BIDEN is now backing- INCOME TAX ON UN-REALIZED GAINS......

And the very wealthy can well afford to keep their valued assets as unrealized gains stocks, meaning that despite being considered as our nations wealthiest people they NEVER PAY TAXES ON THEIR ASSETS???? That is grossly unfair to every one who pays taxes weekly out of their paycheck.

 

Another one I haven’t thought about till you bring it up. And how many peoples housing gains will put them into a different tax bracket?

companies are fleeing California, they soon will do the same to the states.

 

How is asset worth even remotely the same as income?

 

If it wasn't no one would buy stocks !!!!! In the 1970's congress created 401k's to drive Americans into buying stocks.

 

401ks don't drive you to buy stocks they provide you the opportunity to buy stocks the greatest engine of wealth generation the world has ever seen.

 

That one makes a lot more sense, in that private charities serve the same end as various government welfare and aid programs, but most do the job with a much higher efficiency.

 

Ironic. They get to tax you on money you never got so they can spend it on benefits you will never get. I suppose it makes sense since they have already spend the unrealized wages of our great great grandchildren!

 

The bottom line is that government never makes money. Printing money only dilutes and steals value from money already in circulation- and every dollar the government gives out as aid is taken from the public in the first place. Then they take a cut of it for their wasteful operational expense, and give back some of it- WITH STRINGS ATTACHED that enhance their power over the people.

This is a morally corrupt practice anytime used for something the people or their states could do for themselves.

 

They keep getting wealthier for the same reason I get wealthier and have all my life just as you can. They pay the lionshare of personal income taxes far beyond their income share and far higher effective rate than any other income group.

 

And if we are going to make the gains taxable then how about the losses, the government only gets to share in the gains not the loses? How is that fair?

 

And I think you are limited to just $3000 per year

Limit on the Deduction and Carryover of Losses
If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000 ($1,500 if married filing separately) or your total net loss shown on line 21 of Schedule D (Form 1040).

Topic No. 409 Capital Gains and Losses - Internal Revenue ...

If they are going to tax the unrealized gain the give a direct credit on the losses, if the government is going to do this they they are along the risk ride too.

 

Taxing unrealized gains would be parallel to taxing your FUTURE WAGES. That gives the government money before they are due money- which they are failing to earn in the first place, give n the gross waste and mismanagement.

So- they take the taxes for the money you haven't made yet, assuming you will. If you lose your job- will the refund that? WHEN? ALL of it, or just a part?

This is so offensive and ludicrous that sane people would move for the immediate removal of any such politician who even suggested it.
Anybody who can look at this and still think or day these people aren't corrupt and scamming them is a total moron- and I don't like using that term, but ti's the one that is appropriate.

 

There are SO many problems from assessing the values to the avoidance it would create and as I said the losses. What about a small business person who is fully invested in their business and doesn't have this cash sitting around to pay for the additional value of the business which they cannot realize without selling part of the business?

And just 700 people they are going to require to "pay for it all" HUGE spending increase?? If that is not a government persecution of those 700 based on the greed and envy of the masses I don't know what is.

And as I said is the government and the taxpayer also going along for the full ride and will partake in any losses?


Biden and Democrats lie about wealth tax, and so much more


If Democrats’ tax-and-spend proposals are as popular as they claim, why do they have to lie about them?

When President Biden claims his $3.5 trillion “social infrastructure” bill will cost “zero,” he is clearly assuming Americans are morons, since there is no way the government can spend trillions of dollars without hiking taxes or increasing borrowing, for both of which there is indeed a price tag.

And when he tweets, as he did recently, “It’s simple: a teacher shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than an oil company,” he is again wandering off the truth-track. Since the average teacher earns $31,000 per year, and since the income tax rate at that level of income is 12 percent, compared to the current corporate rate of 25 percent, this claim is another Joe Biden whopper.


You have to wonder: Does anyone in this White House even try to get the facts right?

This is not just a Biden phenomenon. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) hawked her proposed 2 percent wealth tax on the campaign trail, claiming it would cost the richest Americans “just 2 cents” on every dollar of their net worth above $50 million, she must have known that any educated person would understand that in fact levying that sort of fee on assets year after year would end up costing well-heeled people a fortune.

Indeed, Warren blew her boast by projecting “this small new tax on the tiny sliver of ultra-rich families will bring in $3.75 trillion over the next 10 years.” So, actually, a lot more than two cents...

The rest which is just as salient and matter of fact here...https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/578569-biden-and-democrats-lie-about-wealth-tax-and-so-much-more

 

You aren't expecting fair from the tax code are you? Its purpose is to take your money so that politicians can waste it. The concept is unfair at its base.

