4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by 4aapl on Mar 26, 2022 16:35:55 GMT -8
www.cnn.com/2022/03/26/politics/white-house-billionaire-minimum-income-tax/index.htmlLooks like there are more things aimed at the top levels, this time including unrealized income. It's interesting to me that they are marketing it as the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, and yet currently it is at the $100M net asset level. Grrrrr. Though it gives room to raise that level to get the votes, while keeping the marketing name. While I'm against this, it does make more sense than other proposed ways to tax those that have done very well, and the idea of paying roughly current tax rates but before realizing the gain in my mind is better than raising rates. While this is being pushed by one political side, or even the extreme of one side, try to keep politics out of it and just deal with the facts or proposals.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,050
|
Post by Dave on Mar 27, 2022 2:35:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 27, 2022 8:42:49 GMT -8
And where the actual facts that these people have not already been taxed fairly?
The real villain here is government who cannot control their spending. So they perpetuate the mythology that successful people have pulled off some kind of scam, and don’t pay their “fair share”. While conveniently ignoring how much taxation dollars these people have created in the process of becoming wealthy.
I think a wealth tax is a horrible idea, and that people should NEVER be taxed on unrealized gains. Is there going to be a tax credit on unrealized losses? Of course not. This whole idea violates a fundamental principle of fairness. But of course, it doesn’t matter because who cares about taxing wealthy scumbags. After all, they deserve it, right?
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,050
|
Post by Dave on Mar 27, 2022 10:12:42 GMT -8
And where the actual facts that these people have not already been taxed fairly? The real villain here is government who cannot control their spending. So they perpetuate the mythology that successful people have pulled off some kind of scam, and don’t pay their “fair share”. While conveniently ignoring how much taxation dollars these people have created in the process of becoming wealthy. I think a wealth tax is a horrible idea, and that people should NEVER be taxed on unrealized gains. Is there going to be a tax credit on unrealized losses? Of course not. This whole idea violates a fundamental principle of fairness. But of course, it doesn’t matter because who cares about taxing wealthy scumbags. After all, they deserve it, right? I agree. Government is an inanity that produces nothing, it only consumes. And if allowed, it will consume to its own destruction. I’m confident that as soon as this news story hit the wires money started pouring into Washington in an attempt to sway their representatives and their vote. A classic method to extort money, also known as campaign contributions. And of course there will be a compromise, which is why this government is in such deep debt.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by 4aapl on Mar 28, 2022 14:51:22 GMT -8
And where the actual facts that these people have not already been taxed fairly? The real villain here is government who cannot control their spending. So they perpetuate the mythology that successful people have pulled off some kind of scam, and don’t pay their “fair share”. While conveniently ignoring how much taxation dollars these people have created in the process of becoming wealthy. I think a wealth tax is a horrible idea, and that people should NEVER be taxed on unrealized gains. Is there going to be a tax credit on unrealized losses? Of course not. This whole idea violates a fundamental principle of fairness. But of course, it doesn’t matter because who cares about taxing wealthy scumbags. After all, they deserve it, right? I'd take being partially taxed early over having tax rates increased further, or a wealth tax. This is framed as a prepayment, which is at least much more palatable. OTOH, if it is so good, then one thing is to think of it applied to everyone, and at every level. That would be a real pain, and would take away part of the benefit of holding things for the long term. Most people would be against having to pay a partial pre-tax if their house went up in value. We'll see what happens. If pre-payments happen at some income level, I'd give a 50% chance that I'll be having to do pre-payments within my lifetime, since likely values won't be indexed to inflation, but also levels would likely be changed in the future other times some pre-payments are seen as needed for other costs. Even if some theories say it really doesn't matter much, but this is the weird combo of monetary theory and social justice, as decided by the masses. Not a great way to decide things, but it's misguided to think it doesn't happen.
|
|