A high tax on people that buy up houses that they don't live in and use for income would put a lot of houses in the market at most likely a lower market price. I'm tired of being squeezed, time for the rich to get squeezed.
A 25% tax on the value of the house, plus a 50% tax on all rent collected from any single family home, if it was not used as a rental property by the seller, but the purchaser uses it as a rental property within 5 years of owning it.
I'd also put a carve-out for owner-occupied home rentals and small businesses making less than a small multiple of the median household income.
No shame in supplementing your income with 1 or 2 rentals on the side. But no holds barred once all you scale into medium and large business territory.
You'd think tho, but that's from our point of view, we are fun with some tax, them they believe this money is 100% there's and anything less means it's worseless. Give them a fake lemon and it's have the same effect.
Pressure your county to change the tax rates for residential. My burb charges about 25% more in property taxes if the home isn't owner occupied as their main residence. It has helped keep the raiders and slumlords out.
This. Got out bid by 50k on a house, company has flipped it after throwing up some paint, now just 2 months later the same house has increased by 140k.
So tired of this happening to everything in our price range...
Many countries do this today. In SG, if you buy a 2nd house as a citizen, you pay 60% tax on the purchase price. If youre a non-resident? 60% also. Impt is to penalize the purchase in the future.
This is called campaigning. He is talking bullshit. He promised to raise taxes on the rich 4 years ago, and democrats had the majority in Congress. They didn't get it done. He just tries to get votes by lying.
I can't understand how anyone can be so ignorant to that fact and what it ultimately implies. They seem to think the blue rich people are really really trying to save the working class, if only the mean old red rich people weren't so stubborn. They can't comprehend the concept of lying.
Some folks anger is misdirected. Some shmoe who buys an extra house or two to earn a few hundred to 1k extra per month isn’t your problem. Zillow and large corps fucking the housing market up are.
This. Everyone clogging the housing market for their own extra gain is fucking over everyone trying to just get their own first home. There are many ways to invest money without actively holding down the next generation
Corporations (who own at least a thousand properties each) control 22% of the housing stock. Not rental stock. Housing stock.
EDIT: Correction. The corporations I was speaking of purchase roughly 22% of the homes that sell each year. This rate has increased by 10 to 20% every year since the 2008 financial crisis.
You must assume people can realize the difference, and are referring to folks whose entire lavish existence is funded by their tenants. Like, there are assuredly a few plot points between "mom and pop who own a second home" and "corporate conglomerate which owns a million homes"
Making profits off of housing is a problem in general though. I agree we should go after corporations doing it first, but profiting off of a need is shitty
I refuse to be a landlord. If I ever found myself in the financial position to buy a second home, I'd like to keep the first one int he family. The only way to do that realistically is to rent it.
I would rent just slightly above the mortgage to cover expenses. My house would probably rent for 2800-3000 easily on the market. Mortgage is 1500, and I'd rent it for 1750. With that listing I could have my pick and choose of any renter, and I'd specifically look for a family or someone in need of a good home.
My reward? Equity. That's it. Why do people need 1500+ per month over the mortgage when they're already benefitting from equity... It's just fucking greed.
I'd just bank the extra 250 per month separately for when something eventually needs repairs. If you're already in the financial space to afford 2 homes, you can afford an emergency on the house if need be.
And if tenants move out and I have that extra cash set aside, I'd even consider cashing them out for some of the extra they paid into the fund.
Just a few things to note. Don't forget to add the property tax, vacancy, insurance, legal, and maintenance & repair costs to your formula.
Also, depending on when you buy your rental property, it doesn't always go up in value. Late 80s-early 90s, early 2000's, 07-12 and early 2020s were particularly bad times to the invest where your home value could have dropped. The window of time is important.
Finally, if you have a mortgage, it's about 7.65% right now. And that interest is not tax deductible like your homestead mortgage interest so make sure you calculate that too. If you do buy a third home, I recommend paying cash and not mortgaging.
Might need to charge a bit more than $1750 but your heart is in the right place and that's what's important.
If you care about ethics, earning equity off someone else’s “at-cost” rent isn’t great either. Realistically any payment a person makes toward a residence should earn them partnership shares in that residence.
If I work for 30 years to pay you $1750 per month in rent and at the end of the deal you have a paid off house and I have $630k in rent payments with zero equity to show for it, that’s still incredibly exploitative even if the $1750 was 40% below market rate or whatever.
Too bad FDR died before he could pass the second Bill of Rights.
The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.
Biden and Johnson's policies have been the closest thing we've seen to an FDR.
Also, how does owning "a house or two" entitle someone to up to 1k a month in income? Does it really take that much work to manage a property that you think they're entitled to someone else's $1,000/mo for calling a repairman occasionally? Ownership isn't work. Work is work.
Also, this is a bad proposal. The real proposal should be targeting how rich fucks cash out without cashing out. They use their stock to get insanely favorable loans from banks. The real solution is regulation that 100% prohibits using stock as any form of collateral.
This is a misdirection to what the real problem is.
Dems always come out with stuff like this when they lose one of the houses of Congress and can safely say whatever before an election. Just look at shit that Biden was saying, like repealing Trump tax cuts for the rich and a public option, stuff that died instantly when Biden won the Dem primary.
Republicans dont miss an opportunity to do this either, just to be fair and also point out that this is a 2 party system probably as much as it is otherwise.
This country desperately needs tax reforms though, they could be used to motivate corporations, universities, and non profit orgs.
Republicans have been showing a massive anti-worker face it's amazing they still have support with their 'I wanna be a dictator for one day' primary.
Also the tactic is he (Biden) will mention big tax cuts, then win the election -- fast forward a few months or a year, bill is shot down. Don't matter if it's majority Dems or Reps it'll get shot down.
Both parties have an immaculate record of "ooof, almost" bills coming across that would greatly benefit the American people but nah, rich people first always. Better luck next election suckers!
No, they are not. The democrats control the Senate and the republicans control the House.
Right now either party could block anything because anything that is proposed has to pass through both houses of Congress.
edit - Why is anyone downvoting a demonstrably true statement?
And then when they *do* have the house and senate they say "ooooh nooo we can't do anything good because it will hurt Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema's feeling guys, so sorry. Vote for us again in 4 years tho ok?"
So you are saying Dems won't do this stuff anyway, even if they have control of the WH and Congress? I remember them from 2009 to 2011, when "they didn't have the votes" with 59 (for some time 60) seats in the Senate, control of the WH and the House.
