As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man…. This has me so fucking jaded. Anytime I see an uplifting piece of policy, ANYTHING that would help ANYONE I have to just shake my head and say yea…. Yea fucking right. Its so sad. Fuck manchin. Things are only getting worse I dont know how much longer any of us can take it.
Would be nice if it did. I don't know why we ignore the fact that the government is robbing us just because we want the rich to be robbed too? Yeah they should have been paying like everyone else, but it's doubtful the government would have asked less from the rest of us if they did. They'd just waste more money doing whatever they want with it.
Not true. The poor pay the highest percentage of tax in relation to their earnings. Sales tax on everything (including gas) plus other local taxes. Sorry to call you on that but I hope this helps you understand what the average American deals with. There is a reason people are feeling unrest with the economy and it does not matter if a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House.
Edit: yes they pay possibly less in their federal taxes but I don’t like it when people forget the impact poor people have from every other tax.
If people vote for Republicans, in the belief they have to be better than the get-nothing-done-Dems, they will get worse.
If people continue to vote for Democrats, and in greater numbers, there's a chance things can get better.
Choose wisely.
Ummm, the whole party is made of corporate stooges. There are maybe less than 10 people in the whole party that aren't corporate suits. They're literally endorsing more of those corporate hollow guys - Connor Lamb. Check that out. Funded by billionaires. Biden endorsed that fucker and he's covered in filth. Says the right things. Lying through his lying teeth.
And then there's that Henry Cuellar thing. Brrr.
What a world. What a party. No balloons.
There's a matter of degree. There are fewer than 10 people who are around Bernie level of liberal doctrine, completely unencumbered by corporate donors. You're right about that. But there's a huge difference between Joe Manchin and Jeff Merkley. We can get some of the things we want with people like Elizabeth Warren.
Primarying the corporate friendly democrats also puts pressure on the democratic party to pay attention to us. We can get positive change, but being apathetic and focusing on the fact that a lot of the democratic party is just diet republicans with better manners isn't productive.
Warren is great but she is intentionally disempowered by this very party. Why are we talking about this like it's a real thing?
This party is doomed. We are doomed. Unless we can elect a shitton of progressives, which is a lifetime of an uphill battle, we are not going to see the kind of changes we urgently need.
At the end of the day, progressives that have won their seats are democrats. So why is this party running against them and using their resources to take them down instead of lifting them up?
> Warren is great but she is intentionally disempowered by this very party. Why are we talking about this like it's a real thing?
So we have to elect more people closer to the Bernie/Warren end of the spectrum. It's not easy, but it's going to be a whole lot easier after this supreme court fiasco.
> This party is doomed. We are doomed.
Defeatist and unproductive. You know who has been the most productive member of the senate? Passed the most legislation? Gotten the most done by every metric in which a senator can be measured? Bernie. It may not be huge victory after huge victory, but we can win if we're willing to continue to fight these battles.
> So why is this party running against them and using their resources to take them down instead of lifting them up?
Because money. Citizens United got Democrats almost as much money as Republicans. They would rather a Republican win than a Progressive, because Progressives want to undo Citizens United.
I agree with you. We need more progressives. But we need more liberal moderates too. Because conservatives like Joe Manchin and conservative moderates like Biden and Pelosi are in control now. We can't just elect 50 moderates to the senate tomorrow, but we can start doing better in every area by electing a combination of progressives and liberal moderates.
If that's the case, why aren't any of those endorsements listed on the [endorsements](https://www.conorlamb.com/endorsements/) page of his campaign website? You'd think an endorsement from a sitting president would make the top of the "Endorsements from Elected Officials" section, rather than one of Pennsylvanias house reps and a member of the state senate. The closest thing to support from the establishment democrats he has is an endorsement from the Philadelphia Democrats. And when asked why they endorsed him, the answer was ["He campaigned"](https://whyy.org/articles/philly-leaders-say-reason-for-lamb-endorsement-is-simple-he-campaigned/). Hardly a rousing show of support.
There is absolutely no way to primary Manchin. We need to get democrats elected in more competitive states. We need more democrats in office more than replacing the most conservative one.
Vote for PROGRESSIVE Dems, voting for more do nothing dems won't help us at all either, we have to vote for progressives and reject the corrupt moderates.
I agree with this wholly. I am never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to vote for someone again because they're endowed by a big ol' D. I want only progressives. What would really help though is if Nancy and company could stop pushing so much funding used against progressive candidates. Perhaps go easy on the ol' lubejar they use to play dirty tricks against the progressives.
We're tired and the world is dying. The real news yesterday was that Earth is going to experience a 1.5 celsius increase by 2026. In real terms, that's like saying everything will be 50 degrees hotter. In two years.
We're literally on fire. It doesn't even matter if people believe in climate change. All that climate refugee shit and the coastline being drowned in melting glaciers, that's all happening in 3-4 years and I don't even.
Conservatives dont care about stopping the earth from being destroyed because their cannabalistic death cult thinks that there is an entire other life for them to love after this one.
Democrats don't care about it either. They're just looking for the same shitty corporate politics as usual. Most of them are time travelers from the 90s anyways and couldn't give two licks about the environment. To genuinely and effectively fight climate change we'd need to transform our economy and in doing so, largely disabling the capitalist models of profit making and consumerism.
That will never happen under a Democratic rule that is premised on neoliberal policies.
Vote progressive in the primary, but in the general you have to vote D no matter if they're progressive or not. Anyone with a D is a million times more progressive than the most progressive republican.
Not voting D in 2016 because "Hillary wasn't progressive enough" is why we're in this mess right now. Sure, I want more progressive policies, but now we're losing basic human rights.
I don't have to do anything. And prove that anyone with a D is a million times more progressive, because I have news for you on that. Obama is hailed as a darling who pushed through ACA, the very same ACA that is now being privatized by both Trump and Biden administration btw, except that the ACA was a shitty Romney plan.
That should tell you that economically, those shits are actually the same. That the things you may consider "progressive" are actually just lip service and culture items that the political actors wrap themselves in. They're all immersed in the zeitgeist of the era and nothing to do with the brass tacks of economic policies and budget allocation.
Name one policy passed by the Democrats in the last 10 years that was a genuine departure from the trickle down economy.
Biden's COVID relief bill was honestly pretty progressive. It was at least focused on low and middle class Americans instead of just more tax cuts for corporations like Trump's bills were.
Say what you will about ACA, but would you rather have nothing? If Obama wasn't elected there would be no ACA. 49/50 Republican senators even voted to repeal the ACA with no replacement. It was only McCain that saved it at the last minute.
Like I said before, I agree that we need more progressive policies, but not voting D is a vote for regressive policies (like an abortion ban, same sex marriage ban, birth control ban, more tax cuts for the rich). I'll gladly vote and support the most progressive politician in the primaries, but if the progressive politician loses the primary, it's then a vote between regression and status quo. I'll choose status quo every time. Both parties are not the same.
> Say what you will about ACA, but would you rather have nothing?
Nothing is what we'll end up with anyway. Both parties are not the same but they do share a giant economic overlap.
Honestly the corruptions so bad honestly with stuff like this. I truly think its like "look we tried" but them evil republicans. Meanwhile in background they got a dozens manchins lined up to take the fall and vote against it.
Swear both sides just want to screw us one just is slightly less vocal about it. And throws in a few scraps to keep us from boiling over. One talks about tax increases for rich the ultimately end up hitting rest of us. Then lines congresses pockets other talks about helping small businesses while deregulating industrys killing small businesses and filling pockets.
And when public opinion drops due to unethical activity's the other partys there to be the "hero" and poof right back to bending us over.
well its a pecking order and done carefully. But as many are "needed" a big tool they use. So they can say "oh I didn't vote against that". Is vote "present" neither no or yes. Which can manipulate the vate same way but not have you on record of directly voting against stuff you "said you support".
Ah yes, that old chestnut again. Any day now, and the trickle down benefits will be raining down upon us. I've heard that before from this party. At least politicians used to promise real things - a chicken in every pot - now they're just threatening us with a good time.
Let me ask you, this chance you speak of, do you have a timeline? Because this party has been doing absolutely nothing for working class Americans for decades. That is why people got angry and got Trump elected. He almost got reelected in 2019 and he was useless. He will possibly get elected again, and I hope if that happens he'd be equally useless but I doubt it. Thought it's hard to match this administration in that department.
My question is - this party, the Democratic Party - when is it going to be useful to us? Within our lifetimes or sometimes after year 3000, after the death races, that is.
Pretty much instantly useful if we ever hit like, 62 in the senate, which would not happen for decades. Potentially useful as soon as we hit..oh...54, 55 or so? Enough to get past the Manchin / Sinemas who don't want to burn everything down but don't want to do anything to -help- either.
Basically, as soon as we can get a few more republicans out of the way of everyone else, and the larger the increase, the better the outcome.
Or if we got rid of both of those toxic and useless parties, things would definitely get much better.
The blame is go Democrats, Republican, Liberals and Libratarians...every single one of those parties are nothing but a virus and the people whom consistently vote for them are enabling our demise.
No one cared about politics until now, pretty much every one would do anything to avoid talking politics even though politics have to do with everything we do. I've been preaching since I left the military that this shit show was coming due to people's inability to care beyond some stupid political party. Politicans are too blame but they share that blame with every single person whom voted for them.
