Weiss. Will change his mind when they tax his gains on his gold necklace
Untill then tax the bejebies out of the rich. While their at it build new professional sport venues with tax dollars so pro athletes can ask for larger sums of money to play the game. Taxation in this day and age has become redistribution of wealth and not taxing for actual necessities
$100 million dollar household with less than $12 million in assets? Seems unlikely.
In any case, taxing unrealized gain forces people to sell their assets to pay the taxes. That's beyond unreasonable.
Personally, I don't care how much money someone else has. They have more than me, but I have more than some others. If I promote punitive taxation on someone else I am only inviting it to be applied to me someday.
Individual assets with a value less than $12.06M are exempt from estate tax. See why they buy these machines?
Taxation on the unimaginably wealthy is neither unreasonable nor punitive. It's equity. We all pay taxes on our income. The unimaginably wealthy are perfectly capable of doing the same. Unless your net worth is greater than $100 million (spoiler: it's not), then you don't need to fight their battles for them.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
@Weiss said:
Taxation on the unimaginably wealthy is neither unreasonable nor punitive. It's equity. We all pay taxes on our income. The unimaginably wealthy are perfectly capable of doing the same.
They're following the tax rules as they exist. You want to change those rules because you think you can get a bigger chunk out of them? Good luck with that- you change the rules and they'll shift their assets in order to protect them. Not too long ago, people using your approach encouraged rich people in New York to move to Florida. Rich people have the means to do things like that.
Why does it bother you that there are people with lots of money? It's not like that means there's less for everybody else.
@JBK said:
Sounds like class warfare. Count me out.
Tax thresholds never stay where their proponents promise.
If this legislation is passed, I wonder how many of these super rich people will emigrate to another country with more reasonable tax laws.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@JBK said:
Sounds like class warfare. Count me out.
Tax thresholds never stay where their proponents promise.
Interesting. Then at what threshold is it fair to pay 20% on your income? I certainly pay it and I'm not worth anywhere near $100 million. I don't even know anyone who is. I doubt I've ever met anyone who has met anyone who is.
And equity is tax class warfare? Paying 20% on income when you have more than $100 million--possibly even billions--is class warfare?
The truth is that is it is class warfare. The problem is you're fighting on the wrong side.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
They're following the tax rules as they exist. You want to change those rules because you think you can get a bigger chunk out of them? Good luck with that- you change the rules and they'll shift their assets in order to protect them.
Wait. We agree that the unimaginably wealthy are avoiding paying the taxes they should be paying...so we should give up and allow the taxes on the vast majority of us stay high, maybe even increase, so they can maintain that privilege?
You're winning this argument. But maybe not for the side you think you are.
Here's some coins, and some art:
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
They're following the tax rules as they exist. You want to change those rules because you think you can get a bigger chunk out of them? Good luck with that- you change the rules and they'll shift their assets in order to protect them.
Wait. We agree that the unimaginably wealthy are avoiding paying the taxes they should be paying...
No, we don't agree on that. You have this weird notion that if other people aren't paying as much as you think they should be even though they are following the current tax laws, that they are doing something wrong.
When took the income tax course in undergraduate school circa 1970, I learned that the government tried to tax unrealized gains back in 1954. They found that it was unworkable.
If this passes, the family farm will be dead. When you don’t liquidate an asset, you don’t have the cash to pay the taxes unless you get it from other sources or borrow it. Also, what happens if the value of those assets goes down the following year? Will the government refund the money? No likely.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
It's much simpler than that. I have this weird notion that we should all be paying taxes equitably.
The unimaginably wealthy are paying zero taxes on money they're making right this second. Really, it's true.
So it has been proposed that maybe they should pay 20% on it, which is way less than most people pay.
And the funny thing is that people who will never, ever, ever ever ever have that kind of money--people who pay way more than that in taxes themselves--have been convinced this is something they should fight against, even at their own expense.
Isn't that nutty?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
To be fair, we should use the flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage rate on any source of income and you can eliminate all deductions, loopholes, and expensive lawyers/accountants.
