Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This entire plan, while being Unconstitutional and likely overturned by the courts, reveals the true nature of the Democratic Party. Basically, 1,000 people need to foot the entire bill. The people who already pay all the taxes have to pay more to fund a plan to help the Democrats buy votes by giving more free stuff away to those who pay nothing. 

If this works, 1,000 people will become 1,000,000 before long. The idea that the role of politicians is to steal the wealth of a small group to buy votes from those who contribute nothing is why we are ultimately doomed. The system is irrevocably broken.

hey, thanks for doing your part. you're a true patriot!   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

hey, thanks for doing your part. you're a true patriot!   

Doesn't apply to me. But I'm not a worthless leach and cretin looking for others to pay for my failures in life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yep.  Their "yeah buts" everyday shows as much.  

But Trump lost though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

"RECENTLY"

 

Ahh yes a post from 2 months ago.  Sure.  That's exactly what you were talking about when you first responded to me, today.  Of course!!  :roll:  Glad you were able to find a square peg.  Kudos.....you win a point for being detailed in your obsession.  

 

Triggered and Desperate!

 

triggered_861_25-Oct-2021.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Doesn't apply to me. But I'm not a worthless leach and cretin looking for others to pay for my failures in life. 

you should work harder so you can be one of those 1,000!

 

oh...and you spelled "leech" incorrectly.  :whistle:  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This entire plan, while being Unconstitutional and likely overturned by the courts, reveals the true nature of the Democratic Party. Basically, 1,000 people need to foot the entire bill. The people who already pay all the taxes have to pay more to fund a plan to help the Democrats buy votes by giving more free stuff away to those who pay nothing. 

If this works, 1,000 people will become 1,000,000 before long. The idea that the role of politicians is to steal the wealth of a small group to buy votes from those who contribute nothing is why we are ultimately doomed. The system is irrevocably broken.

It's a familiar pattern that looks a little something like this:

1. Tell the most retarded cult on the planet that the 1% aren't paying their fair share.

2. Introduce a tax and say it's only for the 1%. DCotP blindly supports because it supposedly won't effect them.

3. Apply the tax to everyone who isn't a net drain on society.

4. Start over at step 1.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you pay a tax on unrealized gains, do you get a credit for unrealized losses?  No of course not. And what about real estate?  Are we going to start doing yearly assessments of property values and tax that too?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, binkybink77 said:

So if you pay a tax on unrealized gains, do you get a credit for unrealized losses?  No of course not. And what about real estate?  Are we going to start doing yearly assessments of property values and tax that too?  

Not sure if this was sarcasm, but we already have that, it's what our property taxes are based on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Not sure if this was sarcasm, but we already have that, it's what our property taxes are based on. 

I'm talking about from a capital gains perspective, not the already infuriating property taxes we pay - also assessments aren't yearly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I can't imagine taxing unrealized capital gains will stand up in court. 

But it is truly idiotic nonetheless. 

I am trying to figure out the details of this proposal... I don't see where realized vs. unrealized gains is delineated in the Constitution. Legally I think it can hold up. However, if unrealized capital gains are reported and taxed annually; it only makes sense that unrealized losses must count as well. Things could get really messy. Realistically, I am having a hard time making sense of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, binkybink77 said:

I'm talking about from a capital gains perspective, not the already infuriating property taxes we pay - also assessments aren't yearly.  

By we, I meant my state, in Michigan. We already have annual assessments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

They have answers for none of this, obviously. 

Gov't doesn't bother balancing its books so they are looking for an easy target to steal money from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA has weird assessments. Newer homes are assessed at more recent/new values, older homes tend not to be on any real schedule. So older homes tend to pay much less in property taxes compared to any new buildings. 

There is incentive for those in older homes - which always constitutes the majority of people because not THAT many new homes are being built (especially because of NIMBYism) - to NOT have values re-assessed. So ... they just aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

So if you pay a tax on unrealized gains, do you get a credit for unrealized losses?  No of course not. And what about real estate?  Are we going to start doing yearly assessments of property values and tax that too?  

Where I live, assessments are done every 4 years. But they are phased-in annually for property tax purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

By we, I meant my state, in Michigan. We already have annual assessments. 

