The All Things Political Topic - As a Bright Lord bears Beacons of flame.

[Gorth]

Your own fault for hanging on to CHOAM stock for too long. Should have sold them while they were still worth a fortune

 

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Hypothetical question. Suppose I'm a billionaire. And suppose I own stock in a huge company, we'll call it CHOAM for argument's sake. The stock is doing really, really well. It worth a LOT of money. Now, the emperor requires I pay a capital gains tax on all capital GAINS. But my stock valuation in CHOAM isn't really a GAIN because I haven't sold it for the profit. So no tax. All the previous emperors felt the same way. 

Now, suppose for this example, we get a new Emperor with some radically different ideas on how to run the galaxy. Now he wants to tax my CHOAM stock on it's increase in VALUE even though I haven't technically made any money on it.  Now, after I've paid the tax on the value gain there is an economic downturn. Suppose there is this holy war going, weird new religious cult, space travel is being locked down, CHOAM struggles in challenging economic times and the value plummets WAY below the level I was taxed at. So, my question is can count the amount of tax I paid on the gains I didn't even earn as a capital loss on the losses I never realized?

Hypothetically of course. 

Its egregious and we all should be outraged, its just another attempt to tax people with resources and how do you know the value of basically any investment in the future. You cannot say with certainty so now you get taxed on some " projection of the value of an asset " like you said 

I really think all you guys in the US should be concerned with this, its illogical and unfair 

Edited October 29, 2021 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Its egregious and we all should be outraged, its just another attempt to tax people with resources and how do you know the value of basically any investment in the future. You cannot say with certainty so now you get taxed on some " projection of the value of an asset " like you said 

I really think all you guys in the US should be concerned with this, its illogical and unfair 

Right now this only applies to “billionaires”. However when they don’t get as much money as they think they’re going to from that I suspect they’ll start coming after everyone else somewhere down the road. It takes Gromnir’s idea for a Smaug portfolio from a funny line on an Internet forum to a viable money management strategy. After all they can’t tax you on it if they don’t know how much you actually have.

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Right now this only applies to “billionaires”. However when they don’t get as much money as they think they’re going to from that I suspect they’ll start coming after everyone else somewhere down the road. It takes Gromnir’s idea for a Smaug portfolio from a funny line on an Internet forum to a viable money management strategy. After all they can’t tax you on it if they don’t know how much you actually have.

 

Yeah, we all know how the Democrats can act when they have a congressional  advantage....billionaires taxed today, " mom and pop stalls taxed  tomorrow " 

[Hurlshort]

16 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Right now this only applies to “billionaires”. However when they don’t get as much money as they think they’re going to from that I suspect they’ll start coming after everyone else somewhere down the road. It takes Gromnir’s idea for a Smaug portfolio from a funny line on an Internet forum to a viable money management strategy. After all they can’t tax you on it if they don’t know how much you actually have.

I'm not sure that it is a real concern among the non-billionaires though: https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income.aspx

[Malcador]

Good thing billionaires have poorer people sticking up for them.

[Guard Dog]

4 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm not sure that it is a real concern among the non-billionaires though: https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income.aspx

It worries the hell out of me. It's not just on stock but any appreciable asset that can be sold. My stock and securities footprint is minimal. Just whatever is in my IRA. And I'm in the process of selling off a good bit of my real estate. But I have three "lottery ticket" properties that could suddenly be worth a LOT more than I paid for them if/when they are re-zoned in the future following likely growth of nearby cities. They would definitely expose me to some painful tax bills if this BS ever filtered down to my level. I'm what you call "asset rich but cash poor". It would suck in the extreme to have to sell a property at low value just to pay a capital gains tax on an arbitrary and wholly imaginary estimation of it's future or present value. Especially when there wouldn't even BE a gain. 

Now, none of this has happened. And it may not. In fact it probably won't. But the whole IDEA of it is just flawed.

And anyway tax is theft. Not changing my mind about it. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

9 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Good thing billionaires have poorer people sticking up for them.

Someone has to stand up for the overdog.

[Guard Dog]

15 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Good thing billionaires have poorer people sticking up for them.

What they can do to one citizen they can do to all of them.

[Malcador]

5 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What they can do to one citizen they can do to all of them.

Usually one direction, though, hah.

