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

This idea is to tax you for money you don't have... the bird in the bush. When you have a stock market investment- it's value changes with the market, and an increase in value is called an "unrealized gain", meaning you actually collect it- it's just today's paper number. You pay taxes on gains of stocks when they sell- and you actually get the money. Joe doesn't like that.

The report says "tax on billionaires". Really? Or is that just the standard practice to claim you will only screw a minority in order to get the bill passed, then proceed to drop the threshold to hit everybody with more than pocket change. That's what happens over and over.

This plan would tax you on gains that have never come to your pocket or bank account.
That's how badly they want money to waste on the humongous spending bills that seem designed to make every American (other than Joe's friends) impoverished and dependent. Joe figure that under those circumstances, you would have to be nice to him. Or... His puppet masters..... Cause Joe can't stay away from the funny--farm much longer; IF he was actually cognizant and rational, he wouldn't be making such a fool of himself- or attacking the people he is working for.

Who is that, Joe? WHO are you working for?
You working for Haitians? Mexicans, Central Americans? Taliban? China?
Anybody but Americans, right?


WHO IS JOE WORKING FOR??

Ref:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-backs-tax-billionaires-unrealized-investment-gains

 

And one of the main reasons our wealthiest keep getting wealthier by the day and never pay any taxes, or pay rates less than 1% of their gross wealth accumulation for the year. While the lowest IRS tax rate deduction rate from the weekly income of hourly workers is 10 %.

 

That would be BS the cheif means of wealth accumulation is buying stuff not earning it.

 

You're wrong, falcon. There are places the wealthy can postpone or limit taxes, and the press loves to tell you about half the story- the part that will get you upset.
I'm not wealthy as most people think of wealth, but I'm in the top 10% of taxpayers. I'm paying six-figure income taxes again this year, as well as last.
Since the top 10% of taxpayers produce 70% of the total income tax revenue....
How is it that the remaining 90% of the taxpayers can't handle the remaining 30% of the taxes?

How in hell is that not fair?
I can tell you why t's not..... the 10% are carrying a lot of deadbeats, who spend a lot of time bitching because they want other to pay all their bills.

 

You are one fortunate dude !!!

 

I don't know but my guess is he is working for the DNC. If you are going to tax urealized gains then it is only appropriate to refund taxes if a loss is realized instead of a gain a long with some compensation for the borrowed money. Imagine trying to administer that.

 

No. I'm a guy who's worked at building a future all my life, and had my share of being broke and struggling. I just never blamed my failures on anybody but me- so I learned not to fail as much, and work smarter as well as harder. Anybody can. Most won't. It's a choice. You either learn, or you get to take the class over until you do- or you die.

 

Some years ago I had a $30K investment loss. When it showed up as $3K on my taxes, I told my accountant he made a mistake. He said no- you can't offset other income with that loss, but you can deduct 10% of the loss each year. It's like the trick coin toss- heads they win, tails you lose. They just want to make it worse; find a way to harvest money as fast as they can figure out how to waste it.

 

Joe is just the man I want to handle my taxes, after he handles his own...

Biden could owe as much as $500K in back taxes, government report indicates

https://www.scribd.com/document/527...sation-to-S-Corporation-Shareholder-Employees

https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/biden-could-owe-as-much-as-500k-in-irs-taxes-report/

 

Some Profitable Companies Would Still Pay No Taxes Under Democrats’ Plan. Just 10% for The Big guy.

Biden and the Democrats not only want some companies to pay ZERO taxes but they want to INCREASE their refund? It’s business as usual. Just buy some of Hunter's "art".

​

 

??? Tax loss harvesting means that you can use the sale of an asset at a loss to offset capital gains tax of other assets that increased in value. Looks like your tax accountant did something wrong. Or, you didn't actually sell the assets at a loss, in this case the loss is not realized and can't be used for tax loss harvesting. In my view, it is another gift to the investor class that investment losses can be partially offset by the other tax payers.

 

Can anyone explain to me why it is legal for doctors who prescribe certain prescriptions are paid commissions on them by the pharmaceutical companies that created them??? Sounds like complete conflict of interest to me.

 

Well he would also be talking about being able to deduct unrealized losses too since they are part of the same regimen. Should be a great benefit to people the way we are careening toward an economic abyss under the democrats.

 

Taxes in this country have been weaponized, specialized for pet projects, used to gain votes, and used for social experiments. It's a quicksand and every year the hard working citizens sink a little deeper. Why do so many working-class citizens need help to file a tax return? Then when a small portion is returned the citizens rejoice -- talk about a scam. We have met the enemy and it is us.

 

Of course, you are right about that; it's a good call.

Often the concepts of being "liberal" minded bring a tolerance for things based on a single parameter rather than the entire picture. If anyone really cares about the health of a society, they know that it must not become marketed like carnival snake oil. Yet, you see a constant barrage of ads for prescription drugs on television, which must devote a significant part of the commercial to mentioning side effects, an attempt at limiting tort liabilities in the lawsuits they know will be coming. If you aren't watching an ad for the drug, you are watching an ad by lawyers trying to convince people that the makers of drugs were negligent and owe them money. This whole thing is unrealistic; the ads for drugs push patients to demand them from doctors, the doctors are also pushed to prescribe them by financial incentive, then the lawyers sue everybody and take half the loot.... The result of that being that the price of prescriptions is exploded by the potential liability, and the same applies to the malpractice insurance costs of doctors and medical facilities.