Not as nutty as the idea that if other people aren't paying as much tax as you think they should be even though they are following the law, that they are doing something wrong.
If this passes, the family farm will be dead. When you don’t liquidate an asset, you don’t have the cash to pay the taxes unless you get it from other sources or borrow it.
Wait a second. A "family farm" that is worth more than $100 million? LandWatch.com has listings for over 500,000 farms, ranges, and building lots across the country. Exactly 10 are north of $100 million. Those 10 include a 425,000 acre ranch in Texas.
There are 26 countries in the world smaller than that.
Edited to add: Check out the video of this 425,000 acre ranch that's for sale. It's spectacular!
And while you're watching it, consider that the guy who owns this is the guy you don't think should be paying 20% on the income he's currently paying 0% on.
And remember while he's not paying anything on that income, your income taxes are due in a week.
And while you're watching it, consider that the guy who owns this is the guy you don't think should be paying 20% on the income he's currently paying 0% on.
You're being very disingenuous. You're not arguing for them to pay 20% income tax - you're arguing for a wealth tax and taxes on unrealized gains. Huge difference.
They're following the tax rules as they exist. You want to change those rules because you think you can get a bigger chunk out of them? Good luck with that- you change the rules and they'll shift their assets in order to protect them.
Wait. We agree that the unimaginably wealthy are avoiding paying the taxes they should be paying...so we should give up and allow the taxes on the vast majority of us stay high, maybe even increase, so they can maintain that privilege?
You're winning this argument. But maybe not for the side you think you are.
Here's some coins, and some art:
It's ludicrous to think you can reasonably value the UNREALIZED capital gains of a unique work of art.
Think of the implications of such a tax even if you can decide the value. Families forced to sell companies or sports teams to pay a tax bill on an unrealized gain.
Your real mistake, however, is not realizing that 50+% of the voting public want to tax your assets. Everyone taxes upwards and you're much closer to the top than the bottom.
@Weiss said:
It's much simpler than that. I have this weird notion that we should all be paying taxes equitably.
The unimaginably wealthy are paying zero taxes on money they're making right this second. Really, it's true.
So it has been proposed that maybe they should pay 20% on it, which is way less than most people pay.
And the funny thing is that people who will never, ever, ever ever ever have that kind of money--people who pay way more than that in taxes themselves--have been convinced this is something they should fight against, even at their own expense.
Isn't that nutty?
It is UNREALIZED.
YOU don't pay taxes on your unrealized gains either. What makes you think that is either fair to have 2 different rules or that those separate rules will stay separate?
It is also disingenuous to call it "income". It's an unrealized gain. Do you consider the increase in your house's value to be "income"?
" If this legislation is passed, I wonder how many of these super rich people will emigrate to another country with more reasonable tax laws. "
Absolutely would happen. Just like business packed up and left for countries with cheap labor and easier laws... the rich will do likewise than stay here and take the hit. Also... is this a one time hit? or it is yearly???
@Weiss said:
It's much simpler than that. I have this weird notion that we should all be paying taxes equitably.
The unimaginably wealthy are paying zero taxes on money they're making right this second. Really, it's true.
So it has been proposed that maybe they should pay 20% on it, which is way less than most people pay.
And the funny thing is that people who will never, ever, ever ever ever have that kind of money--people who pay way more than that in taxes themselves--have been convinced this is something they should fight against, even at their own expense.
Isn't that nutty?
It is UNREALIZED.
YOU don't pay taxes on your unrealized gains either. What makes you think that is either fair to have 2 different rules or that those separate rules will stay separate?
It is also disingenuous to call it "income". It's an unrealized gain. Do you consider the increase in your house's value to be "income"?
One of the most basic principles of accounting, you never book a gain or sale until it happens. This proposal goes against that very simple and basic rule.