 

The top 50% of Americans own 98% of the wealth. That was of 2020 Q4, they own even more now. The top 1% own 30% of the nation's wealth.

Let them pay 98% of the tax burden according to their ability to pay, such as the top 1% paying 30% of tax burden, etc.

How in hell is that not fair? The wealthy have rigged the system in their favor, so they should share the greatest burden since they benefit from the system the most.

What is the difference between liquid and non liquid assets in terms of wealth?

There is no difference, other than the difference between a block of ice and a gallon of water.

However, I would make that assertion more true of the super rich than of average folks. So, for tax purpose, I would suggest not making the distinction between wealth and cash above a certain threshold of wealth.

 

So you are rationalizing that tax burden should be allocated by virtue of assets rather than income.

Taking that belief system to its logical extreme, that means that if taxpayer 1 makes $75k this year and saves $20k in the bank, and taxpayer 2 makes $150k but spends it all on hookers and blow, the responsible taxpayer 1 is going to pay taxes by virtue of his accumulated wealth while irresponsible taxpayer 2 pays literally nothing in taxes despite the fact that he made double the money compared to taxpayer 1. To make matters worse, the saver will also have to pay tax on that same $20k he saved for every subsequent year as well.

Wouldn't such a system serve to incentivize irresponsible behavior while punishing responsible behavior? Does that REALLY make sense to you?

 

There are logical ways to cure the problems of taxation the author is concerned about.

One way is to relegate 'wealth tax' to wealth sectors that are less volatile, such as real estate ownership, blue chip stocks ( taxed levied based on an upward trend line ignoring temporal fluctuations, that sort of thing -- but I'm just thinking at the top of my head, I'm no expert) The bitcoin and stocks reveal how the wealth tax would be problematic, so, okay, let's exclude problematic sectors. It's complicated, but doable, given that the super rich are not a large group of people, but own 30% of the nation's wealth.

 

Forget about the average joe, not talking about them. I"m talking about the super rich. The approach would only kick in at wealth above a certain threshold, and whatever that threshold is, it would be well above the middle class. When I say the upper 50% own 98% of the wealth, when the time comes to actually make policy, I'd only favor the wealth tax on the super rich.

I realize details reveal problematic areas, but it can be dealt with, issues can be resolved, fairly.

In my view, taxation should not be based on incentives, rewards, or punishments, but based solely on monetary values. Whether they reward or punish are political considerations, debatable and, in short, a rabbit hole that tax policy should not go down.

I'm really speaking of the egregious scenarios. For example, a person with $20 billion in real estate holdings, whose asset wealth accrues at a rate much faster than inflation, by deducting depreciation on the structures of the property he owns, could show a loss on the income from rents. So, in one year, the value of his property, based on comps, shows his properties are now worth $30 billion, but he shows a loss of $10 million, and still lives high on the hog because he took out a $50 million loan on the accrued equity which his renters pay back, over time. Indeed, this was reason behind the alternative minimum tax, because the super reich can easily manipulate the system so they can avoid taxes. the AMT makes sure they pay something, whether they have earned income or not because they are getting wealthier at rates far more than average folks.


Does he pay a tax, or does he get a refund. What is fair?

In my view, he pays a tax on that $10 billion in accrued value, because at that level, what is the difference between a liquid asset ( cash ) and a non liquid asset? This particular billionaire is living on collateralized loans which their renters ultimately pay for, while the billionaire takes a depreciation deduction showing a loss on the rents. At that level , I don't see a difference. But for average folks, who live on income and own a house where the house, though it affects one's net worth, hardly improves their practical wealth, which is the income they live on.

Do you see the difference?

 

Why are we even giving a wealth tax a consideration? It's a crazy idea fraught with problems. Does anyone believe the government needs more money? Have they taken care of the money we've given them already? The deficit is a trillion plus a year as it is. Stop spending!

 

I used to take accounting students through a hypothetical situation where the tax owing was more than the value of the shares. After they got it, I asked them what they thought of taxing unrealized capital gains. Not much.

Democrats need to drop this idea.

 

You were on solid ground objecting to taxing unrealized capital gains, but not so much here.

 

If people with money don't start thinking about this...



... support for capitalism itself may decline.

 

Oh now here come the carve outs and guess the money will flow. You're not going to get a federal property tax the States let alone the People would never stand for it. That and any other proposal would require and amendment to the Constitution, that ain't gonna happen. Go read about all the European countries who tried wealth taxes and how they were all rescinded.

 

This strategy would never work if enough people felt they could work and earn their way to prosperity. When people feel anything from pressured to desperate, they respond by looking for help wherever they can get it. We're on the wrong track.

One-sided contracts are typical in consumer electronics.

 

​

You're missing the point. Biden and his pals know what they're doing.