[Guard Dog]

Interesting take on an upcoming Supreme Court Case: In battle at Supreme Court over N.Y. gun law, a surprising split among conservatives

This is my non-lawyer opinion. The Great Legal Barbarian of the West will, no doubt, have a much more in depth and erudite analysis if he choose to opine.

1) This whole thing is moot. NY changed the law that led to the original complaint. The case should have been dropped and the Supreme Court should not even be entertaining it now.  Going shopping for cases to rule on is the kind of thing that drove everyone crazy in the 60's, '70's and 80's. Good lord don't they have enough to do already? I get that there is a real desire, especially from Thomas, Alito, & Goresuch to get a 2nd amendment case. But not this one.

2) This is an interesting situation because it's pitting (in a way) the 2nd amendment vs the 10th Amendment. But it's also not because the original complaint did not involve the prohibition of possessing firearms. This is all about how they could be carried or transported. IMO only that makes in NOT a second amendment issue. 

3) The heart of this whole thing is concealed carry. Although no one wants to say that. Hey I am 100% for CC. I have a permit and I do, on occasion, practice the privilege. And it IS a privilege. The 2A does not grant CC. You state allows you to do it if you follow their rules. Other states recognize the privilege granted by other states. Some don't. That is ultimately up tp each state government and it's voters and it's MY responsibility to know them. When I drive to Wisconsin I leave my pistol at home. Not only do they not have reciprocity with my state I pass though a state that does not allow CC at all. Their state their rules. I have a real hard time with compelling on state to follow the rules or grant the privileges allowed by another beyond the scope of the basic rights all citizens enjoy. Using the 2A as a crowbar to get nationwide CC (which is what this is all about IMO) doesn't sit well with me.

I am one million percent pro 2A when it comes to things like prohibiting ownership in the home or prohibiting the legal transportation of firearms under any circumstances. That this isn't what this is about. 

[Achilles]

49 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What they can do to one citizen they can do to all of them.

How far do we take that? Another way to phrase that is, "We shouldn't make any laws that affect anyone".

Again, I suspect that, if pressed, you and I will agree that there should be a line. The discussion then, hopefully, becomes a respectful and productive dialog about where the line should be.

Rhetoric like the above isn't helpful.

[Guard Dog]

25 minutes ago, Achilles said:

How far do we take that? Another way to phrase that is, "We shouldn't make any laws that affect anyone".

Again, I suspect that, if pressed, you and I will agree that there should be a line. The discussion then, hopefully, becomes a respectful and productive dialog about where the line should be.

Rhetoric like the above isn't helpful.

Not sure where you’re coming from on this one. The taxing authority of the government in the United States is pretty broad. Anyway, in the context of this one specific idea, which I will reiterate has not actually happened yet it’s just something being talked about, it’s the taxing authority itself that said it will only apply to “billionaires“. OK. What if next year they decided applies to everybody? Once again not saying that would happen. This is all a hypothetical discussion. The authority to levy tax just is what it is. The people in power get to decide who it gets applied to. There’s nothing stopping them from applying it to everybody. Actual Capital gains tax applies to pretty much everybody now. With a few exceptions based on what is actually done with the gain. 
 

The whole idea of treating unrealized gains as though they actually happened is just illogical. Again, hypothetical situation and just as a comparison: Suppose you’re going to take the family down to Florida for Disney World. You’ve made the reservations, made all your plans and suddenly you get a tax bill for the sales tax on the tickets, hotel rooms, plane tickets, meals, souvenirs, etc. Even though you haven’t bought or done any of it yet. The thinking is while you’re going to pay it anyway why not pay it now. But you have an actually done any of that yet what if you don’t go? Do you get a refund? You see what I’m getting at here? It’s one thing to levy tax on a transaction that was actually made. It’s another thing all together to do it on some thing that hasn’t even happened. To tax somebody on a gain they haven’t actually made. If you follow the logic on that it leads you into a pretty weird place.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

But those capital gains taxes exist for a reason. You have billionaires accumulating a huge amount of 'unrealized' gains at the top. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

12 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What if next year they decided applies to everybody?

[Guard Dog]

15 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

But those capital gains taxes exist for a reason. You have billionaires accumulating a huge amount of 'unrealized' gains at the top. 