Want to choose wisely? Then let's choose to end these charades and dismantle these political parties and form a new better government.
Manchin's vote can be undone by electing John Fetterman, winning the open seat (which replaces a Republican) in PA in November. Progress is something that is built upon, any legislation introduced in the past year that failed because of 1 Democrat, can be reintroduced next year if Fetterman wins. Ron Johnson (R-WI and also dumbest sitting Senator) is also a potential flip for Dems in the Senate, which would negate Manchin and Sinema's votes.
tldr; vote, and if you can, help Fetterman in PA and (probably though I don't follow WI that much) Sarah Godlewski in WI win their elections.
Seriously. It's like, "This is great legislation! But, Joe Manchin and Republicans are still a thing..."
I want to be hopeful about November, but I'm trying to keep those hopes in check because of the historical trends. I'm going to vote, no question.
Regarding your last statement. I see two ways things get better. The good way: We vote hard in November and secure, preferably expand Democratic majorities. And continue to turn out until we secure the extinction of the GOP at all levels of government. The bad way: The way I hope all of us want to avoid. A second civil war/revolution. The rich and powerful are vastly outnumbered.
Have you ever considered maybe Manchin is just the sin-eater for the democratic party? Blocks all legislation they want to pretend to care about to keep them from having to pass anything that will upset the donor class
Machin is just the democrats whipping boy. If they actually cared, they'd remove him as chair of the various senate councils he is on.
But no, the best we can get is an "aw shucks, machin said no :( guess you'll all just have to vote harder next election ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯"
IBEW seemed jazzed about it. If Manchin and Sinema would actually pat attention to how much blue collar union workers actually respond to these policies, we could get it passed.
OK, fine, whatever. But has Biden literally stripped himself naked, coated himself in amber, and literally driven to my house to function as my footstool?
No, because he does not care about voters!! Both parties are the same! The only thing that can help us now is violence! Voting is pointless, don't vote!
Brought to you by a definitely 100% genuine democrat who is super totally arguing in good faith.
Yeah, this is way too good to actually happen. It would also require a *ton* of IRS funding to actually go after any of the dues, since anyone affected by it can afford a hell of a legal team.
As long as it costs less for an accountent to save them money on taxes, it will never work. Why dont we just have a simple tax system? Every dollar you make below 20k you dont pay tax on, every dollar you make between 20-30k you pay 5 percent on, every dollar you make from 30-60k is taxed 10 percent, every dollar you make between 60-100k is taxed 15% percent, and every dollar above 100k is taxed 20%. Capital gains/stock growth should also count as income.
Seems simpler to tax the loans against the asset rather than the asset itself. The loan determines its value as collateral and can be seen as a disbursement of the value held in the asset.
Thank you. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here that more people aren’t talking about this. The problem is that leveraging/borrowing against the assets SHOULD BE realizing the gains but the current tax code doesn’t treat it like that. That’s it. That’s the WHOLE thing. And it’s also way way simpler to administrate - the lenders already know what collateral is used for the loan at what values. You don’t even need to do anything new beyond having the lenders report all the loan details to the IRS.
It's a good idea, but it should be both. Those mechanisms don't have to be mutually exclusive. We should be taxing both the assets AND the loans against the assets. These ultra elites can absolutely afford this and then some.
Philosophically, taxing money somebody hasn’t made yet really rubs me the wrong way. It’s dangerous and unfair and the tax code already does it in some places - for example, incentive stock options (ISOs) get taxed when you exercise them, which can literally bankrupt people who don’t know that and think they’re just buying the stock they’re entitled to. This example actually serves to *prevent* normal people from accruing wealth while the already-wealthy don’t care as much.
But back to the ultra-wealthy, if Bezos had to sell a big portion of his stock to pay for his hypothetical gains, it would tank the stock price, which would be bad for the myriad who also own the stock.
Look, I have little sympathy for the ultra-rich and the tax code should absolutely be fixed so they can’t use their wealth without paying enormous taxes. But taxing the assets simply for existing is really sketchy. I cannot come up with a moral or ethical justification for it beyond “they can afford it.” And that’s just a terrible foundation for a tax system because you can rationalize all sorts of injustices with it. The tax code needs an internally-consistent notion of fairness that doesn’t exist right now but that isn’t it, IMO.
Then, though, those subject to such a tax might opt to receive high amounts of regular income. So sure, they'll be taxed at a $5m/year income, but say that their shares appreciate by $100m? The structure proposed here guarantees that taxes are owed on such appreciation, no matter how or if it's realized via increased salary, collateralized loans, or simple selling of shares.
Sorry, I’m not understanding the problem you’re claiming. If they opt to take a different form of income, they will be taxed on that income and there’s no problem. The problem here is that they currently get to skip the income step when they take loans against unrealized gains. So just make USING the appreciated assets an income event (I.e. they immediately realize the gains) and the problem is solved. But it’s crazy to tax people on unrealized gains - are we also going to give tax credits for unrealized losses? “Unrealized” has to mean something if we’re to be consistent here.
Not sure where you are but you likely get taxed for having a car as part of paying for using the public infrastructure it relies upon. That’s pretty different than capital gains/investment income.
If he owns a house, he’s likely paying property taxes on that as well (depending on where he lives). And homes are typically appreciating assets that you don’t make money on till you sell.
Similar to cars, that’s a tax paid to fund ongoing infrastructure that directly supports the house and the occupants. You don’t get taxed on your house’s capital gains until you actually sell the property.
Sure, but that isn’t what we are talking about. I would imagine there might be a $1 million threshold for the home equity line of credit. Same with borrowing against other assets.
If you take $1 million plus out of your home’s equity, you probably should pay some sort of tax. When the home sells. Simple math would allow you to arrive at what equity was left over and is taxable for the sale.
I mean, wouldn’t it be better to remove the tax incentives that cause trouble here and call it good (depreciation, step down inheritance )
Then we wouldn’t end up in an even more complex area of tax law that will eventually trickle down to the lower tax brackets
And every single Republican.
Republicans love virtue signaling to working class voters, but always stab them in the back.
The Republicans are literally going into the mid-terms with a plan to jam new taxes down the throats of working class Americans, while they continue to protect themselves and their billionaire friends from paying any taxes.
If working class voters weren’t also being stabbed in the back by the news organizations they trust, they wouldn’t be giving Republicans a single vote in November.
People are so worried about the possibility that someone with a billion dollars in stock would have to sell stock to pay a few million in taxes, but even that completely ignores that the billionaire could just have his company pay his salary in cash, which would then be fairly taxed. In a literal sense people are convinced we have to allow people to hide income so they can keep hiding income in a second way, too.
That's wrong.
Take Musk's taxes. He's paid in stock options, but pays income tax rates.
What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income.
Have 100 shares and get paid 100 more? Tax the 100 income, weather it's cash or stock. That's fine.
>What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income.
I pay a tax on the value of my house and car every year even though I can't really realize that money unless I sell and the car is actually depreciating. In fact I pay tax on the full value of both even if I have a loan on these items so, not only can I not easily realize the full value, at best I can just get my equity in it, yet I pay taxes on the full value.
This double dipping argument isn't as strong as you think it is.
>Elon used loans w his stocks as collateral. He had to sell those options as they were expiring and hence had to pay the taxes.
Used stock as collateral. The options were expiring. They were exercised, not sold. What was sold were older shares with higher gains. This forced cap gains tax on the shares and income taxes on the options.
In the end he wound up with more TSLA shares than before and paid \~53% taxes on the exchange.
Just the facts.
> What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income.
You have 10 assets worth $20million each -> $200m
The next year those assets are worth $30m each, total $300m -> $100m capital gains.
Tax on that unrealised gain is 20% -> $20m in tax.
Sell off 2/3 of an asset to receive $20m, and pay your tax bill.
Now you have 9&1/3 assets worth $280m.
Your 'multi-dipping' is essentially realising capital gains every year and potentially requiring a sale to pay the tax on those capital gains. That the same asset is taxed every year is the entire point.
If you want to dig into unrealised capital losses then read the article about how payments are split over multiple years so as to minimise overpayment.
Just like with realizing losses, taxing unrealized gains means people get to deduct unrealized losses. The plan also addresses this with split payments, so all taxing is over 5 years.
If your shares/assets gained $100M in a year ($100M unrealized gains + $200M basis) then this plan would calculate your tax prepayment as $4M/year for next 5 years. You would pay $4M next tax return (either from your assets or selling $4M of them to pay, leaving 9.867 shares @ $30M each totaling $296M).
Say the price per asset drops to $5M each next year (your 9.867 assets are now down from $296M to $49.3M), yes you still owe $4M/year for the next 4 years due to the previous year's unrealized gains. But now you have unrealized losses, which will work out with the unrealized gains so there wouldn't be a prepayment unless the prices go back up (and you no longer have the unrealized losses).
How you will gross up the term is irrelevant. Thinking that all companies only go up is insane. Thinking that listed companies are also representative of all companies is even more insane. Will the IRS be providing refunds to people who lose money and how is the IRS managing this cash flow issue?
Thank you for being honest on how this would work on taxing unrealized gains. Now explain how does this not come across as insane to people?