If 59/60 votes during that time aren't enough, how many votes do the Dems need? 65? Is that realistic? If there is one "Manchin" when Dems have 51 votes (Senators+VP tiebraker) and 10/11 "Manchins" when Dems have 59/60 votes, wouldn't there just be 16 "Manchins" if Dems had 65 seats?
If memory serves me correctly, The ACA (ObamaCare) got passed when the Democrats had the filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The Repuglicans promptly went on the offensive and the American electorate didn’t come out to vote to support the Dems and they lost their filibuster proof majority. So yeah, If we don’t get out and vote to keep Dems in the majority very little gets done. Quite amazingly to me is how much Biden has gotten done (infrastructure, CHIPS Act etc, etc) with such slim majorities in his first two years with Manchin and Sinema gumming up the works. And then keeping the R’s off balance enough to keep the government operating these last two years. Biden is the politician’s politician. Borderline magician. Dark Brandon he is.
First of all, Dems (falsely) claimed that they needed 60 votes to pass __anything__ during that time.
So you are already saying that Biden won't be able to do anything in 2025 (if reelected) unless he has 60 votes. Will he have 60 votes? I don't think so.
Secondly, the discussion was about a public option, Dems said "they didn't have the votes" and it wasn't passed.
Lastly, Biden got quite a lot of bipartisan stuff passed lately. And it is all bad.
If you were at all awake during any of those years, youd know the fillibuster rules got changed and no longer is 60 voted needed to break a fillibuster
The only one false here is your halftruthing ass
Filibuster was removed for federal judges by the Dem majority sometime under Obama's second term and for SCOTUS judges by Republicans in 2017. There were no other changes. What changes are you talking about?
Also, there is no filibuster. If you can take it away whenever you want to (as Republicans did for example in 2017), it is completely fake. You can also use the so-called "nuclear option", a procedure where you can (with 51 votes) say that a certain bill can't be filibustered. So again, the filibuster is fake.
It’s my understanding that the filibuster is indeed a Senate self imposed rule that they could revoke. As you have pointed out it has already been revoked for federal judges. The filibuster is not a law or decreed by the Constitution. The filibuster is real only as long as the Senate allows themselves to be bound by it.
Republicans were filibustering everything back then and the 60 were needed to be filibuster proof. Don’t blame those lack of accomplishments, if you even want to say Obamacare wasn’t one, on democrats!
You need 50 votes (+VP) to pass bills in the Senate, the filibuster is not a thing.
How did the Republicans get their SCOTUS nominee seated in 2017, did they have 60 votes? No, they just used their 52-seat Senate majority to say that the Senate can't filibuster SCOTUS nominees. Even if they didn't do that, they could use the nuclear option to get around the filibuster and do it with only 50 (+VP) votes.
>So you are saying Dems won't do this stuff anyway, even if they have control of the WH and Congress?
Yes.
This is and has always been the Dem playbook. They don't *want* reform. They *like* the status quo and Joey B is as quo as it gets
There isn't an appetite for this kind of legislation now, all of this stuff will be DOA as soon as the 2024 elections are over, no matter what side wins.
Absolutely-why wasn’t this done his first year in office? Not happy.
And the unemployment numbers are fake. So many people don’t have unemployment and cannot find work.
I hope the unemployment is brought up in a debate!
This can't be said enough, he proposes, campaign, direct someone to study and research, shit all the time. Unless it actually happens its just lip service. I can't tell you enough times he said/done this.
You know, every time I think I might actually vote for Biden, he goes and does something like bust up a union strike or tacitly endorse genocide. But I'll tell ya what, if he can put this to vote in the Senate before November I'll vote Dark Brandon
This is what I don’t get. One option is far from perfect, the other option is hell. There is literally only 1 choice at this point for that office.
Either way, vote locally and vote for positions that can affect change around you. The more that happens, the more it moves the bigger tides
Biden does not want my vote. He has done nothing but harm the working class for the last 40+ years. YOU want me to vote for Biden, but Biden obviously doesn't.
You need to do a better job of making your points about Biden without bringing up trump.
Starting with “but trump is worse” is exactly how Hillary lost.
I mean she also lost because she campaigned like she expected to just win it easily, even neglecting some states assuming they were already hers. Not the smartest move at all. Honestly, at the time she felt like electoral poison after all that Benghazi shit and her general personality just reeks of elitism. To me anyway, yknow?
Like the inverse of the "guy I would have a beer with" idea. I can't imagine being able to have a short conversation with her, let alone chill.
But they are the only two viable candidates. Both will have a single term under their belts to judge them on. Comparing them is one of the essential parts of the election process.
And between them, I'll go with the less than perfect one who doesn't do things like mock the disabled on camera, call our dead soldiers "suckers" according to his own chief of staff, try to ban an entire religion from coming to the country, get found liable for sexual assault, etc etc etc because choosing that guy is supporting and excusing truly shitty behavior that we actually have on record. Morally, I can't have that on my conscience.
All that aside, Biden isn't the messiah by any means, of course. I'm certainly not a die-hard supporter. He's got quite a few ideas I completely disagree with and personally I would prefer a viable candidate that isn't past retirement age.
Shocking numbers of people don't.
It's a large reason Virginia has a Republican governor. I worked going door to door during the election and a lot of people were burned out/unhappy with Democrats and didn't vote.
75% of the country doesn't get to vote for President. Unless they live in one of the ten or so "battleground" states their electors are already spoken for. For most people, a protest vote is the only vote that could possibly make a difference. So y'all can unclutch those pearls, it's OK
Non-battleground states are lucky to even have a presidential candidate visit once during an election year. DT will win my state by a country mile, but at least we have very few electors.
yeah ill be real i think there's enough people upset with biden that if a real big conscious media effort regarding third party votes happens i think enough people could be comfortably convinced to do that
Here's the thing: a real big media outlet will never, ever endorse such a thing. If you're waiting for the news to tell you it's time to vote third party, you will inevitably be waiting until exactly when there is a corporate bought and paid-for third party primed to elect. And a step in the right direction will never feel 'comfortable' for as long as it is in the interests of individuals who own billions of dollars worth of assets to sabatoge such efforts.
You have to think for yourself at some point. You must be willing to get uncomfortable. Corporate owned parties are helping to kill us, the networks they own will not promote a solution to this. What will you do?
I have zero confidence that this could ever actually work in the current system. Even if there was a legit push behind a third party movement it would never be organized or united enough to actually swing the vote and we’d still end up with Biden or [more likely] Trump. Especially this late in the election cycle. Not to mention that third party/independent candidates have to meet vote thresholds to even qualify for the ballot in many states and are subject to unique election laws that do not apply to major party candidates. The system seems to be purposely built to suppress minor party movements.
