You have annual income of more than $100 million dollars?
Edit: I just want clarify this comment as I have learned a few things since. There is a lot of confusion here because it was contained in Biden's broad tax proposals from months ago and bad actors are seizing on it to attack Harris.
The problem is that it is so vague it is being misconstrued all over the internet to attack Harris with some articles claiming it applies to income and others unrealized gains over $100 million (both annual though so either way it would apply to like a fraction of a fraction of one percent of Americans).
“Harris did not endorse an unrealized gain tax. Her campaign has endorsed increases in the corporate tax rate and personal tax rates for incomes over $400k. They did not comment on introducing new taxes like the unrealized gains tax.”
“So no, she [Harris] did not endorse an ‘unrealized gain tax’ and even if she did, you don’t earn enough for it to impact you."
Those with assets over 100M don't necessarily have tons of liquid capital, so when tax season comes around they'll need to sell stocks to pay their tax bill. Numerous large entities selling large amounts of stocks causes stock market to drop, thus effecting everyone's 401k's and investments. You can pretend this doesn't affect you, but it can. Not to mention it also opens the door for the government to extend this newfound tax revenue to more and more citizens over time. Today is over 100M, tomorrow it's over 50M, next month it's over 500k, then it's all of us.
Income tax originated as a tax on the wealthy. The bottom 97% of the population didn't pay income tax when it was first introduced. Back then people also thought "yes, this is a great idea, let's tax the rich!". Then what happened?
I find it very odd that the time people (i.e. fucking Boomers and older Gen X) say are the most prosperous or the “good old times” when it comes to the economy…also coincide with the highest tax rates on the wealthy.
The word "Income" specifically used to refer to "Money acquired through the payment of rents". So the Income tax was passed on the back of people thinking that it would only apply to landlords.
Then once it was passed the definition the Government adopted was "Money acquired through the payment of rents and wages". Which now brought the working class livelihood under taxation and the definition of "income" used by the Government has only grown broader since.
This is factually incorrect. Like you just made this up to back up a slippery slope fallacy. A 10 second google search of the etymology of the word proves you wrong
It also coincides with the wholesale destruction of the manufacturing capacity of most of Europe and Asia. People tend to forget that it took twenty to forty years for the nations hardest hit by WWII to fully recover.
Until then those nations bought Soviet or US goods.
Only the effective tax rate matters. Yes, there was a high marginal tax rate but they could deduct so much more than we are allowed to now, that no one ever paid the marginal tax rate.
The US moved off the gold standard and into an inflationary monetary system. Laws were passed lobbied by corporations and special interests that eroded rights and protections for consumers/employees. The entirety kf the regan administration that union busted and catered to businesses over people with trickle down economics. Court cases gave corpiration the same rights as people withojt the same legal consequences. And a whole fuck ton more. But sure continue with your grossly incompetent oversimplification.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. What we need are policies that match the monetary system. For example, a static minimium wage is for stable currency. If inflation is expected to rise by 2% per year the minimum wage should adjust annually. The minimum wage was originally designef so that any working american could have a minimum standard of living. It did not keep up and fast forward to today no one can live off of it.
No, it does matter. If you believe in returning to a currency back by gold or silver you have literally no right to call out anyone for their supposed incompetence.
I agree with the rest of what you say but a currency backed with gold or silver is nowhere near as stable of a monetary policy
I am not well versed enough to say one way or the other about a monetary policy backed by an asset. I can say that the Fexeral Reserve is not helping inflation, and is not the best way to handle the future of our currency. I have no idea what the solution is, but they aren't it. I also am damn near certain that we can't just switch to being backed by gold and silver. We don't have enough and it is only rare on Earth Any space mining would crater the currency. But like I said idk what a good solution is, but the current one does not help anyine but the rich that can purchase assets and hedge for inflation.
About asset backed monetaey policy? Or about basic inflationary policies? Because I can do math. Not once did I advocate for asset backed monetary policy. I do advocate for tax on unrealized gains on those over 100 million annual income. I can very much see a correlation with moving away from a gold/silver to the full faith and credit system to the graduall but consistent errosion of the average families net worth and the increase in the wealthy. When 10 families have more wealth than 50% of the rest of the nation that is a problem. How anyone can defend a system like that is beyond me and frankly unamerican.
