Wealth taxes, Taxing unrealized gains, Two sets of rules.

[Tangler]

Our articulate public speaker and commander and chief has proposed a tax on unrealized gains.

This would tax people differently based on their wealth level.

Questions:

1. Do we want to change the rules for people depending on their level of wealth?

2. At what wealth level does someone become “too wealthy” to be taxed by the regular rules?

3. Who decides?

4. Does the person who decides benefit (conflict of interest)?

5. Does this create unity or is it divisive?

6. Will the wealthiest (those who are the “intended target”) have resources and resilience to avoid / diminish the intended acquisition of their wealth?

7. Will this ultimately increase taxes for the upper middle class and high income professionals?

8. Will a tax on unrealized capital gains encourage investment in the market?

Keep it civil. Do not want anyone banned (especially me). I just wonder what people think and how anyone could think this is not a dangerous divisive path.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-t...ts_pos2&page=1

[East coast]

I think the point is that there are already two sets of rules.

Btw, kinda funny that you state 'articulate' and then say 'commander and chief' #r/boneappletea

[Panscan]

This is essentially fundamentally impossible and a complete non starter. Anyone who talks about taxing unrealized gains should be held in the same regard as people who think Santa is real.

Could do things like increase taxation of equity based compensation/limiting structure or eliminate deductions which would actually increase the tax paid by ultra rich but not sure that is actually the goal.

[Tangler]

I think the point is that there are already two sets of rules.

Btw, kinda funny that you state 'articulate' and then say 'commander and chief' #r/boneappletea

Fair! Ha! Yeah, I'm a knucklehead, no doubt.

I do not agree that there are already two sets of rules. We have one set of ridiculously complex rules for everyone. Our tax code.

Do you disagree with that? I would be fine with a simple code that is one page long with zero deductions.

But to claim that these people are following some other set of rules is false.

Same silly complex tax code applies to all currently, some are just smarter than I and able to take advantage of it.

[Tangler]

This is essentially fundamentally impossible and a complete non starter. Anyone who talks about taxing unrealized gains should be held in the same regard as people who think Santa is real.

Could do things like increase taxation of equity based compensation/limiting structure or eliminate deductions which would actually increase the tax paid by ultra rich but not sure that is actually the goal.

Yeah, I just hate the divisiveness.

The idea I suppose is that these successful wealthy people somehow are responsible for wealth inequality, and my lack of success.

They are not responsible for my average (some would argue below average) level of intelligence, talent, tenacity and productivity.

The ultra wealthy are not the reason for me not being as successful as they are. We both have the same rules. Same complex tax code.

If you start arbitrarily changing the rules for people then you will go down a slippery slope towards confiscation.

[Tim]

“The Democrats’ plan to pay for President Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better initiative will need to strike the right balance to appeal to progressives without alienating moderates.”

Typically, my view is “As long as MY taxes aren’t raised, it’s fine with me.” I think the discussion is actually much more broad and would need to be decided differently.

• first, I have no problem with a graduated income tax. I do have a problem with a graduated wealth tax.
• second, I have no problem with tax policy being used to incentivize behaviors. Unfortunately, the tax loopholes are either too broad or too narrow. Tend to lead to abuse (those using the loopholes to advantage differ).
• third, there is not agreement on the role of government vs individuals. This approach of targeted funding is a deflection of the needed conversations. Wealth redistribution. Is an individual working for the government or is the government working for the individual?

“Keep it civil. Do not want anyone banned (especially me). I just wonder what people think and how anyone could think this is not a dangerous divisive path.”
Dangerous times we live in.

“Same silly complex tax code applies to all currently, some are just smarter than I and able to take advantage of it.”
Enforcement can and has been targeted. Make no mistake.

[Tangler]

Anyway, sorry for this post. I probably should have just deleted it prior to posting. I know it is too political. I recognize it is likely to be viewed as divisive.

Mods, just delete the whole deal if you wish. I just don't understand how 50% of our country is seemingly OK with a wealth tax (as long as it does not currently affect them).

Dangerous times indeed. Sorry for the post. Have a good morning.

[Hatton]

This is just a proposal with little chance of passing. It would be unworkable. Billionaires are easy targets in a way. I fear a "trickle down effect".

[Random1]

This is a political ploy with very little chance of passing, this way when it doesn't pass, one side can blame the other side that they care more about billionaires than ordinary citizens. This is the reason I bought a large mattress for all my cash.

[Kamban]

When did the fake Indian and our demented chief merge into one, since both seemed to say the same thing which has very little chance of passing but is a nice rabble rousing for their base.

[Larry Ragman]

I think we can all agree this is a political stunt regardless of our views on taxing billionaires, etc. Closing the thread as one likely to generate more heat than light.