im just pointing out the hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I whine about project 2025 after reading a bunch about it and not liking what I read


I didn't whine about a policy that I know nothing about and don't care about.

You see that as hypocritical? Strange.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[TheStormofWar]

Im just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Not doubting it. Just saying the Mango Manchild would very much get a joyboner reading from Project 2025.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm with Fish, IDGAF. but since somebody is demanding the legwork be done for them, here is the reason people are proposing an unrealized gains tax:

View attachment 17092

The Ultra-Wealthy's $8.5 Trillion of Untaxed Income - Americans For Tax Fairness

Authors: Zachary Tashman, senior research & policy associate; and William Rice, senior writer Principal researcher: Zachary Tashman EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to an analysis by American for Tax Fairness of new Federal Reserve data on household income and wealth, America’s billionaires and...

americansfortaxfairness.org

TLR - Super-rich people use an untaxable infinite money glitch. They don't sell their stocks, they use the growth in value to borrow and borrow and borrow at low cost. They don't have income like you or me. Income tax rate doesn't work. Capital Gains Tax is not sufficient either.

Will it depress the stock market if this hits? possibly, in the short term. but at the end of the day a 25% unrealized gains tax is a 25% reduction in ROI, The stonks are still going up but not as fast.

How would it work in detail? I don't know, I'm not the IRS and I'm never going to be worth 100 million dollars. I seriously doubt they'd move this tax below the ultra-wealthy mark, there's no upside to doing so.

Also: stop holding water for these parasites. These people make more use of and benefit more from society and our tax-funded infrastructure than anybody else.

I don't blame them for paying the minimum amount of taxes they can, I would too. However, when a novel way to increase their taxes to ensure they pay as much as their vastly poorer brethren is proposed, your first instinct is to defend their honor.

Will I ever have enough money for it to matter under the proposed law? Unlikely, but I know how this goes. It won’t generate enough tax dollars to cover all the spending, so the floor gets expanded. Rinse and repeat. We’ve all seen it happen with taxes before. It will depress the market in a serious manner.

And then we go into the capital gains tax of 44.6%, on money that’s already been taxed! I realize it’s easy to hate the rich, but the idea isn’t to pull them down to our level, it’s to do promote ideas that pull us up to their level. And no matter what we do, there will always be those who have too much, those who have too little, those who are disenfranchised, those who aren’t. That’s a reality of life, no matter how much we don’t like it. But taking all incentive out of the stock market is going to hurt the middle class far, far, more than the ultra wealthy.

 

[RandyForRubio]

What hypocrisy? I whine about project 2025 after reading a bunch about it and not liking what I read


I didn't whine about a policy that I know nothing about and don't care about.

You see that as hypocritical? Strange.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I literally wrote out what the hypocrisy was. Do you need everything spelled out for you?

You’re willing to learn, and call out, a program that whether you believe it or not, Trump hasn’t been endorsed because you view it as likely.

When it comes to a policy that Harris has endorsed, you call it unlikely and are unwilling to do any research of your own on it, but you’re still willing to talk about how unlikely it is. That’s hypocrisy.

 

[LogGrad98]

When I'm discussing something with someone and they don't understand the topic I go ahead and provide them with info. Like you not understanding how much smoke there is with trump and project 2025. I gave you the smoke you were unaware of.

If it's really important that I understand your concerns about the capital gains tax then you could provide info.

Either way, all good with me.