Right, but I think Binky's point was that the increase in value of your home isn't treated as income. The value of the asset increases, so your property tax is higher in the new year. But this would be akin to taxing the increase in value of the home at the capital gains rate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Right, but I think Binky's point was that the increase in value of your home isn't treated as income. The value of the asset increases, so your property tax is higher in the new year. But this would be akin to taxing the increase in value of the home at the capital gains rate.

Yeah I was just pointing out that MI already has annual reassessments. Looks like Philly does too...

https://www.altusgroup.com/services/en-us/insights/philadelphia-real-property-annual-assessment/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Right, but I think Binky's point was that the increase in value of your home isn't treated as income. The value of the asset increases, so your property tax is higher in the new year. But this would be akin to taxing the increase in value of the home at the capital gains rate.

Exactly - it would be a slippery slope in my opinion especially if it were to trickle down to the middle class who wouldn't have access to funds to pay taxes on assets that aren't liquid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Right, but I think Binky's point was that the increase in value of your home isn't treated as income. The value of the asset increases, so your property tax is higher in the new year. But this would be akin to taxing the increase in value of the home at the capital gains rate.

yup. this opens up a lot of potentials for both abuse and economic damage.

how do you tax an asset that is 1. illiquid and 2. has not had its value realized yet?

at any moment the 'stock price' of an equity is more or less an approximation of the value based on the current bid price and recent sales. the stock price might be $100 but if you can find somebody to pay $150 it's worth more, if you can't find anyone to pay $100 it's worth less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

yup. this opens up a lot of potentials for both abuse and economic damage.

how do you tax an asset that is 1. illiquid and 2. has not had its value realized yet?

at any moment the 'stock price' of an equity is more or less an approximation of the value based on the current bid price and recent sales. the stock price might be $100 but if you can find somebody to pay $150 it's worth more, if you can't find anyone to pay $100 it's worth less.

You're also going to cause massive selling pressure in the market at year end to (i) drive down values for the year end mark and (ii) raise money to actually pay the taxes (might happen again going into 4/15). But beyond all the unintended consequences, just think about it -- it's INSANE. You are taxing someone on a paper gain where they haven't actually realized the profit yet. 

Let's say you own a stock that goes from $20 to $40. Government taxes you on that $20 profit this year. The next year, the company goes bankrupt and the stock is worthless. So now you lost $40 and get what -- a taxable loss in the future? Do you get a refund? So if the stock market goes down, the government will owe billions in refunds due to the carryback of losses?? Yeah...that seems like a smart way to do a budget. Right when the market is dropping, likely due to economic strain, the government will owe billions in refunds. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You're also going to cause massive selling pressure in the market at year end to (i) drive down values for the year end mark and (ii) raise money to actually pay the taxes (might happen again going into 4/15). But beyond all the unintended consequences, just think about it -- it's INSANE. You are taxing someone on a paper gain where they haven't actually realized the profit yet. 

Let's say you own a stock that goes from $20 to $40. Government taxes you on that $20 profit this year. The next year, the company goes bankrupt and the stock is worthless. So now you lost $40 and get what -- a taxable loss in the future? Do you get a refund? So if the stock market goes down, the government will owe billions in refunds due to the carryback of losses?? Yeah...that seems like a smart way to do a budget. Right when the market is dropping, likely due to economic strain, the government will owe billions in refunds. 

Exactly. It's too stupid to even wrap my head around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing unrealized gains is literally taxing the stock market. Really, it is going to suppress stock values. So can you pay your taxes in stock? It just seems like a really silly proposal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

240495872_4197547016989121_2402503096964

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not sure if this was sarcasm, but we already have that, it's what our property taxes are based on. 

Apples and oranges.  Property taxes are ad valorem taxes assessed at the state and local level.  Capital gains are a form of income and subject to U.S. income taxes.  There's nothing to indicate that if the feds were enact an unrealized capital gains tax (essentially a modified poll tax limited to holders of property) that the state and local authorities would reduce or eliminate property taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Procus said:

Apples and oranges.  Property taxes are ad valorem taxes assessed at the state and local level.  Capital gains are a form of income and subject to U.S. income taxes.  There's nothing to indicate that if the feds were enact an unrealized capital gains tax (essentially a modified poll tax limited to holders of property) that the state and local authorities would reduce or eliminate property taxes.

Again, when I said "we already have that" I was referring to annual assessments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...