The tax applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth and mostly affects hedge fund managers.
t_d thread: https://archive.is/5pFXr
here's fox news trying to convince people that the tax will mean that if your home goes up in value, the government will take your house: https://archive.is/Ay89M
"This would be the most crazy tax structure we have ever seen. It makes Venezuela look normal. It makes Russia look normal," Gingrich stressed. "That speech last week in Raleigh, where [Harris] outlined her economic plan, that was crazy. That was so far to the left of Bernie Sanders that Gorbachev in Russia would have thought it was a radical speech."
I love how unrealized gains are worth enough to borrow against, but somehow don't count as wealth for the purpose of taxation. Funny how that works.
I agree with the outlook when it comes to stocks, if this tax is actually true for it. I've had stocks I've heald for nearly a decade and watched them go up and down by large amounts.
Having to pay a tax on the value they would go up in a year would mean I or anyone else would have to sell off some stock to pay for the tax. I make $50,000 a year. I couldn't afford to keep my stocks if they had a good year. Especially knowing if they went down the following year I wouldn't get the inverse action of a 25% loss credit.
They need to find other ways that more directly take on the issues of wealth disparity than something that's going to knock out the lower and middle class out of being able to invest in the market. Put limits on what corporations can do and property owners from having more than a certain amount of residential homes/apartments. Put a stop against using stocks and bonds as collateral against loans. Don't put this tax in effect unless the gains increase is in access of $1,000,000 or some amount. Don't screw up everyone else just trying to get by and save a little bit of money .
From the first sentence in The fucking post: The tax applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth and mostly affects hedge fund managers.
If you read anything more than the headline before you rushed to the comments to provide your ignorant take, you would have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.
I read what was in the linked picture that was posted, you pious Lil shit.
"I assumed the text shared in a post in the dunk tank was accurate"
I didn't just assume it was accurate. I said IF this tax is actually true for it..
"Okay imagine spending $100,000"
I literally can't imagine doing this at any point in my life, ever.
For the vast majority of people this isn’t spending money, it’s taking on debt
"At least 100 million in wealth"
Lol. Lmao, even. Are libs allergic to reading?
Chuds especially. Dems sometimes read a lot, but only from their little silos of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-progressive slop.
After years of reading Paul Krugman op-eds I'm basically an economist
Gorbachev in Russia would have thought it was a radical speech.
- he spent most of his last decades in Germany iirc
- he was a liberal
- he's dead
- he's dead
Not to Newt Gingrich, he’s not. Rent-free afterlife.
These people are fighting a late-80’s Cold War with a non-existent adversary.
they're doing everything in their power to revive it tho lmao
I saw someone posting something similar about this and a person replied “you don’t make enough money to be concerned about this” and they were like “you don’t know what I’m cooking! I’m certain I’ll be in this tax bracket by the next sitting president!” Lol
That's been a conservative talking point for years. That if it weren't for [insert generic bad person here] you'd have a million dollars and a boat and 6 houses.
I'm amazed how many people still fall into it.
I'm amazed how many people still fall into it.
they have to believe it, or that means capitalism doesn't work, and that is a train of thought they have refused to follow
So not only finally tax for the gambler parasites but a recipe for a stock market crash?
Show
Too bad Kkkopmala isn't even in 1% as based as they are scaremongering themselves
I propose 10000% capital gains tax if someone makes over $100m.
Once your income hits that point you prestige and have to start over as a McDonald's worker
Call it "Newgame+" but hey, aren't those leeches constantly saying they would retain their experience and be back in rich in no time? Weird how not one ever tried.
This would never happen
Half the top donors to the Dems are hedge funds
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
I refuse to believe any proposed policies from a democrat. They can offer anything they want and know they won't pass it because a parliamentarian will find the blue suit rule in effect on the day it's proposed (oops the tax code can't be amended if there is someone wearing a blue suit in Congress on that day, sorry hands are tied everyone, we do want progress though).
All they're going to do is tax cuts and wonder why they can't fund anything. Also bump that military spending up another 500 billion or so gotta make sure we're extra lethal and threatening to everyone.
But that money is protecting freedom!*
By giving Israel $ to kill more kids
This worked when they made everyone afraid of the estate tax, even though that only applies to the richest 2,000 or so deaths a year.
"But what if that's me??"
-person that buried their credit and nearly bankrupted themselves to buy a lifted F250 Platinum and a Cybertruck
I like how the title to that post is just describing property taxes that every home owner already pays.
How many fucking people with $100m+ would even keep their investments in their personal name?
Anyway, wacky proposal that they know will never get up
Yeah, it's 100%
shit because these kinds of people have family offices incorporated to handle their assets.
Think it's for people with extremely high net worths ($100 million+).
It's also a recipe for owning nothing. Nothing solid or fungible. You would look at a Thing, and say, this is going to cost me This Much. If its value goes up. And inflation is going to happen, so of course its numerical value is going to go up.
From t_d thread and the tax doesn't apply to "things" it applies to stocks. And the bit about how you would consider how much owning a thing would cost over time including inflation is already how assets are valued.
But what if you buy a sandwich and then the value of the sandwich goes up after you eat it!??!??! They're going to tax your poop!
Anyone with $100 million is going to be able to evade the taxes anyway.
There's a hostage approach to how bourgeoisie and bootlickers alike talk about that: "don't try to tax milord, or milord will evade more taxes and you'll be sorry!"
Yeah I’m like 175% sure that they’d be able write off drops in the value of the stock.
My concern with this idea is, how exactly are they calculating the value each year? Average value over the calendar year, value at end of CY, value at YTD from the original purchase? If done wrong it could lead to gaming of the market such that when it’s time to calculate the value, the market always happens to be in a dip then, very odd.
Yeah I’m like 175% sure that they’d be able write off drops in the value of the stock.
Yeah, the "taxes on gains that no longer exist" argument, betrays their basic lack of understanding about how taxes on assets work. Do they just not understand that capital losses offset the tax burden of the gains?
I wonder if some of this confusion happens because most people don't have exposure to anything beyond income and property taxes?
That's exactly what it is. Everyone that complains about this has only ever had to deal with a W2 or 1099 form. They don't understand that as you get richer, you have so many different avenues to avoid paying taxes.
Yep, it's also why the politicians and their idiotic "balance the government spending like a household budget" talk has traction. Most people don't understand how this stuff works at the higher echelons. This stuff goes way beyond what "kitchen table economics" can parse.
balance the government spending
God I fucking hate this. Both parties harp on about it, too. They'll both talk about their plans to "balance the budget." That's not how government spending works. Most of the money is money the government owes to itself. It's one of the benefits of fiat currency. Unfortunately, anything the government does is a gommunism and we can't have that or else the terrorists will win.
it's all moot, this ain't passing. if it actually made it to her desk she just wouldn't sign it.
The other question would be which stocks would be included in a scheme, because stocks with low liquidity would be even simpler to game to rack up unrealised tax losses
If I were president it would be calculated second by second but without correctiing by the fraction that second represents of the year (1/60x60x24x365) in order to tax them an astronomic sum