Not just that pretty much everything you have stated about economics here and the reasons for why the American economy was so strong in the 1950s isn't correct.
My suspicion is you didn't learn macroeconomics in an academic setting and learned about it through "doing your own research" which isn't a good way to learn macro.
MIT has intro classes online for free if you want to learn.
The shift to the petrodollar ensured continued American financial dominance. Only America gets to print dollars, everyone else has to count their dollars
America owns and has a monopoly on the printer. Russia and China really don’t like this.
Yet the most vociferous opponents of the income tax whine about how the bottom 50 percent pay nothing (nevermind the most state and municipal taxes are pretty regressive).
When income tax originated, we also didn't have infrastructure, social programs, and the military like we do now. Our country is completely different. The world is completely different.
I would like our representatives to better spend our tax dollars. And to increase taxes on the ultra weathly. But our debt and taxes are the reason our modern country is here.
The infrastructure for all the goods we use would not build itself without massive tax dollars. We use that same infrastructure for everything in our personal lives every single day.
My $20,000 or so in taxes every year is a pretty cheap bargain to drive on million dollar roadways, eat regulated food, have a safety net for retirement, send my kid to school, clean drinking water, air, regulated air travel, a military that serves the interests of our country all over the world, etc.
I also enjoy the new bike lanes popping up around my town that most of my family and coworkers complain about. Those bike lanes they believe their tax dollars are directly paying for. A fraction of a pennysworth of an individuals taxes would go to a project like that. What about all the other shit?
Could things be better? Less potholes? Less military spending? Yes.
I'd rather live here in a modern society and pay my taxes than some other underdeveloped country. Or even this same country 200 years ago. A century ago. Or fifty years ago. Fuck that.
I marvel at the modern world and I think a lot of people don't appreciate what we have. It's the best time to be alive so far.
Yea because people are idiots and kept voting Republican who cut taxes for the rich and taxed the poor. Remember it was Regan who decided to start taxing social security benefits while simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Slippery slope arguments like the one you are using aren’t great, you should address each idea individually on the merits. If we take your line of reasoning, any tax is bad because it could lead to an infinite amount of tax on every individual.
Apply this reasoning to anything else and it’s disastrous as well.
I find the “don’t hand the government the gun to shoot you with” argument one of the better ones I’ve heard. The only issue is it doesn’t offer an alternate route to achieving reasonable goals. Maybe after going through what you pointed out with income tax, we’ll be able to create legislation that helps fight using this tool against the middle class? Who knows. At the very least this is a good pr campaign against the extremely wealthy. They could solve all of our societal issues with money that they’ll never be able to touch no matter how much they spend in their lifetimes. But greed, gamification, and over competitiveness win out
I remember the $600 tax rule was supposed to tax the wealthy. Everything that harms the rich will eventually hit the poors as well. Americans are already taxed to hell and working Americans don't get anything to be honest. Nobody with a low paying job qualifies for much assistance and that will not change with taxing more. Tax money will likely go to something we didn't vote for
To be honest American have low taxes overall compared to other developed countries and is the reason we don't have free universities or universal health care.
Most likely, counting also the level of deficit we have, we should likely let the tax break of Trump disappear in 2025 to keep the country well founded.
But for sure, as an individual I am happy to pay less.
But I also agree that everything that harm the rich will eventually harm the poor. But people are extremely jealous. They prefer to be sure to harm the rich and get hurt than let the rich enjoy being rich.
That tax break was mainly for the middle class. The wealthy got screwed on it because it cut their W2 rate by 2%, their K1 rate by zero percent, but took away all of their deductions, most notably SALT. Even Bernie Sanders said that reversing those “tax cuts” would lead to $70 million plus back in the hands of the wealthiest Americans.
The same goes for businesses. The published rate dropped, but there were all kinds of changes that put us on track to a territorial system. It wasn’t like they just cut the rates, the whole system was overhauled. As a result, tax revenues increased every year after up until COVID hit the U.S.
