@no1marauder saidDon’t have time to sit back with your link, but, note how you are so casual with other people’s money. $100M, $503B, what a joke you are. They just should not have that money, should they Marauder. Just say it. Research Bernie, and, just say it.
Moreover, the tax Joe is crying about would effect a very small percentage of taxpayers:
"Imposing a 25% minimum “billionaire’s tax” targeting unrealized gains for individual taxpayers with $100 million in net assets ($503 billion)"
https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/alerts/tax/2024/legislative-updates/biden-budget-targets-corporate-minimum-tax-executive-comp
@AverageJoe1 saidThey should pay taxes when the value of their assets increase just like everybody else.
Don’t have time to sit back with your link, but, note how you are so casual with other people’s money. $100M, $503B, what a joke you are. They just should not have that money, should they Marauder. Just say it. Research Bernie, and, just say it.
Let's say Jim is a truck driver making $50,000 a year. He scrimps and saves and adds $10,000 to his savings account. Every cent of that increase is taxable.
Let's say Don Jr. doesn't work at all but his daddy gave him a bunch of stock. In the same year that Jim, by productive work and frugal living, increases his assets by $10,000 (and pays tax on it), Don Jr.'s stocks go up $10,000 in value but he doesn't pay a dime in taxes.
Who's the producer and who's the non-producer, Joe?
@no1marauder saidWhat? We get he makes $50,000. He saves 20% of the 50k
They should pay taxes when the value of their assets increase just like everybody else.
Let's say Jim is a truck driver making $50,000 a year. He scrimps and saves and adds $10,000 to his savings account. Every cent of that increase is taxable.
Let's say Don Jr. doesn't work at all but his daddy gave him a bunch of stock. In the same year that Jim, by productive wor ...[text shortened]... in value but he doesn't pay a dime in taxes.
Who's the producer and who's the non-producer, Joe?
(Scrimps and saves means the 10K comes from that 50k)
We get all that. So he lives on 40K and puts the rest in a savings account.
What in the hell…..you want rewrite your scenario?
@AverageJoe1 saidAnd he pays taxes on the full $50K including the $10K in his increased asset (the savings account).
What? We get he makes $50,000. He saves 20% of the 50k
(Scrimps and saves means the 10K comes from that 50k)
We get all that. So he lives on 40K and puts the rest in a savings account.
What in the hell…..you want rewrite your scenario?
Meanwhile, Don Jr pays no taxes even though his asset (stock) increased the same amount as Jim's.
This is typical of our tax system i.e. it rewards non productive rent seeking rather than productive work.
@no1marauder saidI get it. My first take is the penchant of libs to relate all the citizens economically, shall we say. So if we all live myAnalogyIsland, everyone minding their own business. McHill is a boatbuilderand pays tax on his income. Mott is a fisherman, sells fish, pays tax on income. His father gives him almost all of his assets, so Mott stops working, is not productive. You think because McHill pays income tax, that for no special reason Mott, who has no income , should pay some other kind of tax? Just an invented tax? To get money from him? Why? What has he got to do with anyone else on the island? If you say he uses the roads and police, then we agree he should pay a use tax. But the percentage tax you suggest the nonproducer should pay is punitive, beyond typical use that is collected per person for civil services.
And he pays taxes on the full $50K including the $10K in his increased asset (the savings account).
Meanwhile, Don Jr pays no taxes even though his asset (stock) increased the same amount as Jim's.
This is typical of our tax system i.e. it rewards non productive rent seeking rather than productive work.
Not logical. Try telling us how much. I’m hearing 70% from Eliz Warren, and certainly Kamal. That sounds like a lot more than our McHill boat maker has to pay in income tax .
WHY?
@no1marauder saidUhhhh, you use the word reward. I use the word punish, punish his good fortune in an unfair world. Libs think they can manipulate equality or equity or whatever. Sorry, you cannot.
And he pays taxes on the full $50K including the $10K in his increased asset (the savings account).
Meanwhile, Don Jr pays no taxes even though his asset (stock) increased the same amount as Jim's.
This is typical of our tax system i.e. it rewards non productive rent seeking rather than productive work.
You are aware, I am sure, that Don Jr will eventually pay tax when he cashes in. Uhh, you want him to pay NOW??!!? How much? And oh, Warren wants tax to be paid on theUNREALIZED gain each year.
Be honest, big fellow. It sucks.
@AverageJoe1 saidHer name is Kamala.
I get it. My first take is the penchant of libs to relate all the citizens economically, shall we say. So if we all live myAnalogyIsland, everyone minding their own business. McHill is a boatbuilderand pays tax on his income. Mott is a fisherman, sells fish, pays tax on income. His father gives him almost all of his assets, so Mott stops working, is not productive. Yo ...[text shortened]... That sounds like a lot more than our McHill boat maker has to pay in income tax .
WHY?
@AverageJoe1 saidFunny you think to tax someone on their monetary gains made without work is to "punish" them while you don't use that term to describe taxing someone from their monetary gain by actual, productive work.
Uhhhh, you use the word reward. I use the word punish, punish his good fortune in an unfair world. Libs think they can manipulate equality or equity or whatever. Sorry, you cannot.
You are aware, I am sure, that Don Jr will eventually pay tax when he cashes in. Uhh, you want him to pay NOW??!!? How much? And oh, Warren wants tax to be paid on theUNREALIZED gain each year.
Be honest, big fellow. It sucks.
Next time you rant about "producers" supporting "non-producers", I'll remind you of this.
@no1marauder saidDid you sell it? Values rise and fall, with no transactions in play, will the government give you a check if it suddenly becomes worth less than before?
I have a capital asset worth $1 million.
It rises in value to $2 million.
So I now have increased my assets by $1 million.
Why shouldn't I have to pay taxes on that $1 million?
@KellyJay saidAm I seeing this straight? Marauder thinks that Tax should be paid on something that has increased in value, But has not been sold???????????????????????
Did you sell it? Values rise and fall, with no transactions in play, will the government give you a check if it suddenly becomes worth less than before?
He needs to extend all that research he does into economics.
@AverageJoe1
I think that we can read between the lines on Marauder He just cannot stand it when someone has or makes a lot of money. Methinks he is not baking his own pie.
@no1marauder
Taxing unrealized capital gains would be a disaster for ordinary Americans trying to save for retirement through 401K's and independent portfolios, depending on how it would work. Currently, there is no capital gains tax on Roth and Traditional IRA's. I hope that would not go away. Capital gains taxes are only paid on non retirement accounts when you withdraw money. Changing that would be a disaster for the middle class. Keep in mind that $1,000,000 is not the vast sum of yesteryear. The US (Forbes, 4/2024) has more billionaires than any other country, 813. They need to be appropriately taxed. They made their money due to the infrastructure the rest of us built for them.
@AverageJoe1 saidJust think of the power that would give the government, we say the value of what you own is X so you owe!!
Am I seeing this straight? Marauder thinks that Tax should be paid on something that has increased in value, But has not been sold???????????????????????
He needs to extend all that research he does into economics.
@AverageJoe1 saidHer name is Kamala.
You fretting over a name? Fret over a REAL problem, have you seen what your buddy Marauder has in store when Kamal-a makes him her Economic Czar?