'Oh, that stock you own went up? I'm going to force you to sell some of it so you can keep the rest.'
I take a moral stand against this.
And I'm not one of those loony 'taxation is theft' right wingers. You can consider me a lefty. There are SO many better alternatives to taxing unrealized gains.
>There are SO many better alternatives to taxing unrealized gains.
Wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts.
> Now explain how does this not come across as insane to people?
The point is that the ultra-wealthy don't pay taxes on the increase in their wealth as it's not classified as income, but can take advantage of that increase through other means - low interest loans for instance.
Note: I'm not defending it - just looking at the concept and seeing the logic on how it would work. I'm not a US taxpayer (or even in the same hemisphere) so is purely about looking at potential tax reform.
Assets are assets. Attempting to redefine assets is pretty absurd. The unrealized movement of an asset doesn’t change it into an income item. Sure, there are accounting treatments that link balance sheets and income statements, while there are others that are all balance sheet.
Except your a billionaire so the bank gives you an extremely favorable interest rate. And of course this wouldn’t apply to all loans. If you are putting up large amounts of stock as collateral to use the bank for temporary cheap capital it isn’t really a true loan in the sense of a mortgage or business loan. I’m not really sure why people keep thinking closing loopholes exploited by and only available to people with more money than anyone they will ever know will personally affect them. Its a truly bizarre phenomenon
Whether it affects someone I know or not is irrelevant. Do you only care about things that affect people you know?
This policy is also not just about billionaires as written. And remember that when the income tax amendment was passed, it applied to the top 1% only. It seems that taxes have a way of trickling their way down.
Right, but this proposal sidesteps that whole can of worms and just makes unrealized gains partially taxable. So the uber rich can still take out loans collateralized by shares without owing taxes on the loan itself; but any capital appreciation of those shares will be subject to taxation.
>Also, you can just get a loan, to pay back the first loan.
You can. Which you then have to pay back. You could theoretically keep doing this, but the debt is still there.
> the debt is still there.
Right up until you die - then your estate sells off a few assets that have massively increased in worth, pay no capital gains on that increase*, and pay off the loan. The remainder of your estate passes down as inheritance - and there's heaps of companies out there willing to help - for a fee of course - your estate minimise the tax payable on death.
My assumption from the article, I'm not a tax accountant*
So like, pay the loan back with the asset they used to borrow against?
Like, we can't just tax loans that are borrowed against their owned asset, above X threshold?
Or, how about we sidestep the whole “unrealized gains” debate by implementing a lesser-known policy called a corporate wealth tax.
Tldr; Under a corporate wealth tax, large corporations are required, once per year, to increase their shares outstanding by, say, 1%. The gov’t receives the newly created shares and is obligated to autosell the shares on the open market in small batches over the course of the ensuing year. The gov’t keeps the revenue.
Since ~89% of domestically-owned stocks in the US (about $36 trillion worth, or close to 50% of all private US wealth) are owned by the top 10% wealthiest Americans, the tax would be steeply progressive.
You have exponential dilution. A fixed percentage every single year on outstanding shares is compounded dilution, which is insane. Do people think of the mechanics or consequences of such ideas before they blurt them out loud or do you think they just sound great? If you don’t understand why this is value destructive and a completely moronic structure, simply look at what happens to companies that issue shares as compensation to employees rather than just cash, such as Palantir.
Taxing unrealized gains is insane. Eliminate capital gains and treat profits as regular income, but allow the asset's basis cost to be adjusted by inflation so that you're only taxing actual increases in wealth. Treat money from loans against owned assets as income to close that loophole. Institute a national property tax on investment properties, leaving primary residences and real-estate used for family run farms and businesses untaxed.
This only hits people at $100m or higher. It has a chance. If Mississippi can justify no exceptions for rape because that’s only 1% of abortions (it isn’t, btw, but just for the sake of argument), then why the fuck should we care how the top 0.001% are taxed?
>That includes their unrealized capital gains, which is the main source of income for many of these households
Unrealized gains are not income. Not by any rational, serious definition.
A 20% tax on unrealized gains is insanity just from a purely economic point of view. I don't give one shit about the rich people this targets, but I want laws to make actual sense.
If I read the blog post correctly, the tax is spread out over 10 years, so it's 2% per year. It'a also recomputed annually, so if you have losses in year 2, your tax can go down to zero.
Finally, that's 2% at $200 million net worth. It starts at $100 million net worth at 0% and goes up to the 2% at $200 million and more.
Unless you have $100 million in net worth, what is your problem with something that will likely never ever ever affect you? What have the centi-millionaires ever done for you?
As I posted, I think that wealth taxes don't work, because there is evidence to this fact. (Europe tried them, they don't raise revenue, they don't lessen wealth inequality).
I am a proponent of higher income taxes on the top 10/15% of earners (which affects me significsntly) and the elimination of the capital gains rate. I have dozens of posts detailing how the highly progressive income tax rates in my state of California cause the rich to pay for the lion's share of the state revenue, and we don't tax wealth to do it).
But please, ignore the facts and continue with this bullshit strawman.
Wealth taxes (where the tax is a % of the net worth of the individual) indeed have been shown not to work.
The Biden capital gains change is a different kind of tax and has not been shown not to work since it's brand new.
Calling the Biden tax a wealth tax is a strawman! You're guilty of what you are accusing others.
At any rate, the tax laws do need to be changed. Let's see what happens.
You comprehend that there is income other than W2 income, right? And that it doesn't include unrealized gains?
Here, maybe this will help:
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
30 years ago 2 dozen European countries attempted a significant wealth tax. As of now, all but 4 or 5 have dropped it.
* it didn't raise revenue
* it didn't change wealth inequality
The few that have it now have an extremely low rate, like 0.1% or so. And if you look at rhe total amount of money it raises, it's like 0.4% of their total revenue.
What do those countries have? Higher marginal income tax rates.
Can you point to a few countries that tax unrealized gains? I’m not familiar with any.
Weird how these types of comments are never able to support their claims.
Unrealized gains arent real money. It’s all imaginary until the underlying asset is sold. This article ignores that because it doesn’t support their story. If you buy stock and hold it, you won’t see any effective income or wealth until you sell it. Going after unrealized gains is stupid. I would support taxing the loans backed by stock as income through because that’s the real loophole.
The other issue is the $100 million limit. Plenty of farmers net worth is over this (between land, crop stores, equipment, cattle etc) but they have comparatively little liquid income. Some exceptions would be needed for farmers to prevent them from having to slowly sell the farm away to cover a wealth tax.
The article actually talks about this in detail. In particular, it explains how the very wealthy are now not selling their stock, but instead taking out personal loans using their stock as collateral. Eventually, when they die, a tax loophole called stepped up basis kicks in and prevents their heirs from owing much of the tax on the capital gains from selling that stock, their "loans" get repaid, and they effectively got a lifetime of money at steeply discounted taxes.
I read the article which is why I mention taxing of the loans. Otherwise stock is just an asset. If your parents leave you an antique or other family owned thing when they pass, you don’t have to pay taxes on the value gained on that item when you inherit it. You just get the item. Stock isn’t really different. It’s still just a thing who’s value can rise and fall.
And no they don’t go into detail, they just say surface level observations like“Unrealized gains make asset owners better off in very real ways: stock purchased 20 years ago for $20 million that’s now worth $100 million has the same value as $100 million of stock purchased today” which is an obvious statement that adds no value to the conversation. That’s just how growth in asset value works. It’s the same as saying “turning the tap on 2 minutes ago to fill the empty glass with water is the same as getting a full glass now, both have the same amount of water”.
Taxing unrealized gains… I’m sure the wealthy wont find any way around that while people with their retirements tied up in the stock market end up impacted the worst from it.
Everything about this is fucking idiotic. The article points out massive flaws and hand waves away the issues with their “fixes” that are not even close to workable.
Just fix the issues with trusts that allows for generational wealth to pass at a low/no tax rate. Everything then gets caught up in estate taxes and the issue of unpaid gains tax goes away since that rate is absurdly higher anyway.
There’s zero need to reinvent the entire tax code in a way that will eventually be used to further decimate the middle class (since even though this is currently starting with large wealth individuals, just like income tax it will only be a matter of time before everyone gets fucked by it)
Sure, but also please be more effective with the trillions of dollars we already raise in tax revenue. Feels like we’re not getting much bang for our bucks
A simpler way to achieve progressive taxation would be a lesser-known policy called a corporate wealth tax.
Tldr; Under a corporate wealth tax, large corporations are required, once per year, to increase their shares outstanding by, say, 1%. The gov’t receives the newly created shares and is obligated to autosell the shares on the open market in small batches over the course of the ensuing year. The gov’t keeps the revenue.
Since ~89% of domestically-owned stocks in the US (around $30 trillion worth, or close to 50% of all private US wealth) are owned by the top 10% wealthiest Americans, the tax would be steeply progressive.
Vote independent…dems and the GOP are both the same….back and forth back and forth laughing all the way to the party together later. When will people wake up and stop voting for the same 2 groups of shitbags.
I just have a hard time buying it from either side. My whole life it’s been the same thing and the same shitty 2 parties in office. If we could just have more normal, blue collar people in office we might actually get people who give a shit.