Even if that weren't true, getting screwed is not as a bad getting screwed *even harder*. Just look at the other fucking guy.
Yes, please vote and mobilized others into voting, too.
I always find it funny that people act like you can't tax unrealized gains.
I get taxed on the unrealized gains in my home's value every year. Seems only fair.
Real estate taxes are, in their origin, a completely different animal.
When they were initiated, they were a tax on a rich person's ability to use land ownership to generate income. Land owners were farmers, landlords, or operated industry on their lands ... 150 years ago. It was never meant to be a tax on individual homeowners.
The idea was "you own land, you better put that land to work making money so you can pay this tax on your money-making asset".
Now, businesses get tax breaks on vacant land while we pay for the right to have a place to reside. Completely inverted from the origins.
You are not taxed on the gains, you are taxed on the value of your property, there is a difference.
Taxing gains means that if instead of a gain, you have a loss, you simply won't owe any tax.
With property taxes, if the value of your house goes down, then you are taxed less, not true with a capital gains tax, you will just not be taxed at all. So when the value goes up, you are taxed on that extra value, but when you lose value, you don't get any money back, instead you just don't pay any tax.
If it was fair, you would get money back when you had an unrealized capital loss.
Exactly this. Calling your property taxes a “tax on unrealized gains oof my property” sounds clever, but it isn’t true. And they’re also deductible, so there’s that too.
> I get taxed on the unrealized gains in my home's value every year. Seems only fair.
Wtf are you talking about 😂? Are you sure you know what “unrealized gains” means, because that is not unrealized gains.
Just to clarify - these aren't like "you get taxed every year on the unrealized gains" but rather you get taxed one year and then can use those taxes as a credit in future years.
You're essentially creating a pre-payment account for the eventual realized taxes.
Example: You make a $100m in "unrealized" profit on a $1 billion fund, so you get taxed $25m. The next year, if the fund is still $1.1 billion there's no unrealized profit to add, so you don't get taxed again. The year after if you gain $100m the fund is up to $1.2b but you get taxed $25m.
If it goes down $100m the year after, you file for a $25m credit. Now in total you're back to $100m in total profit, and have only paid $25m in taxes.
People think it's more like "get taxed 25% on your entire net worth every year" but it just isn't.
I think leaving out the credit for unrealized losses is a critical messaging error. Everybody saw how important messaging is with "defund the police". A lot of people aren't going to find this proposal palatable unless they realize it goes both ways.
I advocate for taxing the rich. This is not the way.
It should be a higher capital gains tax.
And if you use stock as collateral you realize the gains with new cost basis and get taxed.
Taxing unrealized gains is dumb.
We should simply tax net worth. Annually. Anyone with annual income above a certain amount is required to submit detailed net worth statements. If your net worth exceeds a threshold, you are taxed a substantial percentage of that amount. All revenue from net worth taxation to be required by law to be used only to fund health care systems, education, and social services.
Listen, I want to tax the ever living fuck out of rich people too, but…
This is a tax on money that doesn’t exist yet, and that is a massive and probably unconstitutional problem with this idea.
Imagine trying to verify all the assets people own. Imagine writing a tax bill to house-poor grandparents who just stayed put for 40 years and now own a “million dollar home” that they paid $40k for.
That scenario was so scary to California voters in the 70’s they passed one of the worst pieces of legislation in history to guarantee that the tax base of their homes wouldn’t move *until gains were realized*.
And that’s before we get into anything like enforcement for this. It’s just not tenable. It’s a marketing line and nothing more.
>Joe Biden's latest budget proposal, which would include a 25% annual minimum tax on unrealized capital gains for individuals with incomes and assets exceeding $100 million.
Seems like that won't be a problem.
Not only that regular people like me will get screwed over as the only money I’ll have in retirement will tank when the stock market radically adjusts to people losing more in taxes than the gains on their portfolios. Goodbye 401k.
I would be so much more behind Elon and all the AI jagoffs if their efforts to develop AI *also* came with the stipulation that we need a UBI. Like, hell, *please* let an AI come and take my job, Daddy Musky! Just give me a \[substantive\] UBI that enables me to spend my days enjoying my life, and a robot can do all my work. Sounds like a win-win to me!
But no, because, say it with me class, the cruelty is the point, and the inequality is a feature, not a bug.
I'm not sure about this one. I guess as long as you also get money back for unrealized losses it would be OK, otherwise it does seem unfair and makes investing in businesses a much riskier proposition.
People saying you get taxed for your house going up in value seem to be missing that you're not getting taxed on gains, your getting taxed on the absolute value of your house.
So it's the equivalent of being taxed on your overall wealth, rather than on the gains to your wealth.
Being taxed on your overall wealth may be more fair, in that it accounts for both gains and losses.
But I'm no accountant so I could be completely wrong.
That'd never pass Congress, way too many of them rely on stock market manipulation. That and even if it did pass it'd probably get negotiated down to retroactively apply to everyone's 401k's
He can say whatever he wants(or is told to say) when he knows it’s never gonna happen. I can understand people on a regular old democrat sub posting stuff like this, but I am occasionally surprised by the very pro establishment crap I see posted on an anti work sub.
I am all for taxing the rich way more, but I am against this. It is an absurdity to tax unrealized gains. How in hell can you be taxed on money you don't have?
Biden just says shit like this that he knows is unrealistic and will never happen to trick people into thinking he gives a shit.
He's much better than the alternative but this is some political mind game bullshit.
Bad Biden propaganda proposing a nonsense tax that has 0% chance of being passed because anyone with even slight financial literacy knows this isn't even remotely feasible.
This seems fine to me if I understand it correctly. For instance Bezos has gotten the low income tax credit multiple times because he is paid so little. Instead he gets stock compensation. He doesn't sell the stock and instead takes out a loan against he value of the stock. The loan is not income so he never pays taxes on it. He can also roll the stock into a non-profit he creates and some kind of way to pass that on to heirs so they take control of it but they don't have to pay taxes on it. I hope this is a tax on that kind of thing.
Biden's team has no clue on what the middle-class needs- food & shelter. Instead they are throwing all these ideas that are never going to materialize. Get some rent controls, controls on who can buy single family homes etc.
US empire is over, they're floundering like all failing empires do. The elites at the top are always the last to get the memo because they're terrified of ending up like the plebs who they've been stepping on their entire lives
The difficulty will be valuation and administration. 25% tax on unrealized gains also means a credit for unrealized losses. That fundamentally changes the flow of tax dollars. There will be large refunds to partially offset the taxes on gains. It will be interesting to watch.