@Weiss has said several times though this thread that we should not be fighting the battles of the rich, he may be correct in a way but here is a recent example of why that argument may also be flawed. Just this year a new law was enacted to change the reporting threshold down to $600 on items sold. A parallel can be made here, once a law is on the books it is much easier to adjust that law's threshold down. So maybe by not supporting such a law you will not need to fight the battle to lower that income or value threshold in the future.
I also think it is important to understand the difference between income and valuation, again @Weiss has argued that the wealthy are hiding income with the purchase of assets. But the key difference is that they bought those assets with the monies they earned, and those earned monies were already taxed prior to when the assets were purchased. The fact that those assets have increased in paper profits is not income until it is sold and converted to cash. I'm sure your house has increased greatly in the past year, but you are not (yet) being forced to pay the taxes on that increased value of your home, same thing different scale.
$100 million dollar household with less than $12 million in assets? Seems unlikely.
In any case, taxing unrealized gain forces people to sell their assets to pay the taxes. That's beyond unreasonable.
Personally, I don't care how much money someone else has. They have more than me, but I have more than some others. If I promote punitive taxation on someone else I am only inviting it to be applied to me someday.
Individual assets with a value less than $12.06M are exempt from estate tax. See why they buy these machines?
Taxation on the unimaginably wealthy is neither unreasonable nor punitive. It's equity. We all pay taxes on our income. The unimaginably wealthy are perfectly capable of doing the same. Unless your net worth is greater than $100 million (spoiler: it's not), then you don't need to fight their battles for them.
No, that is incorrect. The estate tax exception amount is based on the total value of the estate, not for any individual assets above the exemption amount. That would make no sense and people would just split up their estates into smaller pieces before they die.
Our tax system is ridiculously complicated so I don't blame people, but I find it unusual to have a conversation with someone who really understands our tax system. Unfortunately it is much easier for politicians to legislate through the tax code so we end up with a crazy tax system.
Sounds more like the Rescue America's Neighbors act, because a whole lot of expensive artwork and wine is going to relocate itself before the law even (hypothetically) passes. The amount of revenue generated would be akin to raising corporate taxes by 0.0001%, so it's pointless anyway, unless you simply want to discourage art ownership in America.
Most of us know the drill, @Weiss. The government gets its foot in the door with a new tax, sometimes on “the filthy rich,” and then they expand it to include everyone else, one way or another. Wise people have learned, never give the government another revenue source; the government will exploit it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Regardless of how we feel about these proposals, I have a much more basic question:
Why do we need to continue to feed the government bureaucracy? It simply grows and grows and gets hungrier and hungrier. For what?
I feel it is long overdue to start to strategically shrink the government. Start with the Feds and work our way to the local level. I'll even offer up two areas to start. Eliminate the Department of Energy who has never come up with a strategic energy plan for the country despite "working on it" for 45 years. Simply look at where we are today. Also eliminate the Department of Education and let the states handle it. Too much duplication and bureaucracy there too.
There, I feel better. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
You make it sound like folks that are uber successful have committed a crime(not that some haven't). Here's a good one for you! The next time someone wins one of those 9 figure lottery's why don't you standup on your soapbox and demand they give it all to the government? That would be more fair since they acquired it by luck of the draw and not hard work and being smart.
I take offense at folks with an attitude like yours. I've worked my arse off my entire life. There was a dark time in my life I was looking for legal help against a crook who was illegally foreclosing on a piece of equipment I owned. All they would do was offer me food stamps which I refused. This new direction the government is taking is encouraging too many people to sit on the arse with there hands out. Hell, I've worked at McieD's, done hard labor, you name it if I needed money! I have never taken a handout either. There are plenty of jobs out there, just too many entitled folks won't take them for various reasons.
Your thoughts are the road to communism. Everyone should have the same as everyone else. Fine....when the world's income equalities are ironed out, how many potatoes will you be allowed each week? Maybe if folks are lucky everyone will get 1 steak a year! I'm all for helping people who need help with good reason....but not the entitlement crowd! Believe me, it's not far off. Just how many more millions of people streaming across the boarder can this country support? The total value of the uber rich is a drop in the bucket relative to what the government is spending these days!
