She has to generate so much money to pay for all her giveaways. She and her advisers are so stupid they don't realize they will KILL the economy if they do it. Chat libs are in the same boat, don't have a clue what they are asking for.
tax on unrealized gains, kamala WANTS it.
- Thread starter cherrydawg
- Start date
It's never going to happen and you know it. While Presidents have been trying to take more power they don't control the tax code. Promises are being made by both sides which are not going to happen. Find something useful to say or just go "ha-ha".
Somewhat agree, but why propose such an outlandish plan? Is it all a game to then eventually dial it back to make an otherwise terrible policy appear less radical?
Show me the equally cray cray tax policy pushed by the Rs these days.
Exactly the ONLY thing a dim can say about it. Her dad is a commie. She is a commie. It's not like this a popular thing for anyone with 1/116 of a brain cell. So why do you call it a promise she won't do. It's a threat to the USA and our economy. Find a way to get your head out of the sand for a change. You all promised us biden was a moderate and it would all be good. He told us what he was going to do on his campaign website. He did it and he suxed and you where ALL WRONG> He was the far left idiot he promised to be. So go on vote for Kamrade Kamala. The things she wants to do are so bad she won't even post them for people to review. Not that it would do anything for the TDS crowd.
One question for you specifically. Name one thing YOU have posted that was useful. The reason you and the other tds folks get a ha-ha is, it's against the rules to say what really needs to be said about the twisted spin that 99% of the things posted are. So now go back to your sand pile. You won't find anything to report back about a useful post you have made.
Last edited:
You shouldn't agree. ALL the dims here said biden was a moderate. However, his campaign web site had all the crazy stuff he did spelled out. He turned into a far-left loon. Her dad is a commie, she is a commie and obviously the stuff she wants to do is so bad she is afraid to put it out there before the election. Don't be lulled to sleep. She is FAR FAR FAR left. Every policy she has ever touted before this election has been far far far far left and she didn't suddenly see the light. She just wants to get elected and then the hammer will drop. SHE WON'T EVEN PUBLISH AN AGENDA. HER MIND IS SO LIMITED ABOUT ACCEPTABLE POLICY, SHE HAS TO COPY TRUMP. Normally sir I agree with a bunch of what you say, but in my opinion, you are way off on this.
I don't know - seems stupid to me and I don't agree with that being a solution for anything. I wasn't only referring to tax proposals but any campaign promises. But it seems Trump was the first to propose no tax on tips and that would cause all kinds of problems and I don't think it's a good solution. Maybe instead of both sides trying to come up with tax schemes we just go to a tax on consumption. Of course that would put people out of work so their lobbyists would be working overtime.
- It applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income (inclusive of unrealized capital gains). Payments can be spread out over subsequent years.
- Within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradeable assets (i.e., not shares of private startups or real estate). One caveat for this illiquid group is that there would be a deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit.
I notice democrats will bend over backward to make excuses for all of the dumassary that Kamala spews. Whatever happened to owning up to the crap.
Now address the 16th amendment implications of said tax.
I understand and appreciate the points. However, this is how it starts. After a short time those requirements will be "relaxed" to include those making $50 mil. Then $10 mil. Then down to "normal people" levels. These are starting points. And the changes won't be advertised. If you look at government taxation, you will see a history of doing just this in other areas. "If we include the next group down, we can make XXX number of dollars more". No new taxes. If the government can't make it on the amount we are paying now we need a new group (which we do).
JC
I think it’s a terrible idea. But I DO think a much more limited version may make sense to curb excessive tax avoidance among the billionaire class. We all know that many billionaires live on loans that they just pay off with another loan (with stocks as collateral) so that they pay zero in taxes.
This is one reason why I would support it if it was limited to treating loans as income when using publicly traded stocks as collateral.
No tax ever goes away and it only moves down from the rich, like water sinking to the lowest level. (Americans paid a tax on the Spanish American war until 2006 and it started in 1898.) Once they can implement a tax on unrealized gains the capital flight will bring the US to 2nd world nation status.