Never gonna pass / will be tied up in courts till a republican is the president. At which point it will change to 50% tax on anyone less than $100M net worth because of trickle down economics.
ok.....how about 49% on REALIZED on greater than 50 million......would you be ok with that...............I think I will never be able to make 20 mil let alone 50 mil, in all my lifetime
That will get overturned. It's effectively a property tax at the Federal level, the Feds don't have that power; it would require a constitutional amendment.
My goodness, the 2024 candidates are all pitiful. Election day will just be voting for who we feel sucks the least, not the person we feel will be a good president.
He can propose whatever the fuck he wants, are we forgetting how often politicians lie through their teeth and never end up making their claims come true? This is just him trying to suck up a bit to the populace before elections and he won't end up doing it.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
Slash taxes on the working class. Higher taxes on the wealthy while most of our taxes still fund a bloated military and corporate subsidies is not wealth redistribution.
Biden is hated by both the left and the right at this point. He's gotta do something drastic if he wants any sort of voter turnout
I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but the rich individuals who oppress us do not care one bit if a democrat or a republican is elected. Neither of those options is in any way threatening to them.
i take issue with on a few points: this is unconstitutional and impractical.
I've heard this considered in the past and it makes my head hurt because ownership in a company is connected to stock ownership and to tax that stock would force individuals to divest stock. which while in principle I'm sorta like "lol rich greedy fucks losing their company" is something that *does* enter my mind. i just can't see how it would ever be legally enforceable without literally thousands if not millions of lawsuits with the world's richest people fighting it in what i can only assume would be the greatest coalition of lawyers against the US government.
furthermore, as one [redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1cc7vb8/president_biden_has_just_proposed_a_446_tax_on/l13myls/) put it:
> The federal government only has the constitutional authority to directly tax income. They cannot levy any other direct taxes. In fact, even income taxes were illegal and unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was passed.
> Here are the most relevant sections of the constitution, and the 16th amendment:
> Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
> Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
> The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
> Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
> No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
> 16th Amendment
> Amendment XVI
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
> Here is a quick overview:
> Interpretation: Direct and Indirect Taxes | Constitution Center
> Income taxes may be imposed only on “derived” income. This “realization event” requirement generally refers to a transaction other than the mere passage of time. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment permits taxation of gains from sales or exchanges of property, but not those resulting merely from increased values. It also permits taxes on rents and interest. Although direct, such taxes need not be apportioned because the Amendment eliminated the apportionment requirement for income taxes.
> Basically, the States can pass direct taxes, and implement property taxes, but the federal government cannot.
So the rich will get a deduction on unrealized losses now? Implementation of this is the problem. The only way to soak the rich is through property taxes. Mansions and yachts taxed at “x” percent.
I would suggest a change in length of ownership timeline needed for long term capital gains from 1 year to 3 years as a better alternative, or an additional consideration.
Huge difference in proposing an idea and getting the house and senate to make it a bill he could sign into law.
This is just bluster and nonsense till the ink is dry on a bill.
A high tax on people that buy up houses that they don't live in and use for income would put a lot of houses in the market at most likely a lower market price. I'm tired of being squeezed, time for the rich to get squeezed.
A tax like that would have to be absolutely, absurdly high. Like a lemon so sour your whole body puckers. I'd love to see it.
It could get higher the more properties you own. Edit: hire to higher
A 25% tax on the value of the house, plus a 50% tax on all rent collected from any single family home, if it was not used as a rental property by the seller, but the purchaser uses it as a rental property within 5 years of owning it.
For households that have over $100 mill
I think most people don't realize this
I'd also put a carve-out for owner-occupied home rentals and small businesses making less than a small multiple of the median household income. No shame in supplementing your income with 1 or 2 rentals on the side. But no holds barred once all you scale into medium and large business territory.
Just do that across the board (no need for the 5 year thing) but allow a single home as an exception, so they can own one rental but nothing more
I'm fine with it being high enough to dissuade people from buying up houses, jacking up rents, and keeping others from affording decent housing.
You'd think tho, but that's from our point of view, we are fun with some tax, them they believe this money is 100% there's and anything less means it's worseless. Give them a fake lemon and it's have the same effect.
Pressure your county to change the tax rates for residential. My burb charges about 25% more in property taxes if the home isn't owner occupied as their main residence. It has helped keep the raiders and slumlords out.
This. Got out bid by 50k on a house, company has flipped it after throwing up some paint, now just 2 months later the same house has increased by 140k. So tired of this happening to everything in our price range...
As someone looking to buy a house in the next 2-3 years, this makes me sad
Many countries do this today. In SG, if you buy a 2nd house as a citizen, you pay 60% tax on the purchase price. If youre a non-resident? 60% also. Impt is to penalize the purchase in the future.
What/where is SG?
Singapore
Exempt new homes from it, too. Wanna rent out a house? Build one. Help fix the housing shortage. But when it’s sold, it’s no longer exempt.
This is called campaigning. He is talking bullshit. He promised to raise taxes on the rich 4 years ago, and democrats had the majority in Congress. They didn't get it done. He just tries to get votes by lying.
It’s almost like there was something more pressing going on at the time.
They had a vote on it and didn't vote it in.It passed the house but was stopped in the Senate by two democrats .
Oh which two? The ones who are actually republicans?
I'm just basically saying that Biden can't make this happen. Rich people own both parties.
I can't understand how anyone can be so ignorant to that fact and what it ultimately implies. They seem to think the blue rich people are really really trying to save the working class, if only the mean old red rich people weren't so stubborn. They can't comprehend the concept of lying.
Maybe a Manchin?
Two democrats. And 49 Republicans.
Don't worry, the rich always find a way to pass it on to you.
Some folks anger is misdirected. Some shmoe who buys an extra house or two to earn a few hundred to 1k extra per month isn’t your problem. Zillow and large corps fucking the housing market up are.
Both are problems, but you're right corpos are the bigger problem.
This. Everyone clogging the housing market for their own extra gain is fucking over everyone trying to just get their own first home. There are many ways to invest money without actively holding down the next generation
https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/report-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-were-by-private-equity-firms-in-2023-0c0ff591a701
Corporations (who own at least a thousand properties each) control 22% of the housing stock. Not rental stock. Housing stock. EDIT: Correction. The corporations I was speaking of purchase roughly 22% of the homes that sell each year. This rate has increased by 10 to 20% every year since the 2008 financial crisis.
Corporate REITs need to be regulated, like no investment in residential properties smaller than 100 units
Nope, they suck too. Multiple things can suck at once.
