DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Comrade Harris Pt 2

It's an interesting topic to something that is a very muddy issue. I have been grappling with that myself. Here's the dilemma, and often why we see cases where it's asserted that billionaires are paying less in taxes than the middle class. There are examples where major investors/CEOs/Chairmen/etc have stock holdings valued in the billions. With it being stock, it's obviously not a liquid asset.

What is done, though, is said billionaire will take out a massive loan against some or all of those stocks and buy their fancy homes, yachts, house on Lake Como, etc. As we all have seen, stocks appreciate over time (in most blue chip cases) and those loans can be restructured/repaid as the value of the stocks continue to rise, and new loans can be financed.

It's actually a lot more complicated than I am making it out to be, but I am trying to dumb it down into simplicity. The thing about it, though, is that, since it's funds acquired through loans, none of it is essentially taxable.

So I think that is the scenario being targeted, just to level set the discussion.

From Fox

"The proposal would impose a minimum tax of 25% on total income, generally inclusive of unrealized capital gains, for all taxpayers with wealth (that is, the difference obtained by subtracting liabilities from assets) greater than $100 million," the Treasury Department stated in its FY25 revenue proposals. The same proposal was also put forth by the Biden-Harris administration in fiscal year 2024 and in fiscal year 2023, but the minimum taxable amount was 20%.

From Smart Asset

“One issue in this plan has captured specific attention: a new tax on unrealized capital gains. Biden, and now Harris, have proposed levying an annual tax on the static wealth of households worth more than $100 million. Specifically, households worth more than $100 million would pay an annual minimum tax worth 25% of their combined income and unrealized capital gains.”

From Axios

It applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income (inclusive of unrealized capital gains). Payments can be spread out over subsequent years.


Thank you for providing the links.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/10/number-of-people-with-100-million-has-doubled-since-2003.html

28,420 people ** PotentiallYy ** affected by this proposal... out of 333 million. I think that's about 0.008% of the population of the very wealthiest people in the US. My heart bleeds for them ... not. I don't know about anyone else by I pay more than 25% income tax.

Is that all it affects though?



I guess my biggest beef is that this is just another in a long line of "policy slogans" that come out of the mouths of both sides. This crap would never happen.

My second biggest is that it's absurd. You don't tax on imaginary numbers. Doing so would open a can of worms we don't want to open.

My third is that it's a bait and switch from the numerous things that would make sense in solving this 'problem'. Let's start with eliminating tax shelters -- realized gains that are stashed overseas until a president and congress (from either side and both sides) tells the American public it would be better for us if we let them "bring that money back home to work for Americans". They even laugh at our gullibility as they call it "repatriating". Talk about a scam. You're telling billionaires they can stash a portion of their "savings" overseas, earn interest on it, and eventually you'll lower the tax rate from 30+ to 5%.


Dawglover -- you're describing a technique that definitely addresses the issue at large but is a bit apples and oranges. The more money you have, the more resources you have, the easier it is to put yourself in an advantageous place financially. That person is cashing in on unrealized gains in the free market.

Everybody has a right to avoid taxes. I'm far from rich but delaying "cashing in" on an investment til next year, when it will have a much more beneficial effect on my tax situation. When I owned a company, I manipulated these things like Berry manipulates the salary cap. It's not that hard. People in real estate get the ultimate in tax benefits. At the end of the day, anyone one can choose to go into real estate. Most don't.

I'm 100% all for taxing the rich on a much more equitable basis, but to be honest, most of the ideas put forth by our politicians are hogwash. There's a reason for that.

My biggest issue with the plan is simply the taxation part. I'd rather laws be written to provide equity to working people on the front end rather than give rich peoples' money to other rich people (politicians) on the backend as taxes which will be poorly spent on pork, overpriced military hardware, and subsidizing corporations that fund their campaigns under the guise of "making things better," all while making people more reliant on the government.

We're all too busy arguing how black Kamala actually is, arguing the value of someone's service record over a single statement he made about gun control... you know, the important stuff.

This right here.

Credit where it's due, Trump had the perfect response to this debate. In a debate with Hillary, he said (paraphrasing) that he pays as little taxes as required because of the loopholes that career politicians (like Clinton) have put in place and allowed to endure.

Politicians have never addressed tax loopholes by the super rich because that group is their gold mine. Now they're trying to look like they're doing something but the effect will be the same because they don't want to turn off that income stream.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. I was addressing it on the micro-level of the specific issue at hand vs the macro level of fixing our broken system altogether. I wouldn't give a crap about the issue as much if we could do what you said: fix loopholes and fix tax shelters. That should absolutely be priority numero uno. I do think this is a low hanging fruit stance of hers to try and appeal to people that she is going after the rich when there is a lot more to be done on that front. All we see on addressing fair taxes and wealth gap issues are disingenuous "headline" solutions from the Democrats and no solutions really whatsoever from the Republicans, unless I'm missing something.