@JBK said:
Sounds like class warfare. Count me out.
Tax thresholds never stay where their proponents promise.
Interesting. Then at what threshold is it fair to pay 20% on your income? I certainly pay it and I'm not worth anywhere near $100 million. I don't even know anyone who is. I doubt I've ever met anyone who has met anyone who is.
And equity is tax class warfare? Paying 20% on income when you have more than $100 million--possibly even billions--is class warfare?
The truth is that is it is class warfare. The problem is you're fighting on the wrong side.
These "creative" approaches to taxation is just another form of political gamesmanship. If any government was truly interested in making sure everyone paid their own share there is one simple way: Flat tax with no deductions. That would never happen because it would eliminate a lot of jobs and remove the opportunity for politicians to look like heroes to whichever constituency they are trying to appeal to.
Whole bunch of people who either didn't read the OP article, or who missed the point.
The unimaginably wealthy are buying very specific assets, knowing they will increase in value at a fairly predictable rate over a number of years, who are buying them specifically to avoid taxes that other forms of assets would necessitate. These assets don't contribute anything. They aren't creating more factories, more equipment, more jobs. They aren't allowing for expanding lines of credit, spurring trade and commerce. They literally just sit there, increasing in value--tax free--every second of every day. Which is exactly why they were purchased.
So the unimaginably wealthy--people literally worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars--are gaining even more wealth and paying 0% taxes as their wealth increases. Why? Because you've been convinced that money that comes to you for the services you provide and the goods you produce--money you need to pay your bills, put food on the table, and provide for your family, and maybe if you're lucky increase your net worth--should be taxed at a high rate. That's only fair, right?
But there is a special kind of magical money that only comes to certain people. They don't need this magical money to pay their bills. They don't need this magical money to provide for their families or put food on their tables. Nope. This special, magical money that comes to them gets a special name: unrealized capital gains. And it gets a special, magical tax rate: 0%.
Meanwhile, nearly everyone on this forum is paying between 22% and 35% on the wealth we gain. Remember your taxes are due on Monday.
So it has been suggested that the unimaginably wealthy--those who have over $100 million in assets--pay taxes on this special money. Not even the upper rates. Just 20%. Way less than I pay, for sure.
If your knee-jerk reaction to tax equity is that this is "communism", or "class warfare", and you won't even stop for a second and ask yourself why people with more wealth than you'll ever see get to pay 0% taxes on their special magical money while you pay 30% on your plain old dirty money, then maybe you've been hoodwinked. And believe me, the people with more than $100 million in assets don't need your protection. But they really, really appreciate it.
Finally. The average salary in the US is about $31,000 per year.
But let's say you make $100,000 per year. Maybe you make more, and good on you for it. But let's say you make $100,000 a year income. How many years would it take you to make $100 million, the poorest people who it's been suggested should maybe pay some taxes on all the wealth they're gaining?
Think about it. Not taking a single cent out for any reason or any circumstance--not even taxes.
Got the answer?
A thousand years.
More art, and a PCGS slab.
David K. John (Navajo) Evening Yei
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
I'll be happy if I never hear the term "unimaginably wealthy" ever again.
Someone here thinks that many of us are just ignorant rubes who have been hoodwinked into fighting someone else's fight. That's very disrespectful, to say the least.
I, like many, am guided by principles, and those principles apply to everyone.
@Weiss said:
The unimaginably wealthy are buying very specific assets, knowing they will increase in value at a fairly predictable rate over a number of years, who are buying them specifically to avoid taxes that other forms of assets would necessitate.
You keep repeating this, as though it's some sort of crime. It's not.
@Weiss said:
These assets don't contribute anything. They aren't creating more factories, more equipment, more jobs. They aren't allowing for expanding lines of credit, spurring trade and commerce.
And you think giving those assets to the government will do any of those things? Bless your heart.