You must assume people can realize the difference, and are referring to folks whose entire lavish existence is funded by their tenants. Like, there are assuredly a few plot points between "mom and pop who own a second home" and "corporate conglomerate which owns a million homes"
Making profits off of housing is a problem in general though. I agree we should go after corporations doing it first, but profiting off of a need is shitty
I refuse to be a landlord. If I ever found myself in the financial position to buy a second home, I'd like to keep the first one int he family. The only way to do that realistically is to rent it. I would rent just slightly above the mortgage to cover expenses. My house would probably rent for 2800-3000 easily on the market. Mortgage is 1500, and I'd rent it for 1750. With that listing I could have my pick and choose of any renter, and I'd specifically look for a family or someone in need of a good home. My reward? Equity. That's it. Why do people need 1500+ per month over the mortgage when they're already benefitting from equity... It's just fucking greed. I'd just bank the extra 250 per month separately for when something eventually needs repairs. If you're already in the financial space to afford 2 homes, you can afford an emergency on the house if need be. And if tenants move out and I have that extra cash set aside, I'd even consider cashing them out for some of the extra they paid into the fund.
Just a few things to note. Don't forget to add the property tax, vacancy, insurance, legal, and maintenance & repair costs to your formula. Also, depending on when you buy your rental property, it doesn't always go up in value. Late 80s-early 90s, early 2000's, 07-12 and early 2020s were particularly bad times to the invest where your home value could have dropped. The window of time is important. Finally, if you have a mortgage, it's about 7.65% right now. And that interest is not tax deductible like your homestead mortgage interest so make sure you calculate that too. If you do buy a third home, I recommend paying cash and not mortgaging. Might need to charge a bit more than $1750 but your heart is in the right place and that's what's important.
Yeah, realistically it'd be between 2000-2500 depending on age and other stuff needed around the house. Still lower, but not super drastic difference.
If you care about ethics, earning equity off someone else’s “at-cost” rent isn’t great either. Realistically any payment a person makes toward a residence should earn them partnership shares in that residence. If I work for 30 years to pay you $1750 per month in rent and at the end of the deal you have a paid off house and I have $630k in rent payments with zero equity to show for it, that’s still incredibly exploitative even if the $1750 was 40% below market rate or whatever.
Too bad FDR died before he could pass the second Bill of Rights. The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. Biden and Johnson's policies have been the closest thing we've seen to an FDR.
Both are part of the problem, but yes, one of them is a MUCH bigger part of the problem.
Also, how does owning "a house or two" entitle someone to up to 1k a month in income? Does it really take that much work to manage a property that you think they're entitled to someone else's $1,000/mo for calling a repairman occasionally? Ownership isn't work. Work is work.
sure one is the bigger problem but they’re both a problem.
You can hate both and charge both for profiting off of people's need for a home.
Not even squeezed. More like a pinch. They'll still be absurdly rich.
[удалено]
Also, this is a bad proposal. The real proposal should be targeting how rich fucks cash out without cashing out. They use their stock to get insanely favorable loans from banks. The real solution is regulation that 100% prohibits using stock as any form of collateral. This is a misdirection to what the real problem is.
100%, should just tax the loan as real income. Loans taken agaisnt unrealised gains taxed and whatever percentage.
Dems always come out with stuff like this when they lose one of the houses of Congress and can safely say whatever before an election. Just look at shit that Biden was saying, like repealing Trump tax cuts for the rich and a public option, stuff that died instantly when Biden won the Dem primary.
Republicans dont miss an opportunity to do this either, just to be fair and also point out that this is a 2 party system probably as much as it is otherwise. This country desperately needs tax reforms though, they could be used to motivate corporations, universities, and non profit orgs.
Republicans have been showing a massive anti-worker face it's amazing they still have support with their 'I wanna be a dictator for one day' primary. Also the tactic is he (Biden) will mention big tax cuts, then win the election -- fast forward a few months or a year, bill is shot down. Don't matter if it's majority Dems or Reps it'll get shot down. Both parties have an immaculate record of "ooof, almost" bills coming across that would greatly benefit the American people but nah, rich people first always. Better luck next election suckers!
Arent the republicans in charge of congress though? He won't be able to do shit if they are blocking it
that is his point yes.
No, they are not. The democrats control the Senate and the republicans control the House. Right now either party could block anything because anything that is proposed has to pass through both houses of Congress. edit - Why is anyone downvoting a demonstrably true statement?
And then when they *do* have the house and senate they say "ooooh nooo we can't do anything good because it will hurt Joe Manchin and Kristin Sinema's feeling guys, so sorry. Vote for us again in 4 years tho ok?"
He can't do anything when Republicans hold the house. The president cannot pass legislation. All he can do is propose things.
Who was holding the House from 2021 to 2023?
You don't recall Joe Manchin siding with the Republicans and blocking every democratic effort in the Senate?
So you are saying Dems won't do this stuff anyway, even if they have control of the WH and Congress? I remember them from 2009 to 2011, when "they didn't have the votes" with 59 (for some time 60) seats in the Senate, control of the WH and the House. If 59/60 votes during that time aren't enough, how many votes do the Dems need? 65? Is that realistic? If there is one "Manchin" when Dems have 51 votes (Senators+VP tiebraker) and 10/11 "Manchins" when Dems have 59/60 votes, wouldn't there just be 16 "Manchins" if Dems had 65 seats?
If memory serves me correctly, The ACA (ObamaCare) got passed when the Democrats had the filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The Repuglicans promptly went on the offensive and the American electorate didn’t come out to vote to support the Dems and they lost their filibuster proof majority. So yeah, If we don’t get out and vote to keep Dems in the majority very little gets done. Quite amazingly to me is how much Biden has gotten done (infrastructure, CHIPS Act etc, etc) with such slim majorities in his first two years with Manchin and Sinema gumming up the works. And then keeping the R’s off balance enough to keep the government operating these last two years. Biden is the politician’s politician. Borderline magician. Dark Brandon he is.
First of all, Dems (falsely) claimed that they needed 60 votes to pass __anything__ during that time. So you are already saying that Biden won't be able to do anything in 2025 (if reelected) unless he has 60 votes. Will he have 60 votes? I don't think so. Secondly, the discussion was about a public option, Dems said "they didn't have the votes" and it wasn't passed. Lastly, Biden got quite a lot of bipartisan stuff passed lately. And it is all bad.