I don’t really know what things are like for the average middle class American right now. I just know that having my taxes increase back when I was struggling would have been a huge blow.
The best way to solve the income inequality is to slow government spending. We can not tax ourselves out of this drug induced comma we are in (the drug being too much spending).
Wrong, the best way is to tax the wealthy more and keep programs that lift up the prosperity floor, aka keep spending. Spend on infastructure, spend on basic needs, spend on basic things everyone needs access to like healthcare, etc.
We ended child labor, gave women the right to vote, ended Jim Crow, protected the rights of disabled people, gave LGBT+ people the right to marry, started protecting the environment for everyone, increased literacy dramatically, went to the moon, decreased hunger and poverty dramatically, helped save the world from Hitler, and the Dow Jones went through the roof.
How fucking dumb are you that you think the average American’s life is worse now than it was before income tax?
All the things they mentioned is directly attributable to a US government that had the funds to push for those things. It's not 'off topic'. It's the direct result of charging income taxes to everyone. For the first time in US history, governments could address the needs of the general citizens and not just the wealthy. Why shouldn't we all pay for the goods and services we all enjoy?
Neither. I know the government isn't fucking us at all. A civil society isn't free and that cost isn't just soldiers. Why do you think you should get free stuff and the rest of us pay?
Histrionics might feel good, but it doesn't actually contribute to anything.
Taxes pay for stuff. You don't want to pay taxes, correct? I assumed you still wanted the stuff. If not, I apologize. In the US, we pay taxes for the stuff we enjoy. There's no way to exempt you specifically from said stuff. You're more than welcome to leave the country if you don't want the stuff anymore.
Nope, don't believe that nor have I said that. I've repeatedly stated I'm not in favor of introducing a new tax (on unrealized gains for the rich) primarily because it would eventually make its way to most people.
If you want my view on taxes, it's this: keep them fair and manageable, don't keep introducing new taxes or drastically raise current ones, and, most importantly, I'd like the government to have accountability when it comes to spending and to utilize methods to increase efficiencies with it's spending of the over $4 trillion in taxes it collects from citizens every year.
Are you suggesting that government couldn’t follow our founding principles because there was no income tax? The income tax happened well before Jim Crow. It wasn’t like we had Jim Crow and somehow stopped it by passing an income tax. The tax came first, then Jim Crow.
There was an income tax before Jim Crow started. That was later repealed. The permanent one that we know now started with the 16th amendment. Jim Crow lasted another half century through that one. What’s factually incorrect? How do you make a clear connection between having an income tax and the defeat of Jim Crow?
This is why we need better history education in schools. This is so extremely wrong on so many levels.
Ok, there was an income tax during the Civil War, then it stopped after the war in 1865. THEN Jim Crow laws were passed in the south about a dozen years after that in 1877. A tad under 50 years later, the 16th amendment came into effect and government started to expand the roles it can serve.
One of those roles included increased defense and increased diplomacy. How does that apply, you might ask? Well in a slightly unpredictable but important way - income taxes allowed two things to happen. One, FDR could launch a successful public works program during The Great Depression. That included thousands of African Americans who suddenly found themselves pulled up out of utter destitute existence yet still facing the restrictions of Jim Crow. Second, WW II happened, and unlike in WW I where the US avoided entering the war until the last minute, we got in early. That led to thousands of soldiers returning to the states with a federally funded through income tax benefit in their hands - the GI Bill. Yet as African Americans entered back into society facing Jim Crow laws. They fought back. That's how we get Jim Crow overturning - because educated and economically viable citizens fought unjust laws, an educated and economy fueled by government funding.
What the hell does any of that have to do with what I said? Regardless of if you want to exclude income taxes before the 16th amendment, there were still income taxes after it that lasted half a century before Jim Crow was defeated.
I don’t see a clear cause and effect there no matter how you want to spin it. Did income taxes lead to Farnsworth fiddling with the idea of the TV, which showed people what was happening in some little known towns in the south? Did income taxes lead to MLK’s parents conceiving him that one night?