Both you and Fate are correct. The problem is when the politicians in Washington are getting their palms greased by the wealthy and corporations via super PAC's it would be nearly impossible to rewrite the tax code to make the system fair. We've all seen how this has played out and what we've seen is the super wealthy just keep getting more and more tax cuts.

I don't disagree that a total rewrite of the tax code is what needs to happen. But if that were going to happen it would have happened before now. I believe while this measure isn't the perfect solution, it's a step in the right direction and that's something we haven't seen in a very long time. I also feel that while passage of this would be slim, I also believe the odds of getting a single measure like this passed has better odds than rewriting the tax code would.

It is quite amazing how you see very little substantive debate or platforms on important issues.

But then again, Judge Judy and Jerry Springer also get higher ratings than documentaries...

Funny you should mention that. I posted and realized I forgot something...

In that very same debate (Hillary v Trump) the question of 'repatriation' was posed in a somewhat hostile manner (pointing out that it's corrupt), I believe a segment with write-in questions from voters.

Trump looked like he swallowed the canary, Hillary looked like she was choking one up. Neither addressed the real question and both toed the line. I thought Hillary missed a golden opportunity with Trump having accounts all over the world. What she was probably choking up is the golden goose they all enjoy.

To you, dawglover and Ober - and anyone else having a real coversation.

So yes - the idea of taxing non-realized (and therefore theoretical gains) is approaching ridiculous. But HOW do you then make the super rich actually pay the share they should? Trump mentioned the loop holes - but then never did anything to shut them down. So he's no better than any politician who has created and perpetuated the loop holes. Without a complete overhaul of the system - what's the short cut to help make the 0.008% of the population not create untaxed weath ?

Someone earlier in this or another thread was railing against inheritance tax .... well how's this for a probable scenario ... the huge unrealzed gain in net worth through property value increases, stock accumulation etc .... are all passed on to the beneficiaries "virtually tax free" whn someone dies and leaves those unrealized gains to be distributed as inheritance. -- That may not be exactly how it works. But much like doglover laid out in simplistic terms, many years ago I did hear a financial expert describe in detail how the super rich do in fact manipulate the system and benefit massively from their wealth, from leveraging loans and using corporations to transfer the wealth/profits with the single sole purpose of tax avoidance.

At the end of the day I'd prefer to see a hair-brained scheme implemented to make the super rich contrubute more tax dollars than let them continue to skirt their fair due. Someone much better informed than me should be able to come up with a GOOD plan - but failing that I'll take a bad plan.

Oh she had them too, I'm sure. There's a pretty palpable "darkness" about her and Bill.

That's a fair point. When it comes to the bad plan, I guess we'll see if it's even actually implemented, or if it was just a campaign booster. And that all assumes that she would victorious, too. In the current system, I doubt we ever see a really good plan emerge, unless We The People pull our heads out of our butts, stop focusing on meaningless crap, and actually point fingers rather vocally at our respective politicians. I'm all for that. Problem is, I would write a letter or send a message, but if it's just me, all I get is the auto response from whoever it is that "Blah blah blah your issue is important blah blah blah."

I believe a straight tax of around 12% on all earnings for business and personal income across the board. No outs, Your income and corporate earnings at 12%. No more long drawn out tax forms. What was your earnings? Zero loop holes. Pay up.

And to add. Anyone caught moving earnings off shore will be forced to move off shore, forever.

I remember in 2008, one of the Republican primary candidates wanted to introduce a 9-9-9 tax reform bill to simplify our tax code. I think it was Herman Cain. I can't remember what all went into it. I think it was 9% income, 9% sales and something else. As flawed as it may have been, nobody else introduced any other solutions. Michelle Bachmann actually said "If you turn it upside-down, it's 666!" which bolstered her whackjob status.

Very few specific solutions are introduced anymore because it seems to just make that candidate a target. It's better just to talk about how bad the other person is, apparently.

Edit - it was 2012.

A flat tax idea was mentioned by Sen. Bradley, ex- All American basketball player back in 86- sad it had no chance- rich, lobby folks, tax preparers - H R Block- wonder how they'd lobby/vote. I'm all for a flat tax, no exceptions- then care for the poor. NEVER happen.

See, people want to make the tax code a "dem vs. rep." issue. It's not. The tax code is written by congress, right?

They will NEVER put teeth in the code. They'll get headlines saying how they are going to tax the rich, and then they write loopholes into the code so the rich of both parties can get out of it.

For the most part. The rich, do, pay a phenomenal amount in taxes.

We have 2 problems: 1, the people that write the tax laws, and 2. Spending.

... and then they throw tax rates out there like they actually mean something for these tax brackets. They think we're too stupid to realize that an elevated tax rate doesn't mean squat when you have these loopholes that let you off the hook.... and you know what? Most of the time they're right. We, the collective citizenry, allow ourselves to be get bogged down in Right vs Left.

They are playing us because we let them.