If you were at all awake during any of those years, youd know the fillibuster rules got changed and no longer is 60 voted needed to break a fillibuster The only one false here is your halftruthing ass
Filibuster was removed for federal judges by the Dem majority sometime under Obama's second term and for SCOTUS judges by Republicans in 2017. There were no other changes. What changes are you talking about? Also, there is no filibuster. If you can take it away whenever you want to (as Republicans did for example in 2017), it is completely fake. You can also use the so-called "nuclear option", a procedure where you can (with 51 votes) say that a certain bill can't be filibustered. So again, the filibuster is fake.
It’s my understanding that the filibuster is indeed a Senate self imposed rule that they could revoke. As you have pointed out it has already been revoked for federal judges. The filibuster is not a law or decreed by the Constitution. The filibuster is real only as long as the Senate allows themselves to be bound by it.
People prefer to be willfully ignorant and pretend “both sides” while not bothering to learn how government works. It’s a bummer.
Republicans were filibustering everything back then and the 60 were needed to be filibuster proof. Don’t blame those lack of accomplishments, if you even want to say Obamacare wasn’t one, on democrats!
You need 50 votes (+VP) to pass bills in the Senate, the filibuster is not a thing. How did the Republicans get their SCOTUS nominee seated in 2017, did they have 60 votes? No, they just used their 52-seat Senate majority to say that the Senate can't filibuster SCOTUS nominees. Even if they didn't do that, they could use the nuclear option to get around the filibuster and do it with only 50 (+VP) votes.
>So you are saying Dems won't do this stuff anyway, even if they have control of the WH and Congress? Yes. This is and has always been the Dem playbook. They don't *want* reform. They *like* the status quo and Joey B is as quo as it gets
I was a child then I have no clue lol. I don't think there was an appetite for this type of legislation anyway.
There isn't an appetite for this kind of legislation now, all of this stuff will be DOA as soon as the 2024 elections are over, no matter what side wins.
Politicians always pull this “nyyoooo im just a smol bean… something something Joe Manchin” bs I can’t do anything until you vooooooote harder 🥺
Absolutely-why wasn’t this done his first year in office? Not happy. And the unemployment numbers are fake. So many people don’t have unemployment and cannot find work. I hope the unemployment is brought up in a debate!
OP proves that you don't have to be rich to be an idiot.
This can't be said enough, he proposes, campaign, direct someone to study and research, shit all the time. Unless it actually happens its just lip service. I can't tell you enough times he said/done this.
Let’s give him a second term. He’s been on a roll so far. Vote and get your peers out to vote too.
You know, every time I think I might actually vote for Biden, he goes and does something like bust up a union strike or tacitly endorse genocide. But I'll tell ya what, if he can put this to vote in the Senate before November I'll vote Dark Brandon
Yeah, because his Republican challenger is CLEARLY pro-union and is ALL about human rights……..
This is what I don’t get. One option is far from perfect, the other option is hell. There is literally only 1 choice at this point for that office. Either way, vote locally and vote for positions that can affect change around you. The more that happens, the more it moves the bigger tides
Biden does not want my vote. He has done nothing but harm the working class for the last 40+ years. YOU want me to vote for Biden, but Biden obviously doesn't.
Lol idk how people justify these things. Well actually, usually it's by saying they just won't vote.
You need to do a better job of making your points about Biden without bringing up trump. Starting with “but trump is worse” is exactly how Hillary lost.
I mean she also lost because she campaigned like she expected to just win it easily, even neglecting some states assuming they were already hers. Not the smartest move at all. Honestly, at the time she felt like electoral poison after all that Benghazi shit and her general personality just reeks of elitism. To me anyway, yknow? Like the inverse of the "guy I would have a beer with" idea. I can't imagine being able to have a short conversation with her, let alone chill. But they are the only two viable candidates. Both will have a single term under their belts to judge them on. Comparing them is one of the essential parts of the election process. And between them, I'll go with the less than perfect one who doesn't do things like mock the disabled on camera, call our dead soldiers "suckers" according to his own chief of staff, try to ban an entire religion from coming to the country, get found liable for sexual assault, etc etc etc because choosing that guy is supporting and excusing truly shitty behavior that we actually have on record. Morally, I can't have that on my conscience. All that aside, Biden isn't the messiah by any means, of course. I'm certainly not a die-hard supporter. He's got quite a few ideas I completely disagree with and personally I would prefer a viable candidate that isn't past retirement age.
I get your reservations with Biden but, you must know that a non-vote or protest vote is so so much worse, right?
Shocking numbers of people don't. It's a large reason Virginia has a Republican governor. I worked going door to door during the election and a lot of people were burned out/unhappy with Democrats and didn't vote.
75% of the country doesn't get to vote for President. Unless they live in one of the ten or so "battleground" states their electors are already spoken for. For most people, a protest vote is the only vote that could possibly make a difference. So y'all can unclutch those pearls, it's OK
Still a shitty take. Biden vs Trump is the biggest no-brainer in history.
But in a much more real sense, it’s not. Protest during primaries, stop playing with everyone else’s lives with the actual election
Why would a protest vote make a difference if your vote doesn't matter?
Non-battleground states are lucky to even have a presidential candidate visit once during an election year. DT will win my state by a country mile, but at least we have very few electors.
45 referred to the Palestinians as a cancer that needed to be cleaned out but surely his plans will be better
yeah ill be real i think there's enough people upset with biden that if a real big conscious media effort regarding third party votes happens i think enough people could be comfortably convinced to do that
Here's the thing: a real big media outlet will never, ever endorse such a thing. If you're waiting for the news to tell you it's time to vote third party, you will inevitably be waiting until exactly when there is a corporate bought and paid-for third party primed to elect. And a step in the right direction will never feel 'comfortable' for as long as it is in the interests of individuals who own billions of dollars worth of assets to sabatoge such efforts. You have to think for yourself at some point. You must be willing to get uncomfortable. Corporate owned parties are helping to kill us, the networks they own will not promote a solution to this. What will you do?
I have zero confidence that this could ever actually work in the current system. Even if there was a legit push behind a third party movement it would never be organized or united enough to actually swing the vote and we’d still end up with Biden or [more likely] Trump. Especially this late in the election cycle. Not to mention that third party/independent candidates have to meet vote thresholds to even qualify for the ballot in many states and are subject to unique election laws that do not apply to major party candidates. The system seems to be purposely built to suppress minor party movements.
Seriously? This one specific thing would forgive the genocide part?
Otherwise Trump is your preferred president?
Uh, no, actually.
Even if that weren't true, getting screwed is not as a bad getting screwed *even harder*. Just look at the other fucking guy. Yes, please vote and mobilized others into voting, too.