Plus looks like safety dan already provided me with some great info and after reading it I'm still not concerned about and actually support it more now. Cool cool

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Yeah....*grumblegrumble*safetydan always beating me to the p....*grumblegrumble*...motherf...*grumblegrumble....even had some snark...*grumble*

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm with Fish, IDGAF. but since somebody is demanding the legwork be done for them, here is the reason people are proposing an unrealized gains tax:

View attachment 17092

The Ultra-Wealthy's $8.5 Trillion of Untaxed Income - Americans For Tax Fairness

Authors: Zachary Tashman, senior research & policy associate; and William Rice, senior writer Principal researcher: Zachary Tashman EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to an analysis by American for Tax Fairness of new Federal Reserve data on household income and wealth, America’s billionaires and...

americansfortaxfairness.org

TLR - Super-rich people use an untaxable infinite money glitch. They don't sell their stocks, they use the growth in value to borrow and borrow and borrow at low cost. They don't have income like you or me. Income tax rate doesn't work. Capital Gains Tax is not sufficient either.

Will it depress the stock market if this hits? possibly, in the short term. but at the end of the day a 25% unrealized gains tax is a 25% reduction in ROI, The stonks are still going up but not as fast.

How would it work in detail? I don't know, I'm not the IRS and I'm never going to be worth 100 million dollars. I seriously doubt they'd move this tax below the ultra-wealthy mark, there's no upside to doing so.

Also: stop holding water for these parasites. These people make more use of and benefit more from society and our tax-funded infrastructure than anybody else.

I don't blame them for paying the minimum amount of taxes they can, I would too. However, when a novel way to increase their taxes to ensure they pay as much as their vastly poorer brethren is proposed, your first instinct is to defend their honor.

This is the rub, they take advantage of money-hacks no one else can access at all. I saw an interesting interview with Mark Cuban when he laid out how he buys a house or other major asset and it involves spending zero of his own money, taking out loans against other assets, including primarily his stock portfolio, then using that to leverage extremely low rates, then using other loopholes to generate "cash" from his investments, usually in the form of some version of "owner's equity" to then simply cancel the loan. Or he arranges for the ultra-low-rate loans to be put off indefinitely or paid off slowly over a huge amount of time with tiny amounts of money from other investment returns such as bonds which, when converted straight to payments on the asset in question, which is then bought through a shell company or something so that the payment and interest nets further tax benefits. So he buys a $10 million dollar house and ends up money ahead in his personal wealth on the entire transaction because he leverages it through various high-wealth financial vehicles to generate and actual tax BENEFIT for him in the long run. And then he owns a $10 million house, and effectively pays himself for the privilege. Someone with an accounting background could explain it a lot more cleanly for sure, but that is the general gist.

And through all this, since we lowered the tax rate incredibly far off the all-time high rates of 90%+ on incremental income to a near all-time low now, this means that middle class Americans foot way more of the bill to run the country than the ultra-billionaires who profit off the system the middle class pays to support. And on top of that, the dearth of taxes from these people means we are now trillions in debt. The first step to any meaningful change (national debt, universal healthcare, government shut-downs, free college tuition, etc. etc.) is to fix the tax system on the ultra-wealthy and get them to pay their fair share again, which they did during the 50's which is viewed as a near-panacea (fiscally speaking of course, in many other ways it was completely ****ed up). Oh and the next step after that is close the same loopholes and bring back the 50's tax rates on giant corporations too. Want to help reduce monopolies and mergers which hurt consumers? Tie part of their tax rate to their market share. Anything over 50% market share means they pay a marginal tax rate of 90%. Do you want to keep 10% of 100 billion or 50% of 50 billion? Suddenly that 100 bill merger doesn't look so great.

 

[MTS]

I’ve asked for anybody to explain how taxing unrealized capital gains makes sense and so far no takers, would you care to be the first? Maybe talk about actual proposed policy rather than the ranting word salad you do?

Tax policies are outcome-based. We obviously have high wealth inequality in this country. A tax on unrealized capital gains for the ultra wealthy only (people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or people whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years) would help to reduce that.

And if you want to argue that's unfair, I can also argue back that it's just as unfair that the ultra wealthy have access to a vast amount of resources and tax breaks that most people do not. "Fairness" is not what should be on trial here.

 

[fishonjazz]

I literally wrote out what the hypocrisy was. Do you need everything spelled out for you?