So what? Suppose we have a 1929 style crash today and all of those gains turn into losses? The billionaire is still going to have the exact same amount of money in the bank as he did before. The only way those gains are actually gains as if he sold the stock and profited on the sale. If he didn’t do it then it’s not really a gain

Think about it like this. You are in 1000 shares of Apple stock. It’s worth $100 more than you paid. But next week there is a market reversal and now it’s worth $100 less than you paid. You still have the same amount of money in your checking account and you still own 1000 shares of Apple. So really you haven’t gained or lost anything.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Darkpriest]

11 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

But those capital gains taxes exist for a reason. You have billionaires accumulating a huge amount of 'unrealized' gains at the top. 

But they can never cash them out at that value to get that money. If Bezos or Musk would try to sell their whole stock now, they would 

 

A) never be able to do so at the current price as there would not be enough buyers at that price

 

B) a sell order of such magnitude would crash the stock in extreme, creating a lot of other stock holders dirt poor or even bunkrupt, as a lot of people use leverage on their investments now. 

 

C) Crashing stock market would result in crashing economy as suddenly a huge liquidity vacum would hit all the transactions

 

I  reality, a lot of that NET Worth is virtual these days, especially after FED printed trillions of dollars into a system. 

[ShadySands]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

So what? Suppose we have a 1929 style crash today and all of those gains turn into losses? The billionaire is still going to have the exact same amount of money in the bank as he did before. The only way those gains are actually gains as if he sold the stock and profited on the sale. If he didn’t do it then it’s not really a gain

Think about it like this. You are in 1000 shares of Apple stock. It’s worth $100 more than you paid. But next week there is a market reversal and now it’s worth $100 less than you paid. You still have the same amount of money in your checking account and you still own 1000 shares of Apple. So really you haven’t gained or lost anything.

So it sounds more like a property tax as opposed to an income tax

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by ShadySands

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Sounds like property tax then

 

Not really because property tax is not calculated with the same valuation as market price. I guarantee you the taxable value of your house is considerably less than you would make on it if you were to actually sell it

[ShadySands]

Sure, it may be calculated differently but in function it seems the same.

Edited October 29, 2021 by ShadySands
Dropping words - clarity

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm not sure that it is a real concern among the non-billionaires though: https://news.gallup.com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income.aspx

gd loves tobogganing (it's a thing people in wisconsin do for fun) down the slippery slope. every argument is based on the NO Compromise philosophy.  why can't we have meaningful gun control legislation such as were the norm in the US until the mid 1900s? 'cause if you give in to them and allow 'em to limit your gun rights, then next thing you know, they will be breaking down your door to take your perfect legit weapons. you can't trust them, not with guns or taxes or government condemnations. 

there is only one gd post regarding the government. sure, he dresses it up different each time, but is always a defense for no compromise 'cause they are inherent untrustworthy and flawed. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Donald Trump’s latest business venture, Truth Social, is a brand-new social media platform that is going to be a publicly-traded company via a reverse merger with a SPAC. Consequently, it sits at the intersection between finance, law, and technology. When you combine Trump’s legendary financial acumen—he has only six bankruptcies on his record—with his uncanny eye for legal talent like Rudy Giuliani and tech wizards like Brad Parscale, what could possibly go wrong?

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Sure it may be calculated differently but in function it seems the same

Not really - imagine you have a house, and this house is getting more valuable by the minute, and you have to pay higher taxes with each passing minute, yet you cannot sell it, because no one would actually be able to buy your house at the price it has at the moment. 

Would you like to pay more on the value you will never get? 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Malcador]

10 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Donald Trump’s latest business venture, Truth Social, is a brand-new social media platform that is going to be a publicly-traded company via a reverse merger with a SPAC. Consequently, it sits at the intersection between finance, law, and technology. When you combine Trump’s legendary financial acumen—he has only six bankruptcies on his record—with his uncanny eye for legal talent like Rudy Giuliani and tech wizards like Brad Parscale, what could possibly go wrong?

HA! Good Fun!

None of the faithful will ask why he couldn't fork out cash for some engineers to make it from scratch.

[Gfted1]

19 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Not really - imagine you have a house, and this house is getting more valuable by the minute, and you have to pay higher taxes with each passing minute, yet you cannot sell it, because no one would actually be able to buy your house at the price it has at the moment.

Just in case you didnt know, thats exactly how property tax works in the US. Not by the minute of course, but property tax assessments are usually performed annually. Ive never seen a situation where the property tax makes it unaffordable for the next buyer but I suppose it could happen in some extreme example.