Further, you think this will end tax avoidance? Big F'ing no way. The trusts, lawyers, and CPA's will help the wealthy extricate their wealth out of the country and will not pay this tax. Think this isn't possible? Then why do all the US tech companies keep billions of revenues outside of the US, Ireland specifically? To avoid paying taxes on those profits here.
This is one reason why I would support it if it was limited to treating loans as income when using publicly traded stocks as collateral.
Then why is this Liberal dipshit out here pushing for it?
Of course you bring up Trump. My gd man. It’s ****ing unbelievable.
There is no trust there at all for me. Biden totally screwed the middle class with his tax code. He lied about the 400000 threshold. It is why no one believes she won’t try to do this. If she gets elected with this platform she may be brazen enough to try anything. It is just another step closer. The middle class is already hurting. People are not moving out of their home because they can’t afford it. The job market is absolutely horrendous right now. I don’t care what number they post.
Okay, I see how that looks like a desirable outcome. What you should consider is how those investors will respond to your new tax law, assuming it somehow stands up to the constitutional challenge.
I assure you the wealthy will not just keep doing what they are doing and pay the tax. Their attorneys and tax accountants will not let that happen. You won't stop their natural inclination to avoid taxable events. So what do you want them to do instead?
Consider whether you want to incentivize the wealthy to keep their money, take their wealth to other countries, or to invest in the US economy via the markets. Which is better for the country?
By the same token, are you going to also make principal repayments tax deductible? I wonder if that might enable one to pay less in taxes overall, using loss carrybacks/carryover...
Last edited:
Just about to post the same thing. Easier just not to vote for her.
Dims will NEVER agree to a fair tax type plan, that's why? Just ask the local commie party head.
You're f♡cking unbelievable - He asked me about the policy of Rs and I was responding.
Hey I hear you. But just because someone picks a lock doesn’t mean we stop trying to make a better lock. I just want fair taxation so that people that are actually struggling don’t get left with the bill. I don’t pretend it’s easy.
The very people that create jobs. Plus, kamala shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anyone else's money. All commies want to do is give it away to voter groups. I'm sure you have heard her mention equitable distribution. No way they leave it at that either. Give a dim an inch they take a gazillion miles.
The last part of your post is right on. The first sentence is OFF. No way to understand such stupidity sir. Now continue on with more like the remainder of the post.
Last edited:
AMEN Sir,,, too many dim voters don't understand these simple economic principles. Take and spend is ALL they know.
I understand. It seems like a good idea, and many voters would buy it as a solution, but you might be doing just what you're trying to avoid. You will never get good outcomes by penalizing things you want citizens to do. You get there by aligning incentives.
Reducing the economy by disincentivizing investment isn't going to lighten the load on the average American - quite the opposite.
But take heart, the top 1% of earners pay 46% of income taxes, according to IRS figures. The top 5% of earners collectively pay about 66% of the national total. If you include the top 10% that figure rises to 76% of the total. The top 50% of earners contribute 97.7% of federal income tax revenue.
Unrealized appears to be the undefined term, you think?
Still doesn't make it right. 100 million today, one million tomorrow. Can't ever trust dims.
Believe me I know about paying taxes. I’m in the top 1%. But I’m nothing compared to these jokers who don’t even show up on your chart. The true fat cats don’t show up on top % of income earners because they evade income taxes by transforming everything into non-ordinary income. But I definitely take your point that you have to be careful about what your tax policy incentivizes and disincentivizes. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I would be open to a fair tax system with the right UBI system. But I doubt it would ever survive the political process because it’s too hard for people to wrap their minds around. All people hear is that everything becomes 17% more expensive or whatever the number is.
The Estate tax has pretty much gone away. In 1976 I paid Estate Tax to Federal and Georgia. The tax was on everything over $60,000.
