Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 371
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Always amazes me when tax-ignorant folks have so much input on how taxation works. Are there loopholes? Yes, and no one disagrees with that. Name me one person here who agrees that billionaires should be allowed the option of step-up basis.

    Here are the facts: On any given year, 45% do not pay any federal income taxes. Last year, 61% paid $0 in federal income taxes. In fact, some probably qualified for a refund. 60% of taxpayers are net-beneficiaries. These are individuals who receive more in tax benefits than they contribute. The top 10% of U.S. taxpayers paid a larger share of the tax burden than many of their counterparts in other countries. The top 5% paid 60% of all federal income tax revenue.

    https://i.gyazo.com/eeeeadc093ab6163...97df9a4954.png
    Red line represents the tax contributions.
    Blue line represents the spending.
    One stays relatively steady, the other line shoots up and has been shooting up for the past decade.

    America has a spending problem.
    I'm fine with taxing the rich. Company executives who founded the company and owned shares before it went public should pay, on any shares they own, the ordinary income tax rate. Those who work in hedge funds should pay a higher rate but not the ordinary income tax rate. But this lie that the wealthy doesn't pay their taxes is laughable. You wanting them to pay MORE in taxes is different than they aren't paying their taxes.
    Fair, what is fair? I don't think 45% of Americans not paying any federal income taxes is fair.

    Again, limit the step-up basis for the wealthy. Start treating some long-term capital gains for certain holders as ordinary income. Disallow the wealthy from being able to leverage their equities to borrow cash. But why is the discussion never to fix the absurd spending that gets out of control? Do you guys really think ALL spending is GOOD spending?
    That's because they own over 60% of all wealth in the US:

    https://www.epi.org/publication/top_...untrys_wealth/

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That's because they own over 60% of all wealth in the US:

    https://www.epi.org/publication/top_...untrys_wealth/
    Wealth =/= income. Again, back to my point of tax ignorance.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,245
    We should cut the corporation tax some more so we have more jobs. It worked in the past. Right? All praises the job creators.
    Last edited by WES445; 10-05-2021 at 03:37 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Wealth =/= income. Again, back to my point of tax ignorance.
    I'm aware of the difference thank you. Capital Gains is part of income taxes, and is a tax on... assets.

    Now, you can continue with your ignorant tax points.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'm aware of the difference thank you. Capital Gains is part of income taxes, and is a tax on... assets.

    Now, you can continue with your ignorant tax points.
    What was ignorant about it?
    Capital gains is a tax on realized income.
    Capital gains can be short/long-term.

    A tax on assets is a WEALTH tax. Selling your stocks isn't a tax on assets.. It's a tax on income.
    Huge difference.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    What was ignorant about it?
    Capital gains is a tax on realized income.
    Capital gains can be short/long-term.

    A tax on assets is a WEALTH tax. Selling your stocks isn't a tax on assets... It's a tax on income.
    Huge difference.
    I'm aware, guess who realizes that income the overwhelming majority of the time?

    The wealthy:

    https://americansfortaxfairness.org/...20%24240%2C000.

    88% of Capital Gains tax income comes from the wealthy.



    But of course all this is to obfuscate the issue that no matter which way you try to spin it: the wealthy have the vast majority of the wealth and make the vast majority of the money in this country. So talking about what % of income taxes they pay as if it's somehow unfair to them is ridiculous when they have the vast majority of all the money in the country...

  7. #277
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'm aware, guess who realizes that income the overwhelming majority of the time?

    The wealthy:

    https://americansfortaxfairness.org/...20%24240%2C000.

    88% of Capital Gains tax income comes from the wealthy.



    But of course all this is to obfuscate the issue that no matter which way you try to spin it: the wealthy have the vast majority of the wealth and make the vast majority of the money in this country. So talking about what % of income taxes they pay as if it's somehow unfair to them is ridiculous when they have the vast majority of all the money in the country...
    So you want a wealth tax.... Just say that.
    Wealth fluctuates. Relying on a wealth tax to fund the government is a horrible recipe.

    I've already proposed better solutions such as the step-up basis being limited for the wealthy and disallowing stock leverage loans.