Comments
Weiss. Will change his mind when they tax his gains on his gold necklace
Untill then tax the bejebies out of the rich. While their at it build new professional sport venues with tax dollars so pro athletes can ask for larger sums of money to play the game. Taxation in this day and age has become redistribution of wealth and not taxing for actual necessities
Martin
Individual assets with a value less than $12.06M are exempt from estate tax. See why they buy these machines?
Taxation on the unimaginably wealthy is neither unreasonable nor punitive. It's equity. We all pay taxes on our income. The unimaginably wealthy are perfectly capable of doing the same. Unless your net worth is greater than $100 million (spoiler: it's not), then you don't need to fight their battles for them.
--Severian the Lame
Sounds like class warfare. Count me out.
Tax thresholds never stay where their proponents promise.
They're following the tax rules as they exist. You want to change those rules because you think you can get a bigger chunk out of them? Good luck with that- you change the rules and they'll shift their assets in order to protect them. Not too long ago, people using your approach encouraged rich people in New York to move to Florida. Rich people have the means to do things like that.
Why does it bother you that there are people with lots of money? It's not like that means there's less for everybody else.
Yep.
If this legislation is passed, I wonder how many of these super rich people will emigrate to another country with more reasonable tax laws.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Interesting. Then at what threshold is it fair to pay 20% on your income? I certainly pay it and I'm not worth anywhere near $100 million. I don't even know anyone who is. I doubt I've ever met anyone who has met anyone who is.
And equity is tax class warfare? Paying 20% on income when you have more than $100 million--possibly even billions--is class warfare?
The truth is that is it is class warfare. The problem is you're fighting on the wrong side.
--Severian the Lame
Wait. We agree that the unimaginably wealthy are avoiding paying the taxes they should be paying...so we should give up and allow the taxes on the vast majority of us stay high, maybe even increase, so they can maintain that privilege?
You're winning this argument. But maybe not for the side you think you are.
Here's some coins, and some art:
--Severian the Lame
No, we don't agree on that. You have this weird notion that if other people aren't paying as much as you think they should be even though they are following the current tax laws, that they are doing something wrong.
When took the income tax course in undergraduate school circa 1970, I learned that the government tried to tax unrealized gains back in 1954. They found that it was unworkable.
If this passes, the family farm will be dead. When you don’t liquidate an asset, you don’t have the cash to pay the taxes unless you get it from other sources or borrow it. Also, what happens if the value of those assets goes down the following year? Will the government refund the money? No likely.
It's much simpler than that. I have this weird notion that we should all be paying taxes equitably.
The unimaginably wealthy are paying zero taxes on money they're making right this second. Really, it's true.
So it has been proposed that maybe they should pay 20% on it, which is way less than most people pay.
And the funny thing is that people who will never, ever, ever ever ever have that kind of money--people who pay way more than that in taxes themselves--have been convinced this is something they should fight against, even at their own expense.
Isn't that nutty?
--Severian the Lame
To be fair, we should use the flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage rate on any source of income and you can eliminate all deductions, loopholes, and expensive lawyers/accountants.
Not as nutty as the idea that if other people aren't paying as much tax as you think they should be even though they are following the law, that they are doing something wrong.
Wait a second. A "family farm" that is worth more than $100 million? LandWatch.com has listings for over 500,000 farms, ranges, and building lots across the country. Exactly 10 are north of $100 million. Those 10 include a 425,000 acre ranch in Texas.
There are 26 countries in the world smaller than that.
Edited to add: Check out the video of this 425,000 acre ranch that's for sale. It's spectacular!
And while you're watching it, consider that the guy who owns this is the guy you don't think should be paying 20% on the income he's currently paying 0% on.
And remember while he's not paying anything on that income, your income taxes are due in a week.
https://kinglandwater.com/properties/brewster-ranches/
--Severian the Lame
You're being very disingenuous. You're not arguing for them to pay 20% income tax - you're arguing for a wealth tax and taxes on unrealized gains. Huge difference.
It's the old bait and switch.
It's a reminder to watch your wallet when some people are around- they're awfully anxious to spend your money.
