quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
100%…I don’t like it, don’t want it, and am worried about it.

I am 100 percent for it. It is long over do.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
100%…I don’t like it, don’t want it, and am worried about it.

I am 100 percent for it. It is long over do.

Proof positive that you are not a conservative. You are a left of center liberal. But we all figured that out long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Been in private practice a lot longer than government work.

Yeah…and how many years is that?

President Regan said every spending measure should be funded.

He first said don’t spend what you don’t have.

What I know is Jtex and Dr. Easter’s view of the GOO and politics has lost more elections than won.

Not in our neck of the woods. We’ll see what happens this fall.

I can only hope and do my part this corruption of the GOP will soon be voted down and replaced.

You have clearly established yourself as a left of center Democrat. Let us worry about the GOP. Go to work on the corruption in your new home.

quote:

OMG! Kamala’s team doesn’t know the difference between a 1% property tax and a 25% tax on unrealized gains????

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

quote:

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Don't hold your breath. The left have no valid argument....profanity and ridicule, yep.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Don't hold your breath. The left have no valid argument....profanity and ridicule, yep.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
There are a lot of erroneous assumptions and assertions here.

Please see this video again. It is explained so well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqlbn2nPO-A

1. Liquidity issues - any unrealised gain is realised when used as collateral for any new acquisitions and loans. It is no longer "passive or static" when it is being leveraged and used to generate more wealth. Trumps dual valuations of his assets for tax and borrowing purposes are an example of the liquidity of such assets. The moment any unralised gain is leverage to increase wealth, it becomes realised gain. It has directly increased wealth. You could use Gold as an example.

2. The subjectivity of any valuation is a red herring. See above crooked Trumps double games. This is why Tax laws have some rules and guidelines to form a baseline.

3. Fluctuating market value is also a red herring. See above video. A simple principle could be to tax the value of leverage realised. For example any "unrealised" asset becomes a "cash equivalent" the moment it is leverages for borrowings and new acquisitions. Market volatility is the risk that any business person has to face and take into account. Not paying tax and increasing wealth in perpetuity is just plain theft. Your argument claim such super profits as a RIGHT! Ridiculous.

4. Bureaucracy - another red herring. Just put the onus on the business to declare all unrealised wealth and ALL leverages, loans and acquisitions. Fill up the box that highlights the net "realised cash equivalent". (A formula should be in the tax return program.) Any 8th grade student should be able to do it.

5. Deteriorating long term investment. This is the flip side of exponential, volcanic eruption of long term investments. Just look at the wealth distribution over the last 60 years. The middle class has collapsed and the top 0.1% has got control of 50% of global wealth with no accountability, checks of balances. Your argument seems to claim the ENTITLEMENT of UNRESTRICTED profit for the super rich. This is actually contrary to free market principles and risks.

6. Again, see above on leverage and "cash equivalent". No constitutional issues at all.

7. Economic behaviour - LOL. What a load of XYZ#$@%. This is the very kind of "Economic behaviour" that we are talking about. This IS tax evasion. Your claim is a contradiction of free market principles with it's inherent risks.

8. Double taxation is another red herring because you have the Net taxable wealth & gains in the end. Any school accounting student should be able to explain this.

9. This is my additional point. Basic human integrity, honesty and decency. Paying tax is a personal responsibility and duty. Pay your fair share. If you use your personal wealth to become richer, then pay the tax on the liquidity you created from the "unrealised" or passive wealth. Criminal Oligarchy needs to end. The Government needs to be INDEPENDENT of Criminal Oligarchs. The GOP on the other hand wants the Criminal Oligarch to be head of the government!

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:

See? Same content

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Well, I don't think you have explained it. And, guess what? I don't give a shit that you did it without expletives. You've puked out the usual economic mumbo jumbo bullshit that is typically relied upon by the super-rich and their republican enablers which nobody can understand and which is based on "Well, this could happen" or "such a tax might lead to" or blah blah blah when the bottom line is that you don't want the investment fund managers and the other robber barons to pay their fair share of taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Well, I don't think you have explained it. And, guess what? I don't give a shit that you did it without expletives. You've puked out the usual economic mumbo jumbo bullshit that is typically relied upon by the super-rich and their republican enablers which nobody can understand and which is based on "Well, this could happen" or "such a tax might lead to" or blah blah blah when the bottom line is that you don't want the investment fund managers and the other robber barons to pay their fair share of taxes.

So as usual....nothing but ignorance and petty jealousy????

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I doubt grandma with $100 million will have to resort to cat food. Why should I feel sorry for her?

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Well, I don't think you have explained it. And, guess what? I don't give a shit that you did it without expletives. You've puked out the usual economic mumbo jumbo bullshit that is typically relied upon by the super-rich and their republican enablers which nobody can understand and which is based on "Well, this could happen" or "such a tax might lead to" or blah blah blah when the bottom line is that you don't want the investment fund managers and the other robber barons to pay their fair share of taxes.