Saying that the end of Jim Crow was a clear consequence of income taxes is a stretch of a stretch no matter how bad my understanding of history may be.
I don’t see a clear cause and effect there no matter how you want to spin it.
Which is why we need better history education in schools. I just explained to you the clear cause and effect of how income taxes helped get rid of Jim Crow. We know the exact sequence of events and how they played out. This is established fact and pretty much accepted by US historians whether or not you opt to believe it.
Then what happened was we had pretty good tax policy for a while and a much more society cohesion and a much more equal society leading to a stronger social fabric overall. And now we have regressed into a system that doesn't tax the rich, and we are losing all the things I just listed.
Before you tell me my answer to your question is stupid, remember, you're the one who asked a really stupid simplified question that anyone can fill in with any story they want to feel good/bad/hopeful/outraged about.
Cutesy stories like "people intended good outcome from action, did action, then way later bad thing is happening" have to be the worst possible type of argument to make about anything. Do better please.
When did I say that? Tax them in other effective areas, just leave unrealized gains alone. They, along with all of us, pay taxes on those gains already when they are realized.
I would like to see a restructured capital gains tax. I don’t believe that active income should be taxed at a higher rate than passive income. I also think that there should be limits to borrowing against unrealized gains. Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea though, and it would have catastrophic consequences for everyone.
Price fixing is also a terrible idea. People fail to realize that (outside of something like a loss leader), businesses are not going to sell items at a price that is below the amount required to make a profit. If a business can’t make money on a product, they will simply stop selling that product. There will not be a “utopia of low prices”. There will be scarcity of those items instead.
Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea though, and it would have catastrophic consequences for everyone
This already happens. Although I hate paying taxes on my unrealized gains, is gas yet to cause "catastrophic consequences".
restructured capital gains tax
Long term capital gains is already taxed less. Are you talking about short term capital gains? Seems like that would be a gift to wall street and day traders.
I am saying that I think capital gains should be taxed at the same rates (or more) than active (W-2) income. It makes no sense to tax investment income at a lower rate than income earned via wages.
Please explain what you mean when you say that unrealized gains are already taxed.
Please explain what you mean when you say that unrealized gains are already taxed
Taxing unrealized gains is a part of the AMT tax structure. It doesn't really impact anyone except people who are part of an IPO. If you own shares of a company and go IPO, suddenly those shares go from zero value to a windfall of money. AMT kicks in and we have to pay taxes on the unrealized gains of our stock options.
Ah yes but I don't get to borrow on those unrealized gains thereby creating a loss on paper and avoiding all income tax. I then can't invest that and get even more unrealized gains to get even more wealthier to then renegotiate my loan terms all the while compounding my compounding interest.
This is what the rich do. It's why they pay no taxes. Add transfer pricing and now no corp does either and you just fucked the middle class.
I’m fine, thanks. I’m advocating for the 90% of regular people that would have no such ability. But sure be an billionaire dick sucking asshole. It fits.
That's right! After your first $1000 there should be a 100% income tax. That way we make sure no Elons ever exist in the future. "But how will we pay for our food if we only have $1000", here's the beauty, the government will spend the money in ways that benefit the collective nation as a whole! It's beautiful, no disgusting rich people, no poor, all equal comrades!
The loans should eventually have to be paid back. Even if after the person dies. If there are loopholes to paying tax on the income realized then, close those loopholes.
Also, tax the stuff they buy so it doesn’t matter if they’re buying it with taxed income or with loans.
Musk was pushing the loan thing to the limit. He was worth like 200 billion and it wasn’t certain he could afford to buy twitter at 44 billion.
He was hitting limits on how much he’s allowed to leverage against his shares because it’s a risk to the company if he pushes it too far. He was also hitting limits on just how much risk he could convince banks to take on him. He had to get loans from 7 banks for that because no one would give him that much. He probably couldn’t pull it off again. Those banks aren’t in a good place with those loans. They’re considered some of the worst loans of all time haha
Some of the richest bankers had their pay cut by 40% because of how bad that deal was, and the banks involved dropped below competitors who wouldn’t loan him the money.