It's ludicrous to think you can reasonably value the UNREALIZED capital gains of a unique work of art.
Think of the implications of such a tax even if you can decide the value. Families forced to sell companies or sports teams to pay a tax bill on an unrealized gain.
Your real mistake, however, is not realizing that 50+% of the voting public want to tax your assets. Everyone taxes upwards and you're much closer to the top than the bottom.
It is UNREALIZED.
YOU don't pay taxes on your unrealized gains either. What makes you think that is either fair to have 2 different rules or that those separate rules will stay separate?
It is also disingenuous to call it "income". It's an unrealized gain. Do you consider the increase in your house's value to be "income"?
" If this legislation is passed, I wonder how many of these super rich people will emigrate to another country with more reasonable tax laws. "
Absolutely would happen. Just like business packed up and left for countries with cheap labor and easier laws... the rich will do likewise than stay here and take the hit. Also... is this a one time hit? or it is yearly???
Sadly, some folks do.
One of the most basic principles of accounting, you never book a gain or sale until it happens. This proposal goes against that very simple and basic rule.
@Weiss has said several times though this thread that we should not be fighting the battles of the rich, he may be correct in a way but here is a recent example of why that argument may also be flawed. Just this year a new law was enacted to change the reporting threshold down to $600 on items sold. A parallel can be made here, once a law is on the books it is much easier to adjust that law's threshold down. So maybe by not supporting such a law you will not need to fight the battle to lower that income or value threshold in the future.
I also think it is important to understand the difference between income and valuation, again @Weiss has argued that the wealthy are hiding income with the purchase of assets. But the key difference is that they bought those assets with the monies they earned, and those earned monies were already taxed prior to when the assets were purchased. The fact that those assets have increased in paper profits is not income until it is sold and converted to cash. I'm sure your house has increased greatly in the past year, but you are not (yet) being forced to pay the taxes on that increased value of your home, same thing different scale.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
No, that is incorrect. The estate tax exception amount is based on the total value of the estate, not for any individual assets above the exemption amount. That would make no sense and people would just split up their estates into smaller pieces before they die.
Our tax system is ridiculously complicated so I don't blame people, but I find it unusual to have a conversation with someone who really understands our tax system. Unfortunately it is much easier for politicians to legislate through the tax code so we end up with a crazy tax system.
I think, if the govt wants to make sufficient tax money, all they need to do is set up a tax based on the heat/light ratio of internet postings!
(PS, not reading the whole thread, or at all again)
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Sounds more like the Rescue America's Neighbors act, because a whole lot of expensive artwork and wine is going to relocate itself before the law even (hypothetically) passes. The amount of revenue generated would be akin to raising corporate taxes by 0.0001%, so it's pointless anyway, unless you simply want to discourage art ownership in America.
my state taxes the rain. Anything is possible with enough creative thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_%22Rain_Tax%22
Most of us know the drill, @Weiss. The government gets its foot in the door with a new tax, sometimes on “the filthy rich,” and then they expand it to include everyone else, one way or another. Wise people have learned, never give the government another revenue source; the government will exploit it.
Regardless of how we feel about these proposals, I have a much more basic question:
Why do we need to continue to feed the government bureaucracy? It simply grows and grows and gets hungrier and hungrier. For what?
I feel it is long overdue to start to strategically shrink the government. Start with the Feds and work our way to the local level. I'll even offer up two areas to start. Eliminate the Department of Energy who has never come up with a strategic energy plan for the country despite "working on it" for 45 years. Simply look at where we are today. Also eliminate the Department of Education and let the states handle it. Too much duplication and bureaucracy there too.
There, I feel better. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
You make it sound like folks that are uber successful have committed a crime(not that some haven't). Here's a good one for you! The next time someone wins one of those 9 figure lottery's why don't you standup on your soapbox and demand they give it all to the government? That would be more fair since they acquired it by luck of the draw and not hard work and being smart.