So as usual....nothing but ignorance and petty jealousy????

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Well, I don't think you have explained it. And, guess what? I don't give a shit that you did it without expletives. You've puked out the usual economic mumbo jumbo bullshit that is typically relied upon by the super-rich and their republican enablers which nobody can understand and which is based on "Well, this could happen" or "such a tax might lead to" or blah blah blah when the bottom line is that you don't want the investment fund managers and the other robber barons to pay their fair share of taxes.

So as usual....nothing but ignorance and petty jealousy????

Exactly! Leave people the hell alone. They have it it’s theirs. Why do people always want others stuff. In my book it is legalized stealing. Go make your own.

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

Your video proves my point, and the comedian in it admits that the Harris plan is wrong. BTW - I never mentioned Trump, but I know that he lives in your head.
I'll give you a couple of scenarios and ask some questions.
I own a stock that has a value of $50 on January 1st. On February 15th its value is $70 a share. On June 10th it is $45 a share. In October it is $90 a share. On December 31st, it closes back at $50 a share.
What amount of gain should I be taxed on? Tell me how I gained from holding the stock for the calendar year and should thus pay? (BTW you cannot assume facts not in evidence like me using the stock as collateral.)

If I own a house, what system is in place to track the fluctuations in value of that house so that you can tax me on my unrealized gain? The house has a value that can change by the minute depending on a multitude of factors. How do you propose a hard asset like that will have its value monitored so that you and yours will be happy getting some blood and I can know that I am paying my tax on a fair valuation? Who will bear the cost of monitoring these values, some of which can change by the minute or the hour?

Lastly, since you failed to do so, tell me how this tax on unrealized gains will benefit the economy from a macro standpoint? (Google the term the "macroeconomics") Tell me exactly how this will benefit the downtrodden, the middle class, minorities, etc.

quote:

If you want to play this game, you got to pay. You need skin in the game. That is free market.

By not paying tax, you are stealing from the rest of society. You are increasing your wealth and reducing the share of the rest of the society's wealth by not paying tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
It represents financial illiteracy, period. Anyone who would suggest it has no idea how finance and financial markets work. Anyone who would defend it doesn't either.

Why? Because finance and financial markets protect the people that make $100,000,000 a year? Right?

Explain.

OK, Mike.

1. Liquidity Issues
No Cash Flow: When gains are unrealized, the asset holder hasn't received any cash. Taxing these gains could create a situation where individuals or businesses might need to sell assets just to pay the tax. Not easy for assets that are not easily liquidated, like real estate or shares in a private company.

2. Valuation Challenges
Determining Value: Accurately determining the value of certain assets (like privately held companies, art, or real estate) can be complex and subjective. Frequent revaluations might be necessary, increasing administrative burdens and costs for both taxpayers and the government. Who determines the exact moment an asset is valued for this tax? Asset values can fluctuate wildly in one tax year. How does one constantly monitor that movement in price (as one would be required to do) in order to comply with this law?

3. Market Volatility
Fluctuating Asset Values: Asset values can fluctuate significantly over time. Taxing unrealized gains could result in individuals being taxed on gains that later disappear if the market declines. If the asset's value drops after taxes have been paid, it could lead to financial strain without a mechanism for recovery.

4. Administrative Complexity
Increased Bureaucracy: Implementing and enforcing a tax on unrealized gains would require significant new regulations and bureaucratic oversight, increasing the complexity of the tax system and the potential for errors and disputes.

5. Impact on Investment
Deterring Long-Term Investment: Investors would be discouraged from holding onto investments for the long term if they face regular taxation on unrealized gains. This could lead to more short-term trading and market instability, as well as potentially lower overall investment.

6. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Challenges to Implementation: In some jurisdictions, there may be legal or constitutional challenges to taxing unrealized gains, especially when our system is based on the realization principle.

7. Impact on Economic Behavior
Distorting Decisions: Such a tax might lead to economic behaviors aimed at avoiding taxation, such as less investment in certain types of assets or increased efforts to hide or underreport asset values.

8. Potential for Double Taxation
Future Realization Taxation: If an asset is eventually sold, the realized gain could be taxed again, leading to a situation where the same income is taxed twice — first when it's unrealized and then when it's realized.

Mike, I think I have explained it. Notice I did it without any expletives. Why don't you in turn give me an analysis of why it is a good idea and please explain the positive effects it will have macroeconomically. Please also refrain from swearing or name calling in your answer and pointing out that it is only going to be done to certain people who "deserve" it.