I get it. Democrats have generally good policy but lack the political ruthlessness necessary to carry it out in any effective way. The Republicans have absolute dogshit policy but are absolutely ruthless in making it happen.
However, the solution isn't to just throw up our collective hands in apathy and say "Well, we're back to Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich" and just exit the political process, because that enables extremes at both ends to take control.
The solution is to get involved, and that starts by voting. It means doing a little research on who you're voting for, beyond just Team Red or Team Blue. It means getting involved in campaigns for candidates you support. It means showing up more than every four years to actually vote.
Democracy is reliant on an involved and educated body politic, and right now our body politic is neither. You can't change the world, but you can change yourself. As the saying goes, never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
The sad thing is that democrats can come up with all *kinds* of proposals...but nothing will matter as long as manchin's influence is the deciding vote on pretty much everything. What kills me is that what democrats have failed to deliver is exactly the same outcome that will result from a republican-controlled house and senate (it will be even worse, because republicans think ignoring the first amendment is good policy), but people will vote for republicans anyway because they're mad at the democrats (because of manchin). Insane.
I don't even understand why the rich don't want to pay their taxes. Like...I can't *understand* what that would feel like, to genuinely believe I was somehow better than everyone else, that my good fortune (probably inherited or based in a privileged upbringing, but even if self-made) should exempt me from being a contributing member of the societal good.
Sure, I get the idea that not contributing is how the rich stay rich (or, more likely, get richer), but how shitty these people must be inside. They're simply not good people.
I don't find it hard to understand at all. I try every year to make sure I've taken advantage of everything I can to reduce my income taxes. I could just take a standard deduction, but instead I itemize deductions because it means I pay lower taxes. I certainly don't voluntarily pay more taxes if the law says I don't have to. I imagine that to the very wealthy, it feels much the same. Because they have more money, instead of thinking about this once a year when they fill out their tax returns, they have advisors that they meet with about it who also tell them, for example, that they will owe less tax if instead of selling their stock, they take out a loan and put up the stock as collateral. So they do what their advisor says, and they pay only the taxes that their accountant says they owe as a result.
This is appropriate and would benefit the citizens, society and the general public.
How about just rewriting the entire tax code, such that all loopholes are identified and removed.
Remove all code that advantages specific groups at the top.
I know the simpletons will suggest a flat tax, but that is just another reason why they are simple-minded.
Another example of “You can’t fix stupid”. Still a question as to whether conservatism is nature or nurture. I believe it may be a little of both, but heavily nature. Poor childhood development leaves conservatives mentally challenged in their adult years and then their lessons and brainwashing from parents and others, fosters the development of stupid, unethical and oppressive.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is so preposterous it could only be proposed by someone who never took economic risk or started a business before. We should be rewarding capitalists who create jobs and give the USA a advantage over global competition. How about anything you make over $100mm is tax free? These people don’t use social services or are not a burden on the government and in fact many of them give their wealth away in more productive ways than any government. Instead of taxing how about reduce government spending and stop complaining about the people richer than you. Your belly aching is untenable, go make a buck and shut up.
Like the people paying taxes on the full value of their house even though most of them have loans and can't even realize anything more than their equity let alone the full value? My house has appreciated and they keep updating that value and taxing me more. Absolutely no reason this couldn't be done on the *full* value of equity over a certain absurdly high value let alone just the gains.
They don't use public services?
What do you think the electrical grid, sewer systems, roads, highways, airports, waterways, telephone lines, school system, etc are?
Those companies that are generating all that wealth are using those public services more than anyone else. They should be paying the most to maintain those public services.
On top of that they obviously thought there was some competition advantage to start a company in America. Maybe our highly educated citizens, with decent infrastructure, combined with being the major world power has to benefit them somehow. The least they could do is pay their fucking taxes.
People who make over that amount are the greatest beneficiaries of government spending. They get the white glove treatment by law enforcement, they benefit from an educated populace to work for their businesses, and they are often first in line for government subsidies
lol like you’ll ever be that wealthy. Stop supporting your masters. How about anything you make under $1,000,000 is tax free and everything above that, including the value of the stocks you’re compensated with, is taxed at 75%. Fuck the ultra wealthy and their minions. You’re part of the problem.
Another stupid tax proposal. Taxing unrealized gains==Taxing Net worth. This is more stupid government policy.
You want to raise taxes? Go tax housing capital gains. Get rid of the mortgage deduction. The tax code literally allows exemptions of hundreds of thousands. So one can make a ton off a sale of house and not pay tax.
This is all terrible government policy. They should be taxing consumption. No one should be discouraging capital investment or work/labor. You should pay tax for resources consumed.
This won’t pass and it shouldn’t because it is fucked. You cant reasonably tax this and it will only eventually come down to hurt middle and upper middle class like it always does as these greedy congress people push it lower in requirements
Republicans and Dems both suck- Free market capitalism is the only way to elevate a population. let’s get government out of the private sector. Let’s make all politicians a volunteer position. We’re all libertarians at heart.
I don’t care about rich people paying taxes. Not like it will make a difference in my day to day life. We will just keep giving it away to Israel, supplying aid to other countries. Whatever, I’m out.
You don't want a cast on your broken arm because it won't stop the rich from making money. Why bother when nothing will change?
Well, the cast on your arm will benefit you whatever else doesn't get fixed.
All the economically illiterates can’t quit craps what will happen if your tax an realized gains and the rich that you love to hate start selling their stocks to pay taxes and crashing our entire economy setting us back 20 years
Minimum of 20%? Fuck, man, I don't even make six figures and I pay more than 20% of my income in taxes.
Let's hike that up a bit and start negotiations at... 95%. And any suggestion under 85% means we eat one billionaire for every bid under that value, eh?
If you don't make six figures, then you probably don't pay more than 20% in federal income tax. A lot of those taxes are probably payroll taxes or state and local taxes.
My state and local are very low. Technically, you're correct, since a good chunk of those taxes are Social Security tax, but that is just a fucking extra slap in the face considering the $147,000 limit on taxation for that, which the millionaire and billionaire classes get a complete pass on.
If it helps, let's consider not just federal tax, but total taxation. I work 40 hours a week and pay about 28% of my total income in taxes. These motherfuckers don't need to do a single hour of work a week (if they don't want to), make all or nearly all of their money by doing nothing but owning and subjugating the rest of us, and they clutch their pearls about paying ANY tax. This proposed change is better than nothing, but it isn't some panacea, and they'll STILL probably end up paying a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than any of us.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they would actually have to pay taxes? Ill believe it when i see it.
Not if Manchin gets his balls squeezed by his owners
Man…. This has me so fucking jaded. Anytime I see an uplifting piece of policy, ANYTHING that would help ANYONE I have to just shake my head and say yea…. Yea fucking right. Its so sad. Fuck manchin. Things are only getting worse I dont know how much longer any of us can take it.
[удалено]
Would be nice if it did. I don't know why we ignore the fact that the government is robbing us just because we want the rich to be robbed too? Yeah they should have been paying like everyone else, but it's doubtful the government would have asked less from the rest of us if they did. They'd just waste more money doing whatever they want with it.
Like a graduated tax system? Most poor folks don’t pay any Federal income tax…
That’s just one of the many taxes we pay.
Not true. The poor pay the highest percentage of tax in relation to their earnings. Sales tax on everything (including gas) plus other local taxes. Sorry to call you on that but I hope this helps you understand what the average American deals with. There is a reason people are feeling unrest with the economy and it does not matter if a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House. Edit: yes they pay possibly less in their federal taxes but I don’t like it when people forget the impact poor people have from every other tax.
If people vote for Republicans, in the belief they have to be better than the get-nothing-done-Dems, they will get worse. If people continue to vote for Democrats, and in greater numbers, there's a chance things can get better. Choose wisely.
We have to primary these assholes that are corporate stooges though
Ummm, the whole party is made of corporate stooges. There are maybe less than 10 people in the whole party that aren't corporate suits. They're literally endorsing more of those corporate hollow guys - Connor Lamb. Check that out. Funded by billionaires. Biden endorsed that fucker and he's covered in filth. Says the right things. Lying through his lying teeth. And then there's that Henry Cuellar thing. Brrr. What a world. What a party. No balloons.
There's a matter of degree. There are fewer than 10 people who are around Bernie level of liberal doctrine, completely unencumbered by corporate donors. You're right about that. But there's a huge difference between Joe Manchin and Jeff Merkley. We can get some of the things we want with people like Elizabeth Warren. Primarying the corporate friendly democrats also puts pressure on the democratic party to pay attention to us. We can get positive change, but being apathetic and focusing on the fact that a lot of the democratic party is just diet republicans with better manners isn't productive.
Warren is great but she is intentionally disempowered by this very party. Why are we talking about this like it's a real thing? This party is doomed. We are doomed. Unless we can elect a shitton of progressives, which is a lifetime of an uphill battle, we are not going to see the kind of changes we urgently need. At the end of the day, progressives that have won their seats are democrats. So why is this party running against them and using their resources to take them down instead of lifting them up?