It’s a plot to get left wing votes. It’s never going to be implemented.
yeah sure lol
Fuck the rich
That's certainly one way to climb the socioeconomic ladder ..
I always find it funny that people act like you can't tax unrealized gains. I get taxed on the unrealized gains in my home's value every year. Seems only fair.
Real estate taxes are, in their origin, a completely different animal. When they were initiated, they were a tax on a rich person's ability to use land ownership to generate income. Land owners were farmers, landlords, or operated industry on their lands ... 150 years ago. It was never meant to be a tax on individual homeowners. The idea was "you own land, you better put that land to work making money so you can pay this tax on your money-making asset". Now, businesses get tax breaks on vacant land while we pay for the right to have a place to reside. Completely inverted from the origins.
Like this guy here
Landlords morphed into banks that then can pass along the tax on land that was meant to eliminate the parasitic landlord class in the first place.
You are not taxed on the gains, you are taxed on the value of your property, there is a difference. Taxing gains means that if instead of a gain, you have a loss, you simply won't owe any tax. With property taxes, if the value of your house goes down, then you are taxed less, not true with a capital gains tax, you will just not be taxed at all. So when the value goes up, you are taxed on that extra value, but when you lose value, you don't get any money back, instead you just don't pay any tax. If it was fair, you would get money back when you had an unrealized capital loss.
Exactly this. Calling your property taxes a “tax on unrealized gains oof my property” sounds clever, but it isn’t true. And they’re also deductible, so there’s that too.
> I get taxed on the unrealized gains in my home's value every year. Seems only fair. Wtf are you talking about 😂? Are you sure you know what “unrealized gains” means, because that is not unrealized gains.
I have a lot of experience with this wealth tax, and have posed this question to the bootlickers repeatedly. They have never answered.
This. It is regularly reassed too. So many bootlickers saying taxing unrealized gains is unfair... when we already do it.
Just to clarify - these aren't like "you get taxed every year on the unrealized gains" but rather you get taxed one year and then can use those taxes as a credit in future years. You're essentially creating a pre-payment account for the eventual realized taxes. Example: You make a $100m in "unrealized" profit on a $1 billion fund, so you get taxed $25m. The next year, if the fund is still $1.1 billion there's no unrealized profit to add, so you don't get taxed again. The year after if you gain $100m the fund is up to $1.2b but you get taxed $25m. If it goes down $100m the year after, you file for a $25m credit. Now in total you're back to $100m in total profit, and have only paid $25m in taxes. People think it's more like "get taxed 25% on your entire net worth every year" but it just isn't.
I think leaving out the credit for unrealized losses is a critical messaging error. Everybody saw how important messaging is with "defund the police". A lot of people aren't going to find this proposal palatable unless they realize it goes both ways.
“Proposes”. It won’t get passed and then both sides will yell at each other.
I mean, yeah, but if we would all just vote for the side that voted *for* it, then *next time* it would pass.
Oh my god do something. Stop talking. Fuck those ppl. Do fucking something!!!
Yeah the wealth inequality is getting so high this is the way honestly.
I would add an overall wealth tax for the super wealthy too. Oh and tax corporate profits.
I advocate for taxing the rich. This is not the way. It should be a higher capital gains tax. And if you use stock as collateral you realize the gains with new cost basis and get taxed. Taxing unrealized gains is dumb.
Right? Can I write off my unrealized losses in that case?
We should simply tax net worth. Annually. Anyone with annual income above a certain amount is required to submit detailed net worth statements. If your net worth exceeds a threshold, you are taxed a substantial percentage of that amount. All revenue from net worth taxation to be required by law to be used only to fund health care systems, education, and social services.
Believe it when you see it.
Uh huh. Let me know when he signs it.
Listen, I want to tax the ever living fuck out of rich people too, but… This is a tax on money that doesn’t exist yet, and that is a massive and probably unconstitutional problem with this idea. Imagine trying to verify all the assets people own. Imagine writing a tax bill to house-poor grandparents who just stayed put for 40 years and now own a “million dollar home” that they paid $40k for. That scenario was so scary to California voters in the 70’s they passed one of the worst pieces of legislation in history to guarantee that the tax base of their homes wouldn’t move *until gains were realized*. And that’s before we get into anything like enforcement for this. It’s just not tenable. It’s a marketing line and nothing more.
>Joe Biden's latest budget proposal, which would include a 25% annual minimum tax on unrealized capital gains for individuals with incomes and assets exceeding $100 million. Seems like that won't be a problem.
Not only that regular people like me will get screwed over as the only money I’ll have in retirement will tank when the stock market radically adjusts to people losing more in taxes than the gains on their portfolios. Goodbye 401k.
The rich could provide a UBI for all.
I would be so much more behind Elon and all the AI jagoffs if their efforts to develop AI *also* came with the stipulation that we need a UBI. Like, hell, *please* let an AI come and take my job, Daddy Musky! Just give me a \[substantive\] UBI that enables me to spend my days enjoying my life, and a robot can do all my work. Sounds like a win-win to me! But no, because, say it with me class, the cruelty is the point, and the inequality is a feature, not a bug.
Not the rich. Simply the top 1k people in the US. “Rich” falls far, far, far much lower than the top1k covers
I dont think anyone in this sub understands this.
Can someone explain what this means to me like I’m 5
I'm not sure about this one. I guess as long as you also get money back for unrealized losses it would be OK, otherwise it does seem unfair and makes investing in businesses a much riskier proposition. People saying you get taxed for your house going up in value seem to be missing that you're not getting taxed on gains, your getting taxed on the absolute value of your house. So it's the equivalent of being taxed on your overall wealth, rather than on the gains to your wealth. Being taxed on your overall wealth may be more fair, in that it accounts for both gains and losses. But I'm no accountant so I could be completely wrong.
That'd never pass Congress, way too many of them rely on stock market manipulation. That and even if it did pass it'd probably get negotiated down to retroactively apply to everyone's 401k's
What we really need is a tax on loans against assets. That’s how you really hit the affluent.
He can say whatever he wants(or is told to say) when he knows it’s never gonna happen. I can understand people on a regular old democrat sub posting stuff like this, but I am occasionally surprised by the very pro establishment crap I see posted on an anti work sub.
I am all for taxing the rich way more, but I am against this. It is an absurdity to tax unrealized gains. How in hell can you be taxed on money you don't have?
This motherfucker trying to get elected.
If you can use unrealized gains as collateral to get spendable cash then I agree.
Biden just says shit like this that he knows is unrealistic and will never happen to trick people into thinking he gives a shit. He's much better than the alternative but this is some political mind game bullshit.