Well, I don't think you have explained it. And, guess what? I don't give a shit that you did it without expletives. You've puked out the usual economic mumbo jumbo bullshit that is typically relied upon by the super-rich and their republican enablers which nobody can understand and which is based on "Well, this could happen" or "such a tax might lead to" or blah blah blah when the bottom line is that you don't want the investment fund managers and the other robber barons to pay their fair share of taxes.

So as usual....nothing but ignorance and petty jealousy????

Poor Dumb Jim.

Man, I would love to be the target of this tax. But, my income doesn't make the cut.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Ok, let us play your game! LOL! I just love this.

First of all, anyone who just invest $50 in stock deserves to lose all of it. Just dumb investment and that will teach others not to follow such stupidity.

Secondly, you have not read my post properly. Or you are trying to deflect. I'll still play along for fun.

I said specifically that the leveraged value and the resultant INCREASE in wealth should be taxed.

Just owning $50 with of stock that fluctuated during the year mean nothing and I was not referring to that.

On the other hand, if you owned $50 worth of stock and used as collateral to borrow another $100 and then used that money to buy another $100 worth stock, then you have increased your Net wealth by $50 in tangible REAL terms. You pay tax on the difference in value between what you originally paid and the value at which you borrowed. You need to pay tax on all the value increase of the additional investment. The rules might state the dividends, bonus stock and increase or decrease at the end of the financial year will be netted off. Simple.

I know, your stock value went up and down. But you still realised the "unrealised" wealth by borrowing against it. You earned dividends or bonus stocks on it. All that is "realised" income and wealth.

If you want to play this game, you got to pay. You need skin in the game. That is free market.

By not paying tax, you are stealing from the rest of society. You are increasing your wealth and reducing the share of the rest of the society's wealth by not paying tax.

You did not work and earn that wealth. You stole it.

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:

Your video proves my point, and the comedian in it admits that the Harris plan is wrong. BTW - I never mentioned Trump, but I know that he lives in your head.
I'll give you a couple of scenarios and ask some questions.
I own a stock that has a value of $50 on January 1st. On February 15th its value is $70 a share. On June 10th it is $45 a share. In October it is $90 a share. On December 31st, it closes back at $50 a share.
What amount of gain should I be taxed on? Tell me how I gained from holding the stock for the calendar year and should thus pay? (BTW you cannot assume facts not in evidence like me using the stock as collateral.)

If I own a house, what system is in place to track the fluctuations in value of that house so that you can tax me on my unrealized gain? The house has a value that can change by the minute depending on a multitude of factors. How do you propose a hard asset like that will have its value monitored so that you and yours will be happy getting some blood and I can know that I am paying my tax on a fair valuation? Who will bear the cost of monitoring these values, some of which can change by the minute or the hour?

Lastly, since you failed to do so, tell me how this tax on unrealized gains will benefit the economy from a macro standpoint? (Google the term the "macroeconomics") Tell me exactly how this will benefit the downtrodden, the middle class, minorities, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

If you want to play this game, you got to pay. You need skin in the game. That is free market.

By not paying tax, you are stealing from the rest of society. You are increasing your wealth and reducing the share of the rest of the society's wealth by not paying tax.

So let me get this straight, I want to make sure I understand you.

Your position is that anyone with any income should pay equal taxes so they have skin in the game?

Is that what you propose?



.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

I believe in using common sense and trying to understand honorable intent. Any such policy will never have the full details and find print schedules etc.

The only interpretation that makes logical sense is to tax the raslised value of "unrealised" wealth. Like I said, treat it like gold. If you sell gold and make s profit uoh need to be taxed on it. If you use the hold as collateral to invest in stocks, then you need to pay tax on any profit that is reduced from higher valuation.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by crbutler:
Except that the Harris plan as put forward was not using valuation to gain, it is any unrealized increase in value will be taxed at top marginal rate.

I agree that the super rich should not get shelters that the ordinary income earner cannot utilize.

But similarly, the super rich should not be taxed in ways the average person is not, either.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Ok, let us play your game! LOL! I just love this.

First of all, anyone who just invest $50 in stock deserves to lose all of it. Just dumb investment and that will teach others not to follow such stupidity.

Secondly, you have not read my post properly. Or you are trying to deflect. I'll still play along for fun.

I said specifically that the leveraged value and the resultant INCREASE in wealth should be taxed.

Just owning $50 with of stock that fluctuated during the year mean nothing and I was not referring to that.

On the other hand, if you owned $50 worth of stock and used as collateral to borrow another $100 and then used that money to buy another $100 worth stock, then you have increased your Net wealth by $50 in tangible REAL terms. You pay tax on the difference in value between what you originally paid and the value at which you borrowed. You need to pay tax on all the value increase of the additional investment. The rules might state the dividends, bonus stock and increase or decrease at the end of the financial year will be netted off. Simple.

I know, your stock value went up and down. But you still realised the "unrealised" wealth by borrowing against it. You earned dividends or bonus stocks on it. All that is "realised" income and wealth.