You’re willing to learn, and call out, a program that whether you believe it or not, Trump hasn’t been endorsed because you view it as likely.

When it comes to a policy that Harris has endorsed, you call it unlikely and are unwilling to do any research of your own on it, but you’re still willing to talk about how unlikely it is. That’s hypocrisy.

Nope. I discussed the information I had about trump and project 2025 (which was rather extensive)

I discussed the information I had about this policy you don't like (not extensive at all)

Did the same thing with both. I didn't hunt down info about either subject. (came across way more info about trump and project 2025 than I did about this tax policy without trying to. Which makes sense. One thing affects basically the entire country and one thing affects 1% of the country. One thing is close to 1,000 pages long and has been around for a number of years, one thing was mentioned by a person in a speech a week ago.)

I will admit that I'm not going to read everything about everything though. If that makes me a hypocrite then everyone is a hypocrite.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Safetydan]

I realize it’s easy to hate the rich, but the idea isn’t to pull them down to our level.

Make them pay back to society in proportion to the amount they benefit. To bring them back to "our level" you'd need to tax them north of 99%

it’s to do promote ideas that pull us up to their level.

This is done through how we choose to spend our taxes.

And no matter what we do, there will always be those who have too much, those who have too little, those who are disenfranchised, those who aren’t.

Nobody is asking for equity of outcome. That's insane. I think we as a society need to work to acheive better parity of opportunity. Maybe you don't think the effort is worth the hassle.

But taking all incentive out of the stock market is going to hurt the middle class far, far, more than the ultra wealthy.

The incentive is still there and also just no:



In terms of a percentage of wealth, securities represent a far smaller amount of middle-class wealth. Most of their assets are in the form of a house, if they own one.

 

[MTS]

In the longterm, the stock market will be better with the middle and lower classes having more wealth proportionate to the upper class. Increased consumer spending is a good thing for an economy.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Tax policies are outcome-based. We obviously have high wealth inequality in this country. A tax on unrealized capital gains for the ultra wealthy only (people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or people whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years) would help to reduce that.

And if you want to argue that's unfair, I can also argue back that it's just as unfair that the ultra wealthy have access to a vast amount of resources and tax breaks that most people do not. "Fairness" is not what should be on trial here.

I didn’t say anything about fair. And yeah, the wealthy have access to resources that others don’t…that’s life. And honestly, they should! Why should Joe Schmoe who makes $40k have the same resources that a person who makes $100 million have? One of them creates a lot more worth to the system than the other. I know it doesn’t make anybody feel good, but it’s the truth. And in regards to fair, the top 1% pay 46% of all income taxes while earning 26% of the income. Perhaps the problem isn’t that we need to tax more to get more to cover spending, perhaps the problem is that we spend too much.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Make them pay back to society in proportion to the amount they benefit. To bring them back to "our level" you'd need to tax them north of 99%



This is done through how we choose to spend our taxes.



Nobody is asking for equity of outcome. That's insane. I think we as a society need to work to acheive better parity of opportunity. Maybe you don't think the effort is worth the hassle.



The incentive is still there and also just no:

View attachment 17094

In terms of a percentage of wealth, securities represent a far smaller amount of middle-class wealth. Most of their assets are in the form of a house, if they own one.

If you put on a capital gain tax of 45%, there’s hardly any incentive for the middle class to even risk the stock market!

I mean, to put your post tax dollars into an investment that hopefully you get an 8-10% return on, but there’s always the chance of losing it, and see that when you take it out half of it’s going to be taxed again plus whatever you lose in regards to inflation? People will seriously consider whether the juice is worth the squeeze. So if the wealthy are getting taxed up the ying yang so they pull out for other avenues, and the middle class doesn’t think it’s worth it, what do you think happens?! And then you’ll have companies that are losing money because nobody is buying their stock, or it’s devalued, and I think you can see how that translates down to employees. Not great Bob!