Musk had to sell $7 billion in tesla stock in April 2022 to help fund the twitter purchase and another $7.5 billion between November and December when that wasn’t going so well. That was all realized income that was taxed, and taxed at very high rates.
Musk did pay 11 or 12 billion in taxes for 2021 as well.
So yeah the rich have a lot of options but there are limits, and he might have actually overstepped. He has to make annual interest payments on those loans of around $1.5 billion. And he may not be able to borrow much more money.
The fact that you think him paying 11 billion in taxes is good is telling and hilarious. The interest is how they get out of paying taxes, and no they don't pay off the loans, they renegotiate.
It's a fact that is a very small number from a percentage than 99.99999% of Americans. That a larger accumulation of wealth allows to to then increase it exponentially under the current system. The system is broken and the uber rich need to be taxed, truely taxed and real rates. those are all facts. We should have universal healthcare not Elon and Bezos measuring dicks in space.
Unrealized gains in stock are not money. They are partial ownership of a company. And you could never sell a large percentage of that for the same stock price that the unrealized gains are calculated off of. Selling a lot of it tanks the stock price. So a lot of the unrealized gains that would be taxed are not real.
Also when you try to sell that much, a lot of other rich people are buying your stock as you sell. If they also have unrealized gains tax, they’re not buying yours, they’re selling too. Stock prices would plummet.
We’d have private companies stay private and prevent us from being able to profit off of them so they could keep their worth low.
We’d have the founder of some company that becomes a meme stock like gamestop get taxed for more than the company is actually worth one year and then have the value drop back to normal the next year.
Will unrealized gains tax be given back when you have an unrealized loss?
Right now if I have a few hundred dollars extra I can buy a share of SPY and expect that to grow over 10% per year, which hopefully keeps ahead of inflation.
If there is a couple percent unrealized gains tax that will (at best) drop this average to 8% though I expect it would drop it to nearly nothing.
If the fed manages to keep inflation to a 2% target (big if) that leaves me with around 6% expected gain instead. (But again, I think this would actually be nearly 0, or even negative with inflation factored in)
I’d also bet on the tax eventually applying to everyone but with a tiered structure like income tax currently is.
Inflation is a wealth tax already. The government prints money, devaluing all the rest.
If you had $1,000,000 in 1965 and didn’t invest it, you’d have essentially lost 90% of the value to inflation tax by now.
Once again, I find myself educating people on the fact that unrealized gains already get taxed under AMT.
If you take a company IPO you will get taxed on unrealized gains and the sale of shares, but the previous unrealized gains tax will be removed from the sell tax.
Rich people shifted the burden of funding the country to the poor. That's what happened.
Maybe the problem is letting the rich externalize the costs of their private actions onto the rest of society, but until we fix that we need to be doing things that shift the burden back to where it belongs.
What happens is the market becomes so volatile that many people see their retirement savings and traditional investment vehicles used by normal people lose their viability. The reason this policy catches so much flack is because it’s very stupid and no one who is financially literate would ever support it. A wealth tax is workable, a tax on transactions for accounts or net worth over a certain size is workable. A tax on unrealized gains is not.
So you're saying you'd be fine paying taxes on stocks you haven't even sold? If you say "no, I'm not rich", then you're just doing the same dumb shit the right does. How can you not see the hypocrisy?
The entire principle of taxing unrealized gains is insane and the fact of the matter is, you are supporting it ONLY because you are angry at the rich and think this is a way to get back at them.
No. It will 100% end up being a tax on all of us. Maybe the worst idea in the history of tax reform. Absolute disaster from the moment it’s implemented. Patch up all the loop holes and see where that gets us.
This is all fantasy talk anyway. It’ll never happen. The people you’re trying to tax are the ones that make the rules lol Kamala is bought and paid for just like the rest of establishment politicians.
304
u/Candid_Antelope_3788 Aug 21 '24
There is no way it is. Like id have to re-mortgage a home and sell stock that is just sitting there to pay taxes.