The only nations in the world that allow drug makers to advertise prescription drugs are the United States and New Zealand. We should ask ourselves why we find that logical to do.

I'm not opposed to lawyers advertising that they exist and provide legal services; thus should a person decide they need a lawyer, their availability is known. However, the idea lawyers advertise for 'victims" of specific claims- and promote the idea that people are victims and entitled to free money because they used some product or drug, is inflammatory and unscrupulous.... it's what used to be known as "Ambulance chasing" and should be prohibited. That has nothing to do with filling a legitimate need or justice, it is the process of convincing people to let a lawyer get them free money- when the lawyers only real motive is the share of the free money he gets for being the mercenary.

All laws need to balance the effects it will have, sort of a cost/benefit standard. The cost to society and all citizens of having drugs promoted like "As seen on TV" gimmicks goes far beyond the benefits to anyone except the drugs makers- and the people they give commissions to.

 

No he was referring to an actual loss. Unrealized losses are not deductible.

 

It's not unlike a drug addiction, where there is never enough- and the drug is OPM, or "Other People's Money".
Financial prudence means balance and requires restraint and prudence in spending, but the government, especially the Biden administration seems to think that you spend whatever you want and then just increase the squeeze on the taxpayers- or let the debt continue to build. We have a "debt limit", but raise it whenever we hit that limit, rather than tighten the governmental addition to spending. Try that with your personal finances, and see what happens.

America has the most complex tax laws of any nation on earth. Nobody is sure they understand it, including the people who work for the IRS. I have never yet had an accountant who had full confidence that our returns were right. Every year the rules change, and accountants don't get the final instructions until the tax deadline is imminent- and then, such information is incomplete and often self conflicting.

Long ago a lawyer warned me about complex contracts, pointing out that the more you try to define things, the more loopholes you create. He also said that many people use long contracts with extensive recitals and filler information to bury the conditions that will be used to take advantage of you, so you are unaware of the risks. He was right, after more than 50 years of business ownership, I can say that is the strategy of people who have no intention of being honest of upfront in their dealings. This is the nature of many laws, and especially tax or spending laws.

The constitution of the United States- the prime directive of our law and definition of our structure has a total of 4543 words.
The new tax law Biden wants to pass is 10,000 pages long. Not words, but PAGES.
IS IT POSSIBLE that ANY person is congress actually understands what is in that bill and what it's effects would be?
One of the longest books in recent history,- War and Peace, has 587,287 words... 1227 pages. That's 12% the size of Bidens tax bill.
I think it was Pelosi, speaking about Obamacare who said "We have to pass it to see what's in it". Congress itself hasn't read it's own bills, only summaries of them prepared by staff.

They have no intention of passing laws in a form the people subject to them can understand- and no honorable person would do that.

 

This was a realized loss from sale of stocks for the year. The accountant was a highly respected CPA with his own firm, who had been in practice for 40 years at the time.

 

Well, if it was loss after a sale, then I don't understand what you wrote. Either you got a $3k tax bill from the sale, which is not possible because there was no capital gain, or you got a $3k refund, meaning that the big bad tax man covered 10% of your loss. So, in either case, your accusation that heads, they win, tail you lose, is just not true in this case, but when you want to always complain about how the big bad tax man is stripping you bare, I guess then it makes somewhat sense to you.

 

And he is correct.

 

We will never understand the tax code. We need just a flat tax or just a sales tax on spending. How did the citizens not rise up when the income tax was first activated -- well it was 1% on individuals and 3% on businesses. Who could complain about that and the camel had his nose under the tent. I guarantee you if you had no taxes deducted from your paycheck and you had to pay all your income tax in a lump sum on January first the citizens would storm the palace with torches and pitchforks. Each generation will agree to a small increase in taxes to help the schools, build more roads, give the military a raise, install wi-fi for the whole USA, etc. Meanwhile the government gains more and more control over our lives.

 

How do you know? His post doesn't have enough information to make a judgement. My guess: He just want to bitc% about his taxes, no matter what the facts are.

 

Because I am a business man who has familiarity with tax law. It is interesting that this continues to exist. The IRS recently updated the rules concerning capital amortization and made it friendlier to business. Everything government does is unnecessarily complex and usually unpredictable.

 

Every tax season, the stock market will crash because the only way to pay tax on money they dont even have is to sell their stocks.

 

The more I looked at the US tax system the more I saw how closely related to the UK system it is. Part of my business involved financing building development companies.. We charge around 8% interest on loans. At the end of every financial year we pay tax on this 8% whether we have received the money or not. We receive the balance of the loan when the development is sold. During the property crash few years ago some of the development companies we funded declared bankruptcy resulting in us being given the properties we funded. They were consequently sold at a loss. We did get tax credits to carry forward onto subsequent years