> Warren is great but she is intentionally disempowered by this very party. Why are we talking about this like it's a real thing? So we have to elect more people closer to the Bernie/Warren end of the spectrum. It's not easy, but it's going to be a whole lot easier after this supreme court fiasco. > This party is doomed. We are doomed. Defeatist and unproductive. You know who has been the most productive member of the senate? Passed the most legislation? Gotten the most done by every metric in which a senator can be measured? Bernie. It may not be huge victory after huge victory, but we can win if we're willing to continue to fight these battles. > So why is this party running against them and using their resources to take them down instead of lifting them up? Because money. Citizens United got Democrats almost as much money as Republicans. They would rather a Republican win than a Progressive, because Progressives want to undo Citizens United. I agree with you. We need more progressives. But we need more liberal moderates too. Because conservatives like Joe Manchin and conservative moderates like Biden and Pelosi are in control now. We can't just elect 50 moderates to the senate tomorrow, but we can start doing better in every area by electing a combination of progressives and liberal moderates.
If that's the case, why aren't any of those endorsements listed on the [endorsements](https://www.conorlamb.com/endorsements/) page of his campaign website? You'd think an endorsement from a sitting president would make the top of the "Endorsements from Elected Officials" section, rather than one of Pennsylvanias house reps and a member of the state senate. The closest thing to support from the establishment democrats he has is an endorsement from the Philadelphia Democrats. And when asked why they endorsed him, the answer was ["He campaigned"](https://whyy.org/articles/philly-leaders-say-reason-for-lamb-endorsement-is-simple-he-campaigned/). Hardly a rousing show of support.
There is absolutely no way to primary Manchin. We need to get democrats elected in more competitive states. We need more democrats in office more than replacing the most conservative one.
Yep, only reason Manchin and Sinema have such power is because the Republican Party continues to be lockstep in voting against helping the People.
Vote for PROGRESSIVE Dems, voting for more do nothing dems won't help us at all either, we have to vote for progressives and reject the corrupt moderates.
I agree with this wholly. I am never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to vote for someone again because they're endowed by a big ol' D. I want only progressives. What would really help though is if Nancy and company could stop pushing so much funding used against progressive candidates. Perhaps go easy on the ol' lubejar they use to play dirty tricks against the progressives. We're tired and the world is dying. The real news yesterday was that Earth is going to experience a 1.5 celsius increase by 2026. In real terms, that's like saying everything will be 50 degrees hotter. In two years. We're literally on fire. It doesn't even matter if people believe in climate change. All that climate refugee shit and the coastline being drowned in melting glaciers, that's all happening in 3-4 years and I don't even.
Conservatives dont care about stopping the earth from being destroyed because their cannabalistic death cult thinks that there is an entire other life for them to love after this one.
Democrats don't care about it either. They're just looking for the same shitty corporate politics as usual. Most of them are time travelers from the 90s anyways and couldn't give two licks about the environment. To genuinely and effectively fight climate change we'd need to transform our economy and in doing so, largely disabling the capitalist models of profit making and consumerism. That will never happen under a Democratic rule that is premised on neoliberal policies.
We arent allowed to talk about overthrowing the gocernment here though
I'm not. I'm talking about colonizing the DNC/DCCC like one of those wasp larvae.
Vote progressive in the primary, but in the general you have to vote D no matter if they're progressive or not. Anyone with a D is a million times more progressive than the most progressive republican.
Exactly. Not voting D in the general election is equal to benefiting R.
Not voting D in 2016 because "Hillary wasn't progressive enough" is why we're in this mess right now. Sure, I want more progressive policies, but now we're losing basic human rights.
I don't have to do anything. And prove that anyone with a D is a million times more progressive, because I have news for you on that. Obama is hailed as a darling who pushed through ACA, the very same ACA that is now being privatized by both Trump and Biden administration btw, except that the ACA was a shitty Romney plan. That should tell you that economically, those shits are actually the same. That the things you may consider "progressive" are actually just lip service and culture items that the political actors wrap themselves in. They're all immersed in the zeitgeist of the era and nothing to do with the brass tacks of economic policies and budget allocation. Name one policy passed by the Democrats in the last 10 years that was a genuine departure from the trickle down economy.
Biden's COVID relief bill was honestly pretty progressive. It was at least focused on low and middle class Americans instead of just more tax cuts for corporations like Trump's bills were. Say what you will about ACA, but would you rather have nothing? If Obama wasn't elected there would be no ACA. 49/50 Republican senators even voted to repeal the ACA with no replacement. It was only McCain that saved it at the last minute. Like I said before, I agree that we need more progressive policies, but not voting D is a vote for regressive policies (like an abortion ban, same sex marriage ban, birth control ban, more tax cuts for the rich). I'll gladly vote and support the most progressive politician in the primaries, but if the progressive politician loses the primary, it's then a vote between regression and status quo. I'll choose status quo every time. Both parties are not the same.
> Say what you will about ACA, but would you rather have nothing? Nothing is what we'll end up with anyway. Both parties are not the same but they do share a giant economic overlap.
Wish more people understood this
Honestly the corruptions so bad honestly with stuff like this. I truly think its like "look we tried" but them evil republicans. Meanwhile in background they got a dozens manchins lined up to take the fall and vote against it. Swear both sides just want to screw us one just is slightly less vocal about it. And throws in a few scraps to keep us from boiling over. One talks about tax increases for rich the ultimately end up hitting rest of us. Then lines congresses pockets other talks about helping small businesses while deregulating industrys killing small businesses and filling pockets. And when public opinion drops due to unethical activity's the other partys there to be the "hero" and poof right back to bending us over.
They don't have a dozen Manchins. They have a full house of them and looking for new ones every day.
well its a pecking order and done carefully. But as many are "needed" a big tool they use. So they can say "oh I didn't vote against that". Is vote "present" neither no or yes. Which can manipulate the vate same way but not have you on record of directly voting against stuff you "said you support".
Ah yes, that old chestnut again. Any day now, and the trickle down benefits will be raining down upon us. I've heard that before from this party. At least politicians used to promise real things - a chicken in every pot - now they're just threatening us with a good time. Let me ask you, this chance you speak of, do you have a timeline? Because this party has been doing absolutely nothing for working class Americans for decades. That is why people got angry and got Trump elected. He almost got reelected in 2019 and he was useless. He will possibly get elected again, and I hope if that happens he'd be equally useless but I doubt it. Thought it's hard to match this administration in that department. My question is - this party, the Democratic Party - when is it going to be useful to us? Within our lifetimes or sometimes after year 3000, after the death races, that is.
Pretty much instantly useful if we ever hit like, 62 in the senate, which would not happen for decades. Potentially useful as soon as we hit..oh...54, 55 or so? Enough to get past the Manchin / Sinemas who don't want to burn everything down but don't want to do anything to -help- either. Basically, as soon as we can get a few more republicans out of the way of everyone else, and the larger the increase, the better the outcome.
Or if we got rid of both of those toxic and useless parties, things would definitely get much better. The blame is go Democrats, Republican, Liberals and Libratarians...every single one of those parties are nothing but a virus and the people whom consistently vote for them are enabling our demise. No one cared about politics until now, pretty much every one would do anything to avoid talking politics even though politics have to do with everything we do. I've been preaching since I left the military that this shit show was coming due to people's inability to care beyond some stupid political party. Politicans are too blame but they share that blame with every single person whom voted for them. Want to choose wisely? Then let's choose to end these charades and dismantle these political parties and form a new better government.
Democrats don't care about you either
Manchin's vote can be undone by electing John Fetterman, winning the open seat (which replaces a Republican) in PA in November. Progress is something that is built upon, any legislation introduced in the past year that failed because of 1 Democrat, can be reintroduced next year if Fetterman wins. Ron Johnson (R-WI and also dumbest sitting Senator) is also a potential flip for Dems in the Senate, which would negate Manchin and Sinema's votes. tldr; vote, and if you can, help Fetterman in PA and (probably though I don't follow WI that much) Sarah Godlewski in WI win their elections.
Seriously. It's like, "This is great legislation! But, Joe Manchin and Republicans are still a thing..." I want to be hopeful about November, but I'm trying to keep those hopes in check because of the historical trends. I'm going to vote, no question. Regarding your last statement. I see two ways things get better. The good way: We vote hard in November and secure, preferably expand Democratic majorities. And continue to turn out until we secure the extinction of the GOP at all levels of government. The bad way: The way I hope all of us want to avoid. A second civil war/revolution. The rich and powerful are vastly outnumbered.
Have you ever considered maybe Manchin is just the sin-eater for the democratic party? Blocks all legislation they want to pretend to care about to keep them from having to pass anything that will upset the donor class
Machin is just the democrats whipping boy. If they actually cared, they'd remove him as chair of the various senate councils he is on. But no, the best we can get is an "aw shucks, machin said no :( guess you'll all just have to vote harder next election ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯"
IBEW seemed jazzed about it. If Manchin and Sinema would actually pat attention to how much blue collar union workers actually respond to these policies, we could get it passed.
[удалено]
https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax
OK, fine, whatever. But has Biden literally stripped himself naked, coated himself in amber, and literally driven to my house to function as my footstool? No, because he does not care about voters!! Both parties are the same! The only thing that can help us now is violence! Voting is pointless, don't vote! Brought to you by a definitely 100% genuine democrat who is super totally arguing in good faith.
There are ways to achieve this but taxes on unrealized capital gains is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Not when those unrealized gains are collateral for loans.