I take offense at folks with an attitude like yours. I've worked my arse off my entire life. There was a dark time in my life I was looking for legal help against a crook who was illegally foreclosing on a piece of equipment I owned. All they would do was offer me food stamps which I refused. This new direction the government is taking is encouraging too many people to sit on the arse with there hands out. Hell, I've worked at McieD's, done hard labor, you name it if I needed money! I have never taken a handout either. There are plenty of jobs out there, just too many entitled folks won't take them for various reasons.
Your thoughts are the road to communism. Everyone should have the same as everyone else. Fine....when the world's income equalities are ironed out, how many potatoes will you be allowed each week? Maybe if folks are lucky everyone will get 1 steak a year! I'm all for helping people who need help with good reason....but not the entitlement crowd! Believe me, it's not far off. Just how many more millions of people streaming across the boarder can this country support? The total value of the uber rich is a drop in the bucket relative to what the government is spending these days!
These "creative" approaches to taxation is just another form of political gamesmanship. If any government was truly interested in making sure everyone paid their own share there is one simple way: Flat tax with no deductions. That would never happen because it would eliminate a lot of jobs and remove the opportunity for politicians to look like heroes to whichever constituency they are trying to appeal to.
Whole bunch of people who either didn't read the OP article, or who missed the point.
The unimaginably wealthy are buying very specific assets, knowing they will increase in value at a fairly predictable rate over a number of years, who are buying them specifically to avoid taxes that other forms of assets would necessitate. These assets don't contribute anything. They aren't creating more factories, more equipment, more jobs. They aren't allowing for expanding lines of credit, spurring trade and commerce. They literally just sit there, increasing in value--tax free--every second of every day. Which is exactly why they were purchased.
So the unimaginably wealthy--people literally worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars--are gaining even more wealth and paying 0% taxes as their wealth increases. Why? Because you've been convinced that money that comes to you for the services you provide and the goods you produce--money you need to pay your bills, put food on the table, and provide for your family, and maybe if you're lucky increase your net worth--should be taxed at a high rate. That's only fair, right?
But there is a special kind of magical money that only comes to certain people. They don't need this magical money to pay their bills. They don't need this magical money to provide for their families or put food on their tables. Nope. This special, magical money that comes to them gets a special name: unrealized capital gains. And it gets a special, magical tax rate: 0%.
Meanwhile, nearly everyone on this forum is paying between 22% and 35% on the wealth we gain. Remember your taxes are due on Monday.
So it has been suggested that the unimaginably wealthy--those who have over $100 million in assets--pay taxes on this special money. Not even the upper rates. Just 20%. Way less than I pay, for sure.
If your knee-jerk reaction to tax equity is that this is "communism", or "class warfare", and you won't even stop for a second and ask yourself why people with more wealth than you'll ever see get to pay 0% taxes on their special magical money while you pay 30% on your plain old dirty money, then maybe you've been hoodwinked. And believe me, the people with more than $100 million in assets don't need your protection. But they really, really appreciate it.
Finally. The average salary in the US is about $31,000 per year.
But let's say you make $100,000 per year. Maybe you make more, and good on you for it. But let's say you make $100,000 a year income. How many years would it take you to make $100 million, the poorest people who it's been suggested should maybe pay some taxes on all the wealth they're gaining?
Think about it. Not taking a single cent out for any reason or any circumstance--not even taxes.
Got the answer?
A thousand years.
More art, and a PCGS slab.
David K. John (Navajo)
Evening Yei
--Severian the Lame
I'll be happy if I never hear the term "unimaginably wealthy" ever again.
Someone here thinks that many of us are just ignorant rubes who have been hoodwinked into fighting someone else's fight. That's very disrespectful, to say the least.
I, like many, am guided by principles, and those principles apply to everyone.
And to keep this thread coin-related, here's a coin.
You keep repeating this, as though it's some sort of crime. It's not.
And you think giving those assets to the government will do any of those things? Bless your heart.
There are better ways to have a discussion that is "not about politics".
This thread has been closed.