If you want to play this game, you got to pay. You need skin in the game. That is free market.

By not paying tax, you are stealing from the rest of society. You are increasing your wealth and reducing the share of the rest of the society's wealth by not paying tax.

You did not work and earn that wealth. You stole it.


[QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I doubt grandma with $100 million will have to resort to cat food. Why should I feel sorry for her?

Because people deserve to keep what is theirs! I don’t bother yours! Leave mine the hell alone.

Want to fix the country — flat tax. Pay it up front and move on. Stop playing all these games we use to hang onto what we got.

quote:

The wealthy are thriving in America

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

The wealthy are thriving in America

So you feel the need to bring them down? Take what they built for themselves. Make them provide more than 90% of the revenue going into the US Treasury?

And I thought the USA was the land of equality!?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

The wealthy are thriving in America

So you feel the need to bring them down? Take what they built for themselves. Make them provide more than 90% of the revenue going into the US Treasury?

And I thought the USA was the land of equality!?

What a joke Lane. No, I do not want to bring them down. Exactly what I hear you say.

The wealthy should not enjoy the tax breaks they do today and should pay income taxes based upon the wealth they have acquired.

They ARE paying a helluva lot of taxes. As shown 90% of the the revenue. Where do people get this notion that they don’t pay taxes?

The wealthy should contribute at a greater rate than those who struggle Who made that rule? But again…they are! How much of their blood do you want?

because they have benefited from our society at a greater rate. They did it by ability. Since when has that become a crime?

They are not victims. But they deserve to keep what is theirs like everyone else. Laissez-faire!

A flat tax is not equality, a flat tax benefits those at the top and pushes the burden of funding the government onto the less fortunate.
I disagree but…use a graduated flat-tax.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

The wealthy are thriving in America

So you feel the need to bring them down? Take what they built for themselves. Make them provide more than 90% of the revenue going into the US Treasury?

And I thought the USA was the land of equality!?

What a joke Lane. No, I do not want to bring them down. Exactly what I hear you say. Time to get those ears checked. I built my business on catering to the wealthy, I sure don't want to bring them down.

The wealthy should not enjoy the tax breaks they do today and should pay income taxes based upon the wealth they have acquired.

They ARE paying a helluva lot of taxes. As shown 90% of the the revenue. Where do people get this notion that they don’t pay taxes? They pay a far lower rate than they should through exploiting loop holes and tax shelters.

The wealthy should contribute at a greater rate than those who struggle Who made that rule? Anyone who has ever claimed to have struggled should understand that. Empathy for your fellow man and all that kind of stuff.

because they have benefited from our society at a greater rate. They did it by ability. Since when has that become a crime? not a crime, but taxable.

They are not victims. But they deserve to keep what is theirs like everyone else. Laissez-faire! The wealthy do deserve to keep much of what they have made, they also should contribute it a higher tax rate than those less fortunate.

A flat tax is not equality, a flat tax benefits those at the top and pushes the burden of funding the government onto the less fortunate.
I disagree but…use a graduated flat-tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

The wealthy are thriving in America

So you feel the need to bring them down? Take what they built for themselves. Make them provide more than 90% of the revenue going into the US Treasury?

And I thought the USA was the land of equality!?

What a joke Lane. No, I do not want to bring them down. Exactly what I hear you say. Time to get those ears checked. I built my business on catering to the wealthy, I sure don't want to bring them down. Quit saying it then.

The wealthy should not enjoy the tax breaks they do today and should pay income taxes based upon the wealth they have acquired.

They ARE paying a helluva lot of taxes. As shown 90% of the the revenue. Where do people get this notion that they don’t pay taxes? They pay a far lower rate than they should through exploiting loop holes and tax shelters. 1) who gets to decide that? You? 2) How in Sam Hill do you know what rate they all pay? And how do you account for all of the philanthropic contributions they make?

The wealthy should contribute at a greater rate than those who struggle Who made that rule? Anyone who has ever claimed to have struggled should understand that. Empathy for your fellow man and all that kind of stuff. That is just it man…I have lived in the poorest bracket that exists.

because they have benefited from our society at a greater rate. They did it by ability. Since when has that become a crime? not a crime, but taxable. They pay them…in the tune of 90% of the Treasury revenue. How much blood do you want?

They are not victims. But they deserve to keep what is theirs like everyone else. Laissez-faire! The wealthy do deserve to keep much of what they have made, they also should contribute it a higher tax rate than those less fortunate. They do. But ALL should contribute.

A flat tax is not equality, a flat tax benefits those at the top and pushes the burden of funding the government onto the less fortunate.
I disagree but…use a graduated flat-tax. How is that in dispute? It most certainly favors the upper tax brackets and increases the tax burden on the lower brackets. How? It is all a % of earned/produced revenue.