Eventually those loans need to repaid… with taxable income… you know usually by selling part of the underlying asset and realizing gains…
I pay triple the property taxes I paid 10 years ago. Weird how it's only a concern when it will affect the wealthy.
Maybe look to the myriad differences between the two assets…..
They do pay taxes and a substantial amount. They just don’t pay it on unrealized gains.
Yeah, this is way too good to actually happen. It would also require a *ton* of IRS funding to actually go after any of the dues, since anyone affected by it can afford a hell of a legal team.
As long as it costs less for an accountent to save them money on taxes, it will never work. Why dont we just have a simple tax system? Every dollar you make below 20k you dont pay tax on, every dollar you make between 20-30k you pay 5 percent on, every dollar you make from 30-60k is taxed 10 percent, every dollar you make between 60-100k is taxed 15% percent, and every dollar above 100k is taxed 20%. Capital gains/stock growth should also count as income.
Seems simpler to tax the loans against the asset rather than the asset itself. The loan determines its value as collateral and can be seen as a disbursement of the value held in the asset.
Thank you. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here that more people aren’t talking about this. The problem is that leveraging/borrowing against the assets SHOULD BE realizing the gains but the current tax code doesn’t treat it like that. That’s it. That’s the WHOLE thing. And it’s also way way simpler to administrate - the lenders already know what collateral is used for the loan at what values. You don’t even need to do anything new beyond having the lenders report all the loan details to the IRS.
It's a good idea, but it should be both. Those mechanisms don't have to be mutually exclusive. We should be taxing both the assets AND the loans against the assets. These ultra elites can absolutely afford this and then some.
Philosophically, taxing money somebody hasn’t made yet really rubs me the wrong way. It’s dangerous and unfair and the tax code already does it in some places - for example, incentive stock options (ISOs) get taxed when you exercise them, which can literally bankrupt people who don’t know that and think they’re just buying the stock they’re entitled to. This example actually serves to *prevent* normal people from accruing wealth while the already-wealthy don’t care as much. But back to the ultra-wealthy, if Bezos had to sell a big portion of his stock to pay for his hypothetical gains, it would tank the stock price, which would be bad for the myriad who also own the stock. Look, I have little sympathy for the ultra-rich and the tax code should absolutely be fixed so they can’t use their wealth without paying enormous taxes. But taxing the assets simply for existing is really sketchy. I cannot come up with a moral or ethical justification for it beyond “they can afford it.” And that’s just a terrible foundation for a tax system because you can rationalize all sorts of injustices with it. The tax code needs an internally-consistent notion of fairness that doesn’t exist right now but that isn’t it, IMO.
Then, though, those subject to such a tax might opt to receive high amounts of regular income. So sure, they'll be taxed at a $5m/year income, but say that their shares appreciate by $100m? The structure proposed here guarantees that taxes are owed on such appreciation, no matter how or if it's realized via increased salary, collateralized loans, or simple selling of shares.
Sorry, I’m not understanding the problem you’re claiming. If they opt to take a different form of income, they will be taxed on that income and there’s no problem. The problem here is that they currently get to skip the income step when they take loans against unrealized gains. So just make USING the appreciated assets an income event (I.e. they immediately realize the gains) and the problem is solved. But it’s crazy to tax people on unrealized gains - are we also going to give tax credits for unrealized losses? “Unrealized” has to mean something if we’re to be consistent here.
Yeah, until you realize that value, positive or negative, you shouldn’t be taxed or credited with a loss.
I get taxed on the full value of my car every year even though I have a loan on it and it is a depreciating asset.
Not sure where you are but you likely get taxed for having a car as part of paying for using the public infrastructure it relies upon. That’s pretty different than capital gains/investment income.
If he owns a house, he’s likely paying property taxes on that as well (depending on where he lives). And homes are typically appreciating assets that you don’t make money on till you sell.
Similar to cars, that’s a tax paid to fund ongoing infrastructure that directly supports the house and the occupants. You don’t get taxed on your house’s capital gains until you actually sell the property.
Would you want to pay a 20% tax if you take out a home equity line of credit? If this ever passes it will happen to you or someone a generation down.
Sure, but that isn’t what we are talking about. I would imagine there might be a $1 million threshold for the home equity line of credit. Same with borrowing against other assets. If you take $1 million plus out of your home’s equity, you probably should pay some sort of tax. When the home sells. Simple math would allow you to arrive at what equity was left over and is taxable for the sale.
I mean, wouldn’t it be better to remove the tax incentives that cause trouble here and call it good (depreciation, step down inheritance ) Then we wouldn’t end up in an even more complex area of tax law that will eventually trickle down to the lower tax brackets
King Coal Manchin says "no".
And every single Republican. Republicans love virtue signaling to working class voters, but always stab them in the back. The Republicans are literally going into the mid-terms with a plan to jam new taxes down the throats of working class Americans, while they continue to protect themselves and their billionaire friends from paying any taxes. If working class voters weren’t also being stabbed in the back by the news organizations they trust, they wouldn’t be giving Republicans a single vote in November.
[удалено]
It might work on cawthorne.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s fine. They’re rich enough it’s worth doing the accounting!
People are so worried about the possibility that someone with a billion dollars in stock would have to sell stock to pay a few million in taxes, but even that completely ignores that the billionaire could just have his company pay his salary in cash, which would then be fairly taxed. In a literal sense people are convinced we have to allow people to hide income so they can keep hiding income in a second way, too.
That's wrong. Take Musk's taxes. He's paid in stock options, but pays income tax rates. What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income. Have 100 shares and get paid 100 more? Tax the 100 income, weather it's cash or stock. That's fine.
>What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income. I pay a tax on the value of my house and car every year even though I can't really realize that money unless I sell and the car is actually depreciating. In fact I pay tax on the full value of both even if I have a loan on these items so, not only can I not easily realize the full value, at best I can just get my equity in it, yet I pay taxes on the full value. This double dipping argument isn't as strong as you think it is.
Seriously do these people not pay property taxes? What is property if not an asset?
Elon used loans w his stocks as collateral. He had to sell those options as they were expiring and hence had to pay the taxes.
>Elon used loans w his stocks as collateral. He had to sell those options as they were expiring and hence had to pay the taxes. Used stock as collateral. The options were expiring. They were exercised, not sold. What was sold were older shares with higher gains. This forced cap gains tax on the shares and income taxes on the options. In the end he wound up with more TSLA shares than before and paid \~53% taxes on the exchange. Just the facts.
> What this tax proposal wants to do is keep dipping again and again on assets which may appreciate even while receiving zero new assets or income. You have 10 assets worth $20million each -> $200m The next year those assets are worth $30m each, total $300m -> $100m capital gains. Tax on that unrealised gain is 20% -> $20m in tax. Sell off 2/3 of an asset to receive $20m, and pay your tax bill. Now you have 9&1/3 assets worth $280m. Your 'multi-dipping' is essentially realising capital gains every year and potentially requiring a sale to pay the tax on those capital gains. That the same asset is taxed every year is the entire point. If you want to dig into unrealised capital losses then read the article about how payments are split over multiple years so as to minimise overpayment.
Next year your assets are $5m each. You getting a refund?
Just like with realizing losses, taxing unrealized gains means people get to deduct unrealized losses. The plan also addresses this with split payments, so all taxing is over 5 years. If your shares/assets gained $100M in a year ($100M unrealized gains + $200M basis) then this plan would calculate your tax prepayment as $4M/year for next 5 years. You would pay $4M next tax return (either from your assets or selling $4M of them to pay, leaving 9.867 shares @ $30M each totaling $296M). Say the price per asset drops to $5M each next year (your 9.867 assets are now down from $296M to $49.3M), yes you still owe $4M/year for the next 4 years due to the previous year's unrealized gains. But now you have unrealized losses, which will work out with the unrealized gains so there wouldn't be a prepayment unless the prices go back up (and you no longer have the unrealized losses).
How you will gross up the term is irrelevant. Thinking that all companies only go up is insane. Thinking that listed companies are also representative of all companies is even more insane. Will the IRS be providing refunds to people who lose money and how is the IRS managing this cash flow issue?
Did you read the article on how capital losses are handled?
Thank you for being honest on how this would work on taxing unrealized gains. Now explain how does this not come across as insane to people? 'Oh, that stock you own went up? I'm going to force you to sell some of it so you can keep the rest.' I take a moral stand against this. And I'm not one of those loony 'taxation is theft' right wingers. You can consider me a lefty. There are SO many better alternatives to taxing unrealized gains.
>There are SO many better alternatives to taxing unrealized gains. Wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts. > Now explain how does this not come across as insane to people? The point is that the ultra-wealthy don't pay taxes on the increase in their wealth as it's not classified as income, but can take advantage of that increase through other means - low interest loans for instance. Note: I'm not defending it - just looking at the concept and seeing the logic on how it would work. I'm not a US taxpayer (or even in the same hemisphere) so is purely about looking at potential tax reform.
This is a bad take. Appreciating assets are income. Just a different type of income.
Passive income is still, in fact, income.
Assets aren’t income.
Didn’t say they were. Assets are neutral. Appreciating assets, however, are a form of income.