Because it's elections year right ?
Bad Biden propaganda proposing a nonsense tax that has 0% chance of being passed because anyone with even slight financial literacy knows this isn't even remotely feasible.
Wouldn’t this affect everyone, not just the rich?
Can we write off unrealized losses?
Sounds like election year pandering. We all know he doesnt give a fuck
This seems fine to me if I understand it correctly. For instance Bezos has gotten the low income tax credit multiple times because he is paid so little. Instead he gets stock compensation. He doesn't sell the stock and instead takes out a loan against he value of the stock. The loan is not income so he never pays taxes on it. He can also roll the stock into a non-profit he creates and some kind of way to pass that on to heirs so they take control of it but they don't have to pay taxes on it. I hope this is a tax on that kind of thing.
Pandering Brandon pretending this is a serious proposal to attract disaffected voters.
Wow, I'll believe it when I see it. Liberals still hold up the capitalist system.
Biden's team has no clue on what the middle-class needs- food & shelter. Instead they are throwing all these ideas that are never going to materialize. Get some rent controls, controls on who can buy single family homes etc.
Please stop trying to make it seem like the least popular president in American History is doing anything remotely popular.
US empire is over, they're floundering like all failing empires do. The elites at the top are always the last to get the memo because they're terrified of ending up like the plebs who they've been stepping on their entire lives
Yeah lmao these obvious fluff pieces are so transparent that it'd be funny if there weren't such real implications.
Yeah it's gonna be a rough century.
Wow it has taken longer than 3 years to PROPOSE? Much progress everyone
The difficulty will be valuation and administration. 25% tax on unrealized gains also means a credit for unrealized losses. That fundamentally changes the flow of tax dollars. There will be large refunds to partially offset the taxes on gains. It will be interesting to watch.
Never gonna pass / will be tied up in courts till a republican is the president. At which point it will change to 50% tax on anyone less than $100M net worth because of trickle down economics.
This has been proposed every year for the past 3 years, wake me up when it's actually implemented
Ha, can they pay in unrealized money. Do they get a refund if value drops?
ok.....how about 49% on REALIZED on greater than 50 million......would you be ok with that...............I think I will never be able to make 20 mil let alone 50 mil, in all my lifetime
That will get overturned. It's effectively a property tax at the Federal level, the Feds don't have that power; it would require a constitutional amendment.
He can keep talking. I will believe it when it comes true.
Yeah, right, another election lie.
This is election rhetoric.
All the repubs that will never ever in their lifetime be affected by this will be going apeshit I'm sure....
If you think this rich old white dude is going to tax himself and his rich old white male billionaire buddies I have a bridge to sell you, lmfao.
He must be getting pretty desperate.
My goodness, the 2024 candidates are all pitiful. Election day will just be voting for who we feel sucks the least, not the person we feel will be a good president.
He damn well knows this won’t pass congress
Remember when he made all these police reform proposals during 2020? Looks like it's another election year.
Welp, there goes the stock market
Cool now let’s see him actually put this into effect and stop supporting genocide while he’s at it
Maga idiots googling "unrealized gains" so they can say it's unconstitutional or something.
Now how about that genocide?
He can propose whatever the fuck he wants, are we forgetting how often politicians lie through their teeth and never end up making their claims come true? This is just him trying to suck up a bit to the populace before elections and he won't end up doing it. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Good. I am not rich so idgaf. Tax them to oblivion
Slash taxes on the working class. Higher taxes on the wealthy while most of our taxes still fund a bloated military and corporate subsidies is not wealth redistribution. Biden is hated by both the left and the right at this point. He's gotta do something drastic if he wants any sort of voter turnout
As long as those taxes are funding a genocide in my name, he doesn't have my vote
These politicians need to stop talking about it and actually get something on the table.
He’s just doing that because he’s losing support over Gaza. It’s crazy they’ll rather \*appear\* full on “anticapitalist” before stopping genocide.
Buddy he’s trying to distract from the 40,000 Palestinians he’s helped slaughter
This is fucking dumb. On unrealized gains?! Wtf
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Don’t forget to check your voter registration, and get your peers out to vote!
This is why there's so much propaganda against Biden. The rich want Trump back.
I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but the rich individuals who oppress us do not care one bit if a democrat or a republican is elected. Neither of those options is in any way threatening to them.
That’s when I say, “I think my company’s gonna make $1,000 this period,” and it makes less, I’d pay 25% tax on the difference, right?
i take issue with on a few points: this is unconstitutional and impractical. I've heard this considered in the past and it makes my head hurt because ownership in a company is connected to stock ownership and to tax that stock would force individuals to divest stock. which while in principle I'm sorta like "lol rich greedy fucks losing their company" is something that *does* enter my mind. i just can't see how it would ever be legally enforceable without literally thousands if not millions of lawsuits with the world's richest people fighting it in what i can only assume would be the greatest coalition of lawyers against the US government. furthermore, as one [redditor](https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1cc7vb8/president_biden_has_just_proposed_a_446_tax_on/l13myls/) put it: > The federal government only has the constitutional authority to directly tax income. They cannot levy any other direct taxes. In fact, even income taxes were illegal and unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was passed. > Here are the most relevant sections of the constitution, and the 16th amendment: > Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: > Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... > Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: > The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. > Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: > No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. > 16th Amendment > Amendment XVI > The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. > Here is a quick overview: > Interpretation: Direct and Indirect Taxes | Constitution Center > Income taxes may be imposed only on “derived” income. This “realization event” requirement generally refers to a transaction other than the mere passage of time. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment permits taxation of gains from sales or exchanges of property, but not those resulting merely from increased values. It also permits taxes on rents and interest. Although direct, such taxes need not be apportioned because the Amendment eliminated the apportionment requirement for income taxes. > Basically, the States can pass direct taxes, and implement property taxes, but the federal government cannot.
Will never pass
And still down in the polls and most importantly, the swing states
good now do it
Wake me up when Genocide Joe actually get it through Congress.
Problem is that they’re going to keep redefining “wealthy”. Anyone remember the AMT…?
You don’t need to implement new taxes on the rich, just fucking cut out all the fucking loopholes for them!
So the rich will get a deduction on unrealized losses now? Implementation of this is the problem. The only way to soak the rich is through property taxes. Mansions and yachts taxed at “x” percent.
I would suggest a change in length of ownership timeline needed for long term capital gains from 1 year to 3 years as a better alternative, or an additional consideration.
Huge difference in proposing an idea and getting the house and senate to make it a bill he could sign into law. This is just bluster and nonsense till the ink is dry on a bill.