Doesn't matter what party you are. The d's and r's in congress write the rules. They can argue all they want in front of the camera's, but when the camera is off, they go out to eat or drink or both, together. They're making bank, while griping about the rich people. They ARE the rich people. Why do you think they spend millions upon millions of dollars (of other people's money) to get elected? So they can write the loopholes that let them and the other rich get out of taxes, yet they can get headlines saying "I voted to raise the taxes". They never say "I voted to get a headline of higher taxes, but we put loopholes in so the people that donate to me can get out of those higher taxes."

So what it comes down to is who you can trust. Your old demented little fat small boy isn’t the one.

I don't doubt that's what she "wants to do". And I don't doubt she will push those in congress to act on it. But that's where it will most likely end.

And this is where I have a problem with pretty much everyone I've ever seen that has ran for president including the two now. They all know that they alone can't accomplish anything. That they can't write bills or vote to have the measure advanced in congress to where it would ever be put forth on their desk that would make it possible for them to sign it into law.

But what we always here is "I will do this and I will do that!" When the fact is they need a majority in the house and senate to ever make those things possible. It seems to me that if they were honest about that and told voters to accomplish those things they need them to also vote for their parties on the down ballot if they actually want them to get those things they want to do, done. I think it would not only be more honest but also strengthen their respective party as it pertains to the down ballot.

It just never made sense to me to hear presidential candidates tell people what they're gong to do when the fact is they know they can't do those things by alone.

But then again I am combining politicians with honesty which brings about unrealistic expectations.

In Cackelas bad interview last night, she said she has no regrets about covering up Biden's mential decline. So you libtards now know what whitehouse you are voting for: One that lies to your face. It's the libtard standard.

We must have watched different interviews, because they sounded like NORMAL people, not weird like the MAGAt DUO.

Your bar is pretty low.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/08/30/kamalas-brain-breaks-in-georgia-n2178719

Kackela's brain breaks at a Ga rally. Not sure how that is possible as she has no brain.

It doesn't matter. Paying tax on income you didn't take is obscene.

Just a question...say you have a paper gain of $x in 24, then a paper loss of $x in 25, do you get money back in 25? Not a credit, a check since you paid a check in 24?

Only democrats believe in paying more to live less well.

It is crazy to pay tax on paper gains not realized. Yes.


It is obscene when the richest individuals in the world pay no federal income tax and have so many loopholes to pay no tax.

https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes

The whole article is a good read - I hope you take the time to read it.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...veal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.



Fix these things and we won't need the 'crazy' .... don't fix these things and I am 100% happy to tax the 0.008% with a crazy hair brained scheme. Or - here's a way to avoid taxing paper gains, force the mega- rich to sell and realize their gains and then tax them. They can then reinvest if they choose to. Do you like that idea better? As I said - someone better informed than me should be able to find a good solution. Failing that - instigate a bad solution because that'd be better than the current abuse that is taking place.

Money buys power. The more money you have the more power you can buy. Murica.

So Comrade Kackela addressed her flip flopping: She was for X, now she is for Y, but she has the same values. She is playing both sides of the fence and hoping Americans will fall for it. I know the libtards will fall for it. Probably not smart people though.

Some people appreciate the ability to learn and change based on what they have learned. Some don't. Some try to make that sound like a bad thing.

Just usually not in the period of mere months to a couple years. And usually not on subjects they were vehement in their alternative support. And usually not without explanation. But always when they're running for office.

When someone from the GOP does it, libs scream "flip-flop!" for years on end, now it's "changing based on what they've learned". 🤣

EVE, talk about flip-flapping---- Trump on Pence recent ad -" Trump, speaking on Fox News’s “Life, Liberty and Levin,” pointed to the viral moment during the 2020 vice presidential debate when Harris rebuked Pence’s interruption with the phrase, “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking.”" Ain't that TERRIBLE, Harris was.....wait for it....POLITE to her opponent.....and Trump's words about Pence- he desires it....."Hang Mike Pence"....his VP...damn, Vance must be complete idiot- Trump wanted his last one hung........ain't he a PEACH. A Monkey besides OLD, DUMB, Donald Trump.....dumb cuz he wanted to NUKE hurricanes.....what an IDIOT.

I take it you didn't watch her CNN interview. Nobody that has never served in the executive branch of The White House has all the information and experience of how things work in that capacity. I know when people back a man that wants to go backwards it's hard to comprehend that people can learn, grow and change based on experience they didn't have before. But then that's what is needed to move forward.

So having a set of convictions and having them reinforced for four years... makes you flip-flop??

Weirder than weird. That's some Matrix bs.

Now you're just spewing nonsense. I understand you are from the world where nobody should ever learn anything or change positions based on what they've learned. A political platform based on ever changing circumstances aren't your "convictions" even though I know it sounds better to you when you use that wording. At least concerning the issues being discussed here.

j/c

Kamala Harris announced today that no money donated to her campaign will be used towards legal fees

This surprises no one. Half the country will call it nothing but would be screaming bloody murder if the shoe was on the other foot.