    Again, you wanting the wealthy to pay more is different than it not being fair. If you legislate a 100% wealth tax on all the billionaires in the United States, you would only get about $4 trillion. Think about that: If you seized all the assets of billionaires living in America, you would only have enough money to fund the federal government for less than a year.

    So you can push all the taxes you want. No amount of tax revenue against the billionaires will be able to budget the spending at the rate this is going to. The only other way to meet it would be higher tax rates across all income groups. And do you think the government, who uses tax revenues for their lobbyists connections, give a F about reducing spending?

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    So you want a wealth tax.... Just say that.
    Wealth fluctuates. Relying on a wealth tax to fund the government is a horrible recipe.

    I've already proposed better solutions such as the step-up basis being limited for the wealthy and disallowing stock leverage loans.

    Again, you wanting the wealthy to pay more is different than it not being fair. If you legislate a 100% wealth tax on all the billionaires in the United States, you would only get about $4 trillion. Think about that: If you seized all the assets of billionaires living in America, you would only have enough money to fund the federal government for less than a year.

    So you can push all the taxes you want. No amount of tax revenue against the billionaires will be able to budget the spending at the rate this is going to. The only other way to meet it would be higher tax rates across all income groups. And do you think the government, who uses tax revenues for their lobbyists connections, give a F about reducing spending?
    I don't know if I want that. I want the wealthy to pay more in taxes and to not be able to hide their money to avoid paying taxes, and to not be able to take advantage of laws to lessen their tax burden relative to the rest of the country.

    If that's a wealth tax, then let's do that. If that's best accomplished by what you're proposing, let's do that. Though I will say I'm skeptical of your solutions considering how pro-wealthy you have been in tenor during this conversation.

    As for spending, in the other threads you have advocated tremendous spending in Afghanistan in counter-terror costs, and you have advocated for spending to help raise children for poor families as opposed to paying for abortions.

    If you want to reduce spending, what spending do you want reduced?

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I don't know if I want that. I want the wealthy to pay more in taxes and to not be able to hide their money to avoid paying taxes, and to not be able to take advantage of laws to lessen their tax burden relative to the rest of the country.

    If that's a wealth tax, then let's do that. If that's best accomplished by what you're proposing, let's do that. Though I will say I'm skeptical of your solutions considering how pro-wealthy you have been in tenor during this conversation.

    As for spending, in the other threads you have advocated tremendous spending in Afghanistan in counter-terror costs, and you have advocated for spending to help raise children for poor families as opposed to paying for abortions.

    If you want to reduce spending, what spending do you want reduced?
    When did I advocate for 'tremendous' spending in Afghanistan? I said America and other countries have a duty to ensure that terrorists do not commit terrorist acts against other countries.

    The wealthy aren't earning their income in ORDINARY income. The corporate structure has changed that. Their wealth is largely tied up to, in most cases, the appreciation of stock values. LeBron James earns more ordinary taxable income money than Musk, Bezos, Bill Gates, etc., combined. He would be the .01% of income earners - not Musk/Bezos/Bill Gates.

    I love how you claim I am pro-wealthy as if I am a billionaire or a lobbyist. Would do you well to start debating the topic at point instead of trying to draw up a fictitious puppet. Step-up basis would hurt the wealthy the most... If I am advocating for that, how am I defending the wealthy? Just because I say the wealthy are paying for most of the tax revenue doesn't mean I am defending the wealthy. The data proves that they are so in reality, your debate is now that you want the wealthy to pay more which is something I've already stated I agree with.

    There's a whole bucket list of spending items that could be reduced and I've already made a list many months ago so I don't feel like rehashing it. For what it is worth, it was over 20+ items in which the government squandered money. Afghanistan/Iraq for instance, total cost $4 trillion not including the medical and payouts to families for damages caused by the wars. So how can the government claim they want more tax revenue but they freely spend it on unproductive activities?

    And it's funny that you don't acknowledge that taxing billionaires in America for all their wealth wouldn't even be able to sustain the federal government obligations for one year. What does that tell you? That the spending is getting out of control, no? Or do you suggest taxing the portfolios of all Americans a higher rate?

