I'm pretty sure we all know how it's done without a trial run.I don't want it passing because it will be nothing more than a "trial run" that will ultimately lead to the same thing being done to the middle class and their investments.
I'm pretty sure we all know how it's done without a trial run.I don't want it passing because it will be nothing more than a "trial run" that will ultimately lead to the same thing being done to the middle class and their investments.
Yes, we know how it will be done.I'm pretty sure we all know how it's done without a trial run.
Me avoiding paying taxes is like the government trying to stay ahead of hackers. I would like for it to be that way for everyone who is above the poverty level.All this will do is drive investors out of the market. The government might as well be trying to stay ahead of hackers - the uber-wealthy will always find a way.
That said, I'm 100% against taxing 'unrealized gains'.
I think taxing 'unrealized gains' is simply immoral. These are gains that only exist on paper and can disappear overnight. It would be akin to the IRS taxing you or me for FY2022 based on our last few years of returns - it's money we've not made yet.So do not even want to try to tax the 1%'ers or just unrealized gains? Does unrealized gains pertain only to stock investments? Just asking, you usually have a good reason for such a blanket statment. Key word there is usually.
i would argue the problem is that the federal government cannot control its revenue because of an idiotic obsession with tax cuts by the gop/super wealthy in this countryI think taxing 'unrealized gains' is simply immoral. These are gains that only exist on paper and can disappear overnight. It would be akin to the IRS taxing you or me for FY2022 based on our last few years of returns - it's money we've not made yet.
The only reason this discussion is happening is because the FedGov cannot control its spending, and if you don't think this will eventually trickle down to middle-class Americans then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Well then lets end the tax cuts by the GOP before we propose new taxes.i would argue the problem is that the federal government cannot control its revenue because of an idiotic obsession with tax cuts by the gop/super wealthy in this country
i am all for that, and iirc, that was a major part of the pay-for in the original idea. the only reason we are even talking about a billiionaire's tax now is because that was basically a non-starter for sinema and manchin.Well then lets end the tax cuts by the GOP before we propose new taxes.
Im fairly sure that if that was a non-starter for Manchin then this idea has a snowball's chance in hell.i am all for that, and iirc, that was a major part of the pay-for in the original idea. the only reason we are even talking about a billiionaire's tax now is because that was basically a non-starter for sinema and manchin.
this doesn't impact him directly, it's pretty much limited to 7-800 folks. i think the other proposal would have affected his family and donorsIm fairly sure that if that was a non-starter for Manchin then this idea has a snowball's chance in hell.
Sen. Manchin told reporters this afternoon that he, in fact, does not oppose Sen. Wyden’s billionaire tax plan.
“Everybody should pay their fair share. Call it whatever you want to,” Manchin said. “Even if you’re not a billionaire, you should be paying your fair share.”
“We all pay,” he added. “So it’s a patriot tax.”[/uote]
That's fine. I'm no fan of the gop and while I know a few folks this would hit, that's not my reasoning.i would argue the problem is that the federal government cannot control its revenue because of an idiotic obsession with tax cuts by the gop/super wealthy in this country
That would not solve this problemSo if "everyone" needs to pay their fair share, why not just go to a flat tax for everyone?
the unrealized gains part doesn't really bother me in this situation. we are talking about an extremely small group of folks this will impact. unrealized gains for a jeff bezos type is a lot different than it is for someone with multi-million dollar wealth.That's fine. I'm no fan of the gop and while I know a few folks this would hit, that's not my reasoning.
I just find the whole concept of taxing 'unrealized gains' immoral.
Change the tax code, close the loopholes, etc.
I still suggest that holding their feet to the fire and forcing them to 'live within their means' is a better approach than trying to squeeze more money out of folks.
it actually wouldn't solve any problemThat would not solve this problem
For now.the unrealized gains part doesn't really bother me in this situation. we are talking about an extremely small group of folks this will impact.
And I think the FedGov needs to tighten its belt aeta, i don't think taxing large amounts of wealth is squeezing anyone.
i don't really buy the slippery slope arguments about taxes and i don't put super wealthy folks on pedestalsFor now.
But the principle remains - if it's okay to take it from a few, would it be wrong to take it from everyone? When they start peaking at your retirement fund will you still be fine with it?
And I think the FedGov needs to tighten its belt abitlot.
Further, if they think this will do much other than drive the billionaires out of stocks and harm the market, I'm not sure what to say. Billionaires didn't stumble into being wealthy - they're smart with money, and most of them will stay ahead of the FedGov.
as a former bill collector that collected on USAA credit cards among others I can tell you definitively that you have a very wrong impression of sailorsWhat's the difference between a drunk sailor and the government?
The drunk sailor stops spending when they run out of money.
I would much prefer that, but for Manchin, that's a non-starter.Well then lets end the tax cuts by the GOP before we propose new taxes.
You must be new hereWhen your home gets reassessed and you have to pay increased property tax, is that not taxing unrealized gains?