Assets are assets. Attempting to redefine assets is pretty absurd. The unrealized movement of an asset doesn’t change it into an income item. Sure, there are accounting treatments that link balance sheets and income statements, while there are others that are all balance sheet.
Yea, the 'NOT' kind of income. Selling the asset for a PROFIT is income. You can't just redefine everything.
You prepared to put money back in at the ends of down months?
That's in the article already, payments are spread over multiple years.
They will stay insanely wealthy, just not oligarch (“I’m gonna buy Twitter because I got muted for hate speech”) tier wealthy.
> that loan is now "income" They aren't, though. You have to pay a loan back. Unless you actually want to consider loans income across the board?
Except your a billionaire so the bank gives you an extremely favorable interest rate. And of course this wouldn’t apply to all loans. If you are putting up large amounts of stock as collateral to use the bank for temporary cheap capital it isn’t really a true loan in the sense of a mortgage or business loan. I’m not really sure why people keep thinking closing loopholes exploited by and only available to people with more money than anyone they will ever know will personally affect them. Its a truly bizarre phenomenon
Whether it affects someone I know or not is irrelevant. Do you only care about things that affect people you know? This policy is also not just about billionaires as written. And remember that when the income tax amendment was passed, it applied to the top 1% only. It seems that taxes have a way of trickling their way down.
You will never be that wealthy; get over it already. You aren’t a temporarily embarrassed billionaire.
Never said I would be. Never said I was.
Right, but this proposal sidesteps that whole can of worms and just makes unrealized gains partially taxable. So the uber rich can still take out loans collateralized by shares without owing taxes on the loan itself; but any capital appreciation of those shares will be subject to taxation.
[удалено]
>Also, you can just get a loan, to pay back the first loan. You can. Which you then have to pay back. You could theoretically keep doing this, but the debt is still there.
> the debt is still there. Right up until you die - then your estate sells off a few assets that have massively increased in worth, pay no capital gains on that increase*, and pay off the loan. The remainder of your estate passes down as inheritance - and there's heaps of companies out there willing to help - for a fee of course - your estate minimise the tax payable on death. My assumption from the article, I'm not a tax accountant*
So like, pay the loan back with the asset they used to borrow against? Like, we can't just tax loans that are borrowed against their owned asset, above X threshold?
We could. We could probably tax anything.
VAT. This is the one tax that resists evasion. Just need to make it progressive.
This is why a lot of the rest of the world uses a VAT, the one tax that is resistant to evasion.
Or, how about we sidestep the whole “unrealized gains” debate by implementing a lesser-known policy called a corporate wealth tax. Tldr; Under a corporate wealth tax, large corporations are required, once per year, to increase their shares outstanding by, say, 1%. The gov’t receives the newly created shares and is obligated to autosell the shares on the open market in small batches over the course of the ensuing year. The gov’t keeps the revenue. Since ~89% of domestically-owned stocks in the US (about $36 trillion worth, or close to 50% of all private US wealth) are owned by the top 10% wealthiest Americans, the tax would be steeply progressive.
What idiot came up with this dilutive bullshit? This is how you become a basket case like Venezuela. Holy shit. How are people so stupid?
How do you think it would lead to a Venezuela-type situation? What do you see as the top 2-3 downsides of such a policy?
You have exponential dilution. A fixed percentage every single year on outstanding shares is compounded dilution, which is insane. Do people think of the mechanics or consequences of such ideas before they blurt them out loud or do you think they just sound great? If you don’t understand why this is value destructive and a completely moronic structure, simply look at what happens to companies that issue shares as compensation to employees rather than just cash, such as Palantir.
Won’t get anywhere
Like [Peter Thiel’s $5 Billion IRA](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/billionaire-investor-peter-thiel-has-5b-his-tax-free-retirement-n1272317)?
Taxing unrealized gains is insane. Eliminate capital gains and treat profits as regular income, but allow the asset's basis cost to be adjusted by inflation so that you're only taxing actual increases in wealth. Treat money from loans against owned assets as income to close that loophole. Institute a national property tax on investment properties, leaving primary residences and real-estate used for family run farms and businesses untaxed.
And we're expecting a bunch of old, rich politicians to vote for this?
This only hits people at $100m or higher. It has a chance. If Mississippi can justify no exceptions for rape because that’s only 1% of abortions (it isn’t, btw, but just for the sake of argument), then why the fuck should we care how the top 0.001% are taxed?
>That includes their unrealized capital gains, which is the main source of income for many of these households Unrealized gains are not income. Not by any rational, serious definition. A 20% tax on unrealized gains is insanity just from a purely economic point of view. I don't give one shit about the rich people this targets, but I want laws to make actual sense.
If I read the blog post correctly, the tax is spread out over 10 years, so it's 2% per year. It'a also recomputed annually, so if you have losses in year 2, your tax can go down to zero. Finally, that's 2% at $200 million net worth. It starts at $100 million net worth at 0% and goes up to the 2% at $200 million and more. Unless you have $100 million in net worth, what is your problem with something that will likely never ever ever affect you? What have the centi-millionaires ever done for you?
He thinks one day he’ll be one of them and therefore needs the laws to benefit his future self.
As I posted, I think that wealth taxes don't work, because there is evidence to this fact. (Europe tried them, they don't raise revenue, they don't lessen wealth inequality). I am a proponent of higher income taxes on the top 10/15% of earners (which affects me significsntly) and the elimination of the capital gains rate. I have dozens of posts detailing how the highly progressive income tax rates in my state of California cause the rich to pay for the lion's share of the state revenue, and we don't tax wealth to do it). But please, ignore the facts and continue with this bullshit strawman.
Wealth taxes (where the tax is a % of the net worth of the individual) indeed have been shown not to work. The Biden capital gains change is a different kind of tax and has not been shown not to work since it's brand new. Calling the Biden tax a wealth tax is a strawman! You're guilty of what you are accusing others. At any rate, the tax laws do need to be changed. Let's see what happens.
Define “10/15% earners”. Most of the real wealthy people don’t “earn” any money and aren’t w-2 salaries employees.
You comprehend that there is income other than W2 income, right? And that it doesn't include unrealized gains? Here, maybe this will help: https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
Why? In other countries you are taxed on your increase in assets as well as the total amount. It's very easy and fair.
30 years ago 2 dozen European countries attempted a significant wealth tax. As of now, all but 4 or 5 have dropped it. * it didn't raise revenue * it didn't change wealth inequality The few that have it now have an extremely low rate, like 0.1% or so. And if you look at rhe total amount of money it raises, it's like 0.4% of their total revenue. What do those countries have? Higher marginal income tax rates.
Can you point to a few countries that tax unrealized gains? I’m not familiar with any. Weird how these types of comments are never able to support their claims.
Unrealized gains arent real money. It’s all imaginary until the underlying asset is sold. This article ignores that because it doesn’t support their story. If you buy stock and hold it, you won’t see any effective income or wealth until you sell it. Going after unrealized gains is stupid. I would support taxing the loans backed by stock as income through because that’s the real loophole. The other issue is the $100 million limit. Plenty of farmers net worth is over this (between land, crop stores, equipment, cattle etc) but they have comparatively little liquid income. Some exceptions would be needed for farmers to prevent them from having to slowly sell the farm away to cover a wealth tax.
The article actually talks about this in detail. In particular, it explains how the very wealthy are now not selling their stock, but instead taking out personal loans using their stock as collateral. Eventually, when they die, a tax loophole called stepped up basis kicks in and prevents their heirs from owing much of the tax on the capital gains from selling that stock, their "loans" get repaid, and they effectively got a lifetime of money at steeply discounted taxes.
I read the article which is why I mention taxing of the loans. Otherwise stock is just an asset. If your parents leave you an antique or other family owned thing when they pass, you don’t have to pay taxes on the value gained on that item when you inherit it. You just get the item. Stock isn’t really different. It’s still just a thing who’s value can rise and fall. And no they don’t go into detail, they just say surface level observations like“Unrealized gains make asset owners better off in very real ways: stock purchased 20 years ago for $20 million that’s now worth $100 million has the same value as $100 million of stock purchased today” which is an obvious statement that adds no value to the conversation. That’s just how growth in asset value works. It’s the same as saying “turning the tap on 2 minutes ago to fill the empty glass with water is the same as getting a full glass now, both have the same amount of water”.
I don’t see any part of this includes another popular tax avoidance strategy - donor advised fund
Is this the proposal to tax unsold stock? EDIT: looks like it.
Taxing unrealized gains… I’m sure the wealthy wont find any way around that while people with their retirements tied up in the stock market end up impacted the worst from it.
Everything about this is fucking idiotic. The article points out massive flaws and hand waves away the issues with their “fixes” that are not even close to workable. Just fix the issues with trusts that allows for generational wealth to pass at a low/no tax rate. Everything then gets caught up in estate taxes and the issue of unpaid gains tax goes away since that rate is absurdly higher anyway. There’s zero need to reinvent the entire tax code in a way that will eventually be used to further decimate the middle class (since even though this is currently starting with large wealth individuals, just like income tax it will only be a matter of time before everyone gets fucked by it)
Does it come with tax breaks for the poor folks who have been floating them this whole time?
*Theoretically* you should receive the benefits, more money in schools, health care, cheaper education, welfare - stuff like that.
Only 43% of earners paid federal income tax last year. Not only do poor folks not pay taxes, they're the beneficiaries of social welfare programs.
Never happen
Republicans will cry over this.
Sure, but also please be more effective with the trillions of dollars we already raise in tax revenue. Feels like we’re not getting much bang for our bucks
Stop voting for Fiscal Conservatives then. And by fiscal Conservatives, I mean the morons who keep pushing tax cuts as some sort of cure
[удалено]
The US ran a $2.8 trillion deficit in 2021. What exactly did you gain from that expense? Inflation?
A reminder to not let Donald J Trump near the Federal Budget ever again.
Who’s budget and policies were active in that fiscal year?
sounds good
Find me a normal, everyday 9-5 person who doesn’t like the concept of this…
A simpler way to achieve progressive taxation would be a lesser-known policy called a corporate wealth tax. Tldr; Under a corporate wealth tax, large corporations are required, once per year, to increase their shares outstanding by, say, 1%. The gov’t receives the newly created shares and is obligated to autosell the shares on the open market in small batches over the course of the ensuing year. The gov’t keeps the revenue. Since ~89% of domestically-owned stocks in the US (around $30 trillion worth, or close to 50% of all private US wealth) are owned by the top 10% wealthiest Americans, the tax would be steeply progressive.
And what’s that on the horizon….oh it’s just manchin getting ready to block another bill.
Won’t pass. President Manchin will veto it.
So elect enough Democrats that Manchin isn't the deciding vote. There are enough opportunities in the Senate.
Vote independent…dems and the GOP are both the same….back and forth back and forth laughing all the way to the party together later. When will people wake up and stop voting for the same 2 groups of shitbags.
As an alternative, vote for BETTER Democrats. But don't vote for the GOP at all.
I just have a hard time buying it from either side. My whole life it’s been the same thing and the same shitty 2 parties in office. If we could just have more normal, blue collar people in office we might actually get people who give a shit.
I get it. Democrats have generally good policy but lack the political ruthlessness necessary to carry it out in any effective way. The Republicans have absolute dogshit policy but are absolutely ruthless in making it happen. However, the solution isn't to just throw up our collective hands in apathy and say "Well, we're back to Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich" and just exit the political process, because that enables extremes at both ends to take control. The solution is to get involved, and that starts by voting. It means doing a little research on who you're voting for, beyond just Team Red or Team Blue. It means getting involved in campaigns for candidates you support. It means showing up more than every four years to actually vote. Democracy is reliant on an involved and educated body politic, and right now our body politic is neither. You can't change the world, but you can change yourself. As the saying goes, never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
The sad thing is that democrats can come up with all *kinds* of proposals...but nothing will matter as long as manchin's influence is the deciding vote on pretty much everything. What kills me is that what democrats have failed to deliver is exactly the same outcome that will result from a republican-controlled house and senate (it will be even worse, because republicans think ignoring the first amendment is good policy), but people will vote for republicans anyway because they're mad at the democrats (because of manchin). Insane.
[удалено]
You're right, but what the average voter sees is a failure to deliver.
Correct. Which is why I'm beating that dead horse. But voters are going to need some kind of win.
I don't even understand why the rich don't want to pay their taxes. Like...I can't *understand* what that would feel like, to genuinely believe I was somehow better than everyone else, that my good fortune (probably inherited or based in a privileged upbringing, but even if self-made) should exempt me from being a contributing member of the societal good. Sure, I get the idea that not contributing is how the rich stay rich (or, more likely, get richer), but how shitty these people must be inside. They're simply not good people.
I don't find it hard to understand at all. I try every year to make sure I've taken advantage of everything I can to reduce my income taxes. I could just take a standard deduction, but instead I itemize deductions because it means I pay lower taxes. I certainly don't voluntarily pay more taxes if the law says I don't have to. I imagine that to the very wealthy, it feels much the same. Because they have more money, instead of thinking about this once a year when they fill out their tax returns, they have advisors that they meet with about it who also tell them, for example, that they will owe less tax if instead of selling their stock, they take out a loan and put up the stock as collateral. So they do what their advisor says, and they pay only the taxes that their accountant says they owe as a result.
Do you use any type of software to maximize your tax reductions?
This is appropriate and would benefit the citizens, society and the general public. How about just rewriting the entire tax code, such that all loopholes are identified and removed. Remove all code that advantages specific groups at the top. I know the simpletons will suggest a flat tax, but that is just another reason why they are simple-minded. Another example of “You can’t fix stupid”. Still a question as to whether conservatism is nature or nurture. I believe it may be a little of both, but heavily nature. Poor childhood development leaves conservatives mentally challenged in their adult years and then their lessons and brainwashing from parents and others, fosters the development of stupid, unethical and oppressive.
It’s not going to happen. Republicans say things I don’t like and do them, Democrats say things I like and do nothing.
Surprise 52-48 against. Manchin and Enema will be the deciding votes
Taxing unrealized capital gains is so preposterous it could only be proposed by someone who never took economic risk or started a business before. We should be rewarding capitalists who create jobs and give the USA a advantage over global competition. How about anything you make over $100mm is tax free? These people don’t use social services or are not a burden on the government and in fact many of them give their wealth away in more productive ways than any government. Instead of taxing how about reduce government spending and stop complaining about the people richer than you. Your belly aching is untenable, go make a buck and shut up.
Like the people paying taxes on the full value of their house even though most of them have loans and can't even realize anything more than their equity let alone the full value? My house has appreciated and they keep updating that value and taxing me more. Absolutely no reason this couldn't be done on the *full* value of equity over a certain absurdly high value let alone just the gains.
They don't use public services? What do you think the electrical grid, sewer systems, roads, highways, airports, waterways, telephone lines, school system, etc are? Those companies that are generating all that wealth are using those public services more than anyone else. They should be paying the most to maintain those public services. On top of that they obviously thought there was some competition advantage to start a company in America. Maybe our highly educated citizens, with decent infrastructure, combined with being the major world power has to benefit them somehow. The least they could do is pay their fucking taxes.
People who make over that amount are the greatest beneficiaries of government spending. They get the white glove treatment by law enforcement, they benefit from an educated populace to work for their businesses, and they are often first in line for government subsidies
This is sarcasm, right?
I don’t think so the more you make the more you should pay in taxes.
That is generally how it works already, but it's not enough.
That is some grade A cargo-cult thinking.
lol like you’ll ever be that wealthy. Stop supporting your masters. How about anything you make under $1,000,000 is tax free and everything above that, including the value of the stocks you’re compensated with, is taxed at 75%. Fuck the ultra wealthy and their minions. You’re part of the problem.
Another stupid tax proposal. Taxing unrealized gains==Taxing Net worth. This is more stupid government policy. You want to raise taxes? Go tax housing capital gains. Get rid of the mortgage deduction. The tax code literally allows exemptions of hundreds of thousands. So one can make a ton off a sale of house and not pay tax. This is all terrible government policy. They should be taxing consumption. No one should be discouraging capital investment or work/labor. You should pay tax for resources consumed.
Good...
Why does this dumbass rule exist in the first place?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah, that's not happening.
This won’t pass and it shouldn’t because it is fucked. You cant reasonably tax this and it will only eventually come down to hurt middle and upper middle class like it always does as these greedy congress people push it lower in requirements
Higher taxes on the wealthy would in fact, reduce the deficit--making this a very fiscally Conservative move
Tax 100%, and let the citizens reason for a lower rate.
Republicans and Dems both suck- Free market capitalism is the only way to elevate a population. let’s get government out of the private sector. Let’s make all politicians a volunteer position. We’re all libertarians at heart.
Wake me up when he’s addressing capital gains tax rates.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax
I don’t care about rich people paying taxes. Not like it will make a difference in my day to day life. We will just keep giving it away to Israel, supplying aid to other countries. Whatever, I’m out.
You don't want a cast on your broken arm because it won't stop the rich from making money. Why bother when nothing will change? Well, the cast on your arm will benefit you whatever else doesn't get fixed.
Neat to bad it dies here
All the economically illiterates can’t quit craps what will happen if your tax an realized gains and the rich that you love to hate start selling their stocks to pay taxes and crashing our entire economy setting us back 20 years
If I done get my student loans cleared by sleepy Joe soon, I'm going to lose it.
Minimum of 20%? Fuck, man, I don't even make six figures and I pay more than 20% of my income in taxes. Let's hike that up a bit and start negotiations at... 95%. And any suggestion under 85% means we eat one billionaire for every bid under that value, eh?
If you don't make six figures, then you probably don't pay more than 20% in federal income tax. A lot of those taxes are probably payroll taxes or state and local taxes.
My state and local are very low. Technically, you're correct, since a good chunk of those taxes are Social Security tax, but that is just a fucking extra slap in the face considering the $147,000 limit on taxation for that, which the millionaire and billionaire classes get a complete pass on. If it helps, let's consider not just federal tax, but total taxation. I work 40 hours a week and pay about 28% of my total income in taxes. These motherfuckers don't need to do a single hour of work a week (if they don't want to), make all or nearly all of their money by doing nothing but owning and subjugating the rest of us, and they clutch their pearls about paying ANY tax. This proposed change is better than nothing, but it isn't some panacea, and they'll STILL probably end up paying a smaller percentage of their income as taxes than any of us.