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    When did I advocate for 'tremendous' spending in Afghanistan? I said America and other countries have a duty to ensure that terrorists do not commit terrorist acts against other countries.

    The wealthy aren't earning their income in ORDINARY income. The corporate structure has changed that. Their wealth is largely tied up to, in most cases, the appreciation of stock values. LeBron James earns more ordinary taxable income money than Musk, Bezos, Bill Gates, etc., combined. He would be the .01% of income earners - not Musk/Bezos/Bill Gates.

    I love how you claim I am pro-wealthy as if I am a billionaire or a lobbyist. Would do you well to start debating the topic at point instead of trying to draw up a fictitious puppet. Step-up basis would hurt the wealthy the most... If I am advocating for that, how am I defending the wealthy? Just because I say the wealthy are paying for most of the tax revenue doesn't mean I am defending the wealthy. The data proves that they are so in reality, your debate is now that you want the wealthy to pay more which is something I've already stated I agree with.

    There's a whole bucket list of spending items that could be reduced and I've already made a list many months ago so I don't feel like rehashing it. For what it is worth, it was over 20+ items in which the government squandered money. Afghanistan/Iraq for instance, total cost $4 trillion not including the medical and payouts to families for damages caused by the wars. So how can the government claim they want more tax revenue but they freely spend it on unproductive activities?

    And it's funny that you don't acknowledge that taxing billionaires in America for all their wealth wouldn't even be able to sustain the federal government obligations for one year. What does that tell you? That the spending is getting out of control, no? Or do you suggest taxing the portfolios of all Americans a higher rate?
    First Bolded: And are you under the impression those counter-terrorism operations are free or cheap?

    Second Bolded: I'm under no delusions you are a billionaire or lobbyist. Most people who advocate on behalf of the rich are just as poor as the rest of us (which is what makes it so odd).

    Third Bolded: Explain your point. I didn't say I'm unreceptive to it (in fact I said the complete opposite), I just said I was skeptical. My skepticism can be overcome easily. If you have a solution, by all means lets hear it. What would the net effect of your ideas be?

    Fourth Bolded: It tells me that you are good at repeating irrelevant factoids.

    I agree spending needs to come down, but taxes on the wealthy need to go up. They are not mutually exclusive.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First Bolded: And are you under the impression those counter-terrorism operations are free or cheap?

    Second Bolded: I'm under no delusions you are a billionaire or lobbyist. Most people who advocate on behalf of the rich are just as poor as the rest of us (which is what makes it so odd).

    Third Bolded: Explain your point. I didn't say I'm unreceptive to it (in fact I said the complete opposite), I just said I was skeptical. My skepticism can be overcome easily. If you have a solution, by all means lets hear it. What would the net effect of your ideas be?

    Fourth Bolded: It tells me that you are good at repeating irrelevant factoids.

    I agree spending needs to come down, but taxes on the wealthy need to go up. They are not mutually exclusive.
    1) There are ways to protect your interests without spending trillions of dollars. Namely, work alongside other countries and impose sanctions. China is a huge boost to the Taliban because of their lithium content... lithium being used for EV's and batteries. Work alongside with other neighboring countries by promoting more trade so they are less dependent on working with their terrorist neighbors. No one ever said anything about invasion or a war. Do we agree that America and their allies should fight against terrorism? Yes. Does that mean spend trillions of dollars? No. And you have to look at it from a perspective of spending money to prevent a catastrophe that will ultimately cost more money in the future. Imagine if military actions were being done to prevent 9/11 that would have ultimately prevented the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. The American government was warned that an attack was imminent.

    2) Just because we have different solutions doesn't mean I am defending the wealthy. I have no idea what you are even referencing here.

    3) Step-up basis allows the descendants of the wealthy to receive assets at their market value at the date of death rather than the original basis. Let's say Elon Musk bought a house for $10 million dollars in 1980. Elon Musk dies in 2020 and his home, at the date of death, is worth $1 billion. Under the step-up basis, the people who inherit his property, if they decide to sell, would be taxed on ANY gains above the NEW basis of $1 billion. So let's say they decide to sell the property as soon as Musk died. Instead of being taxed on $990 million ($1 billion - $10 million), they are taxed at $0... ($1 billion - $1 billion). This is excluding state laws but federally, this is allowed.

    Stock loans as collateral is let's say Musk wants to buy a home for $1 billion. He doesn't have the cash. Normally, the average person would sell their stocks for that kind of cash to buy a home. Musk, on the other hand, can use his Tesla stock as collateral to receive low interest cash. Meaning, instead of having to sell his stocks and be taxed for it, he can buy that home for $1 billion and not be taxed since he isn't selling his shares. All he would have to pay is the principal+interest of which he can deduct mortgage interest. Plenty of wealthy people do this... including Jay Z and LeBron James.

    Another is purchasing sports teams. Do you really think Balmer is an idiot for buying the Clippers for that insane amount of money when people thought it was overpriced? Balmer gets to depreciate the value of the team. That is how he was able to deduct massive amounts of income. He is able to deduct nearly $170 million every year for the next 15 years on the purchase price of the Clippers. It's a lot more complicated than what I wrote but the end result is accurate.

    I also mentioned increasing capital gains for pre-IPO shareholders... so Musk having so many Tesla shares would be charged the ordinary tax rates for any shares he held pre-IPO instead of the lower 20% capital gains tax.

    I don't see how I can mention the above and you think I am 'defending' the wealthy.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,886
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    1) There are ways to protect your interests without spending trillions of dollars. Namely, work alongside other countries and impose sanctions. China is a huge boost to the Taliban because of their lithium content... lithium being used for EV's and batteries. Work alongside with other neighboring countries by promoting more trade so they are less dependent on working with their terrorist neighbors. No one ever said anything about invasion or a war. Do we agree that America and their allies should fight against terrorism? Yes. Does that mean spend trillions of dollars? No. And you have to look at it from a perspective of spending money to prevent a catastrophe that will ultimately cost more money in the future. Imagine if military actions were being done to prevent 9/11 that would have ultimately prevented the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. The American government was warned that an attack was imminent.

    2) Just because we have different solutions doesn't mean I am defending the wealthy. I have no idea what you are even referencing here.

    3) Step-up basis allows the descendants of the wealthy to receive assets at their market value at the date of death rather than the original basis. Let's say Elon Musk bought a house for $10 million dollars in 1980. Elon Musk dies in 2020 and his home, at the date of death, is worth $1 billion. Under the step-up basis, the people who inherit his property, if they decide to sell, would be taxed on ANY gains above the NEW basis of $1 billion. So let's say they decide to sell the property as soon as Musk died. Instead of being taxed on $990 million ($1 billion - $10 million), they are taxed at $0... ($1 billion - $1 billion). This is excluding state laws but federally, this is allowed.

    Stock loans as collateral is let's say Musk wants to buy a home for $1 billion. He doesn't have the cash. Normally, the average person would sell their stocks for that kind of cash to buy a home. Musk, on the other hand, can use his Tesla stock as collateral to receive low interest cash. Meaning, instead of having to sell his stocks and be taxed for it, he can buy that home for $1 billion and not be taxed since he isn't selling his shares. All he would have to pay is the principal+interest of which he can deduct mortgage interest. Plenty of wealthy people do this... including Jay Z and LeBron James.

    Another is purchasing sports teams. Do you really think Balmer is an idiot for buying the Clippers for that insane amount of money when people thought it was overpriced? Balmer gets to depreciate the value of the team. That is how he was able to deduct massive amounts of income. He is able to deduct nearly $170 million every year for the next 15 years on the purchase price of the Clippers. It's a lot more complicated than what I wrote but the end result is accurate.

    I also mentioned increasing capital gains for pre-IPO shareholders... so Musk having so many Tesla shares would be charged the ordinary tax rates for any shares he held pre-IPO instead of the lower 20% capital gains tax.

    I don't see how I can mention the above and you think I am 'defending' the wealthy.
    What would the net effect of these policies be?

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    What would the net effect of these policies be?
    Making sure that the wealthy are paying a larger % of their wealth in a way that ordinary citizens wouldn't be able to themselves?

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,194
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Making sure that the wealthy are paying a larger % of their wealth in a way that ordinary citizens wouldn't be able to themselves?
    Yup.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,194
    Nvm

Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •