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

[Gromnir]

there is a capital gains carve out for personal residence. lord knows nothing 'bout the proposed billionaire capital gains adjustment is gonna change such. our imagination is capable o' taking reality into account when confronted with hobgoblins and boogeymen. 

the biggest issue we see is implementation as 'posed weird notions o' fairness. am predicting billionaires is gonna send more o' their assets to their own foundations to avoid thresholds. many billionaires could quite easily not be billionaires on paper practically overnight. think o' it as akin to the recent meta rebranding, or when johnson and johnson created a subsidary to take the fall for their cancer causing baby powder, or whatever it were. billionaires will still have a billion dollars, but some signifficant portion o' their wealth will be held as trust or foundation assets. does make a difference if the home is owned by richie rich or instead by the OMEGA foundation which is run for the benefit o' richie rich? and yes, there is gonna be a smaug issue where billionaires make their assets not subject to the tax by investing in less marketable assets which are not subject to the tax. a picasso would not be taxable, but millions o' dollars in traditional stock would be. literal buy not gold stock, but a big pile o' gold, and the billionaire avoids tax issues? 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

27 minutes ago, Malcador said:

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

am perhaps giving trump too much credit, but recognition o' your observation could be the ultimate driver behind the truth platform. tell the faithful that the mastodon license precludes the existence o' the truth platform is not gonna stop investors. the fact trump is promoting this means many people is gonna believe it has value, in spite o' any evidence to the contrary. the trump organization doesn't care if truth ever comes to fruition.

elizabeth holmes may go to prison. trump's organization will make millions.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

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. 

Not to mention, brokerages usually charge a fee every quarter to "maintain" your portfolio. Obviously a smart person will seek to pay the least amount possible in fees, however doing so is seen as a cost of doing business.

All this to say, paying a proportional tax on a quarterly (or even annual) basis, is not crazy talk. Especially since the vast majority of people don't own any stock in the first place.

[Gromnir]

44 minutes ago, Achilles said:

 

All this to say, paying a proportional tax on a quarterly (or even annual) basis, is not crazy talk.

it also ain't nearly as ez as it sounds. property tax is usual based on crude county formulas which either approximate market value or some other value which is then used to form the basis o' the tax. is not as if a property assessor comes out to each homeowner's residence on a yearly basis. and keep in mind that billionaire estates is not the kinda thing which shows up on zillow. is rare gonna be comparable property sales to make the value o' mega mansions and included sprawling properties capable o' ez assessment.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-seventy-three-million-dollar-tax-refund-is-the-biggest-outrage-of-all

trump audit has taken more than a decade. why? is in part 'cause is complicated trying to figure out what somebody like trump actually owns and what is the worth o' such assets.

am s'posing difficulty in quantifying values is why the proposed billionaire tax is only applicable to marketable assets with known values, which brings us back to our concerns 'bout the problems o' implementation. if only the billionaire's personal and marketable assets is subject to the tax, then am suspecting there will sudden be fewer billionaires (at least on paper) and the remaining billionaires is gonna be less reliant on the public traded stuff which is subject to the tax. maybe there is solutions to such concerns, but if there is we ain't seen such.

keep in mind (not specific directed @Achilles)this is not a new idea. tax the rich is one o' those catchy three word slogans which is gonna appeal to the majority who ain't rich. how to best tax the rich w/o hurting the not rich has always been the hurdle. why is there so much resistance on both sides of the aisle to raising the corporate tax rate, which were part o' the biden plan mere weeks past? well, most corporations is actual small, and even those which is rich and or multinational is gonna reasonable pass along their increased cost o' doing business (the tax) to consumers. all too often, tax the rich functional becomes a tax on the poor.

btw, am actual in favor o' biden's proposed capital gains increase which he announced before a joint session o' Congress earlier this year. the thing is, am believing the earlier proposed plan doesn't quite cover the cost o' even the currently slimmed-down infrastructure proposal. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 29, 2021 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

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. 

Hah, that's exactly what I was thinking when I was reading his post. Ouch. 

[Darkpriest]

4 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

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. 

The thing is, mixing up an illiquid asset  with a liquid asset does not help this case. 

For entertainment purposes, lets say you have a house, which overnight changed value by +50% yet your ability to generate cash hasn't changed at all. You are now forced to sell something else than your house to cover for that (in no case you are allowed to sell the increased value asset, because regulators say to you, you can sell it only one furniture at a time and no more than 1 per month and you need to fill out a lot of paper work to do so). 

Next day it moved again an additional 20% from the already increased value, and yet you are in the same position in your ability to generate sufficient cash on the spot to pay for that increase. Tough luck, pay up. Get in debt if you have to! You are now rich, right? 

So you took on debt to pay the taxes, and now it comes a 3rd day, and it seems the power that be, decided your house is actually worth less than your base value it had 2 days earlier, but still has a chance to have greater value in the future. 

Tough luck, bank who took the house value as the collateral for your loan, which you had to take to pay taxes, now demands you cover for the difference between the current worth and the value from a day ago, when you took the loan. You still can't sell your house! It also seems that the person who took your tax money doesn't care that the house is not worth as much as it was  day ago. It was then, so get lost and stop whining for the money that was taken from you. 

 

You end up with an asset which is worth less than on the day 1, with sizeable debt in the bank and lost money that were taken away from you in the last 2 days. Do you feel richer already? And its only a day 4 starting! 

 

[Hurlshort]

Or, you know, you could just give up on the bad analogy. 

As I also said before, it's a bit of a moot point. Very few people are in a position to be worried about capital gains taxes on their stocks. Young people can't afford stocks or houses right now, so it is hard to drum up any sympathy when Elon Musk complains about this stuff. In your scenario the asset went up 70% in 2 days. How many people have enough of a stock for that to actually make a difference? 

These are 1 percenter problems. I don't think there is a soul here that needs to stress it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

it also ain't nearly as ez as it sounds.

Didn't mean to imply that it would be easy or even plausible. I am reminded of learning how dodging taxes was viewed as something as an art form in Greece during their debt crisis. I suspect that the same thing applies here and will become all the more prevalent as "tax the rich" becomes a slogan people wear on their clothing.

From my simple and uninformed perspective, the heart of the matter isn't money, but the principle of fairness. At the risk of putting words into people's mouths, it doesn't seem fair that money that I earn is taxed, invested, and then taxed again. From another perspective, one could argue that it doesn't seem fair that a certain class of people, who clearly have enough money that they are not living hand-to-mouth, get to put some of their money into a machine that grows their worth without having to pay back into the system. Neither group is wrong for their perspective, but the implications for what kind of world we live in differs based on which one we decide should be the default.

My 2 cents.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Hurlsnot said:

it is hard to drum up any sympathy when Elon Musk complains about this stuff.

well, this is the crux o' it. most adult americans claim to own stock. also, even though is increasing unlikely, most americans believe they is gonna own a home. 64% of americans do in fact own homes, but that number ignores signifficant discrepancies based on race where generational wealth has been one o' those aspects o' systemic US racism too many like to ignore. some o' the champions o' tax the rich might be singing a different tune if the plan were to erase homeownership and then redistribute to achieve parity based on income & race. and young people indeed cannot afford to buy a home these days, unless they get help...

Where Do People Get Money to Buy California Homes These Days? Often, From Mom and Dad

another aspect o' a long history o' systemic racism and the resulting generational wealth disparity.

but again, 'cause is ez to miss forest for trees, all these proposed tax schemes is directed at billionaires or multimillionaires. for home ownership and property taxes, there is always a cap-- even if the value o' your home explodes, your max property tax is gonna be not considerable higher than what you is likely current paying. what is being suggested for billionaires is most assured not like your property tax assessment (though dp analogy makes sound similar) nor should it be. billionaires is prospective having their disposable wealth being taxed, whereas a yearly tax on your personal residence is in fact, in the case o' most americans, a tax on the bulk of their retirement plan. is no way the two situations should be analogous. similar, 401 k and iras held by people (most people) not named musk should indeed be taxed different than the proposed billionaire tax. 

...

as an aside, is in fact way too many people buying houses they cannot afford. is a 2007 problem which is repeating. housing inventory is too small, particular in places where people wanna buy, but banks is willing to make loans to people who cannot afford to pay. obvious this is gonna reach a point o' collapse, yes? am not sure why the three wise monkey approach is being adopted by near everybody who could possible do something 'bout the problem.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gorth]

This is based on memory from 30 years back, so take with a grain of salt, but I remember Denmark having a "property tax" (to discourage all homes ending up in the hands of a few investors) and also a capital gains tax on stocks/shares/bonds etc... IF (big if) you sold them again within a certain time frame of buying them. You buy them and keep them long term, fine. You buy them to speculate in rate changes for the purpose of selling them a week later? Pay up taxes of the gains. As said, was a long time ago and I had neither property nor shares in Denmark.

[Gromnir]

33 minutes ago, Gorth said:

This is based on memory from 30 years back, so take with a grain of salt, but I remember Denmark having a "property tax" (to discourage all homes ending up in the hands of a few investors) and also a capital gains tax on stocks/shares/bonds etc... IF (big if) you sold them again within a certain time frame of buying them. You buy them and keep them long term, fine. You buy them to speculate in rate changes for the purpose of selling them a week later? Pay up taxes of the gains. As said, was a long time ago and I had neither property nor shares in Denmark.

we have something similar in the US. assets held less than a year get a different rate... get same rate/brackets as ordinary income--10%/12%/22%/24%/32%/35%/37%. keep in mind, this is just fed. states, many states, also tax income and capital gains.

fed capital gains rate in the US for long-term assets, particular for wealthy, is gonna be far lower than income tax rate. rates for capital gains, based on income, is 0%/15%/20% with an additional bump for ultra-wealthy in certain situations.

the anecdote 'bout warren buffet paying less than his secretary is incredible misunderstood and often misrepresented. when obama made the observation, he specific pointed out that buffet's functional tax RATE were lower than the secretary and not that mr. buffet were paying less tax. as the vast majority o' mr. buffet's taxes were being paid on capital gains and not income, his overall rate were lower than his secretary's.

as for homes, personal residences get special capital gains exceptions, but is a five year minimum o' ownership and need have actual lived in the home at least two of five years preceding the sale o' the asset.

btw, and not directed @Gorthfairness is also a landmine concept when it comes to taxes. most americans, by a huge majority, believe rich people ain't paying enough taxes. the thing is, when same people is asked what is a max fair tax rate, the problem is those same americans also overwhelming agree rich people is paying too much. 'tween state and fed, people in higher tax states such as ny and ca is paying above 50% for highest rate. americans near universal agree that nobody should pay 50% o' their earning to the government, but that already happens in many states.

HA! Good Fun!

ps additional observation regarding property taxes. this year am paying $75.12 more in property tax on our personal residence compared to last year. *insert an expression of feigned rage in this spot* am knowing this 'cause am s'posed to pay by nov 1, 2021 though is no penalty if we pay by dec 10, 2021, which is just odd. anyways, given how crazy is the housing market, the value o' our home increased by more than $100k since last tax year. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Gromnir

[ComradeYellow]

Speaking of taxes

https://news.yahoo.com/atf-accused-fraud-wasteful-spending-230853413.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Your seized dollars hard at work.

[Raithe]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republican-faces-sec-probe-over-controversial-stock-trades-n1282702

[Darkpriest]

Antagonistic language aside, they have a point in here on hypocrisy

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-85-vehicle-motorcade-ahead-climate-talks-his-optical-disaster

 

Also, suprisingly silent large media channels, which tend to virtue signal at each point they can

Edited November 1, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Raithe]

The Times - Priti Patel shuts down scheme hailed for extremism work

Ministers have pulled funding from a counterextremism programme despite a government report finding it had prevented hundreds of thousands of people from being radicalised.

The Building a Stronger Britain Together scheme has given £60 million to community projects and workshops teaching British values since 2015, including a body in Southend that the MP Sir David Amess was involved in.

[BruceVC]

On 10/30/2021 at 5:42 AM, Hurlsnot said:

Or, you know, you could just give up on the bad analogy. 

As I also said before, it's a bit of a moot point. Very few people are in a position to be worried about capital gains taxes on their stocks. Young people can't afford stocks or houses right now, so it is hard to drum up any sympathy when Elon Musk complains about this stuff. In your scenario the asset went up 70% in 2 days. How many people have enough of a stock for that to actually make a difference? 

These are 1 percenter problems. I don't think there is a soul here that needs to stress it.

Hurlshot thanks for being honest about why you support this latest attempt to create additional revenue for the Biden presidency and the normal way the Democrats spend large amounts  of money like  the various bills like infrastructure

I need to ask you some questions because I need to  understand why people who arent going to be affected personally  if this becomes as problematic as Dark suggested support this initiative. Dark raises real additional problem that I never considered because I have concerns about this entire new tax 

I know you are not an economist but you do seem to be supporting the idea which translates to most Americans will also be fine with it because it seems to only about the targeting of billionaires which I assume is why most people aren't too concerned because most billionaires Im sure can afford it. Is that why you do support  it despite the risk because lets be honest not many people feel for billionaires and I get that even if I say this tax I feel is unique in the world and that should concern all of us some levels ?

But are you not concerned  that this tax can be  used to now tax people  who are not  billionaires ? And I can absolutely see the likes of Warren and Sanders being fine with that. For example their are lots of people in the US who are not billionaires but they  have hundreds of millions of  dollars of accumulated wealth and have multiple  properties so why not target them? They can afford it 

And finally you mention a reality that their are  Americans who cannot afford a home loan and this initiative can be justified but how would this hybrid tax change their reality? Because government gains the tax revenue and how does this  change the problem of any loan  being approved  which  normally get denied because its calculated the applicant  cannot the actual payments ?

 

 

 

 

[Amentep]

2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

Also, suprisingly silent large media channels, which tend to virtue signal at each point they can

I dunno, I've seen it from a few channels, including those who point out the length of the motorcade was necessary because of Italian anti-COVID rules that limited the occupancy of the vehicles Biden and his team were able to use.

[Guard Dog]

Musk promises to help if UN can prove it can solve hunger problems

so my take away from this is if you have Tesla stock now would be a good time to sell

[Gfted1]

Hmm, it looks like the US donates ~52B / year to domestic and international anti-hunger programs:

Maybe that last 6B will eradicate world hunger.

[Guard Dog]

Such programs exist only to enrich the people who control them. If they happen to actually do some good along the way so much the better but that is just the icing on the cake. The only thing anyone can do about world hunger is to actually give food to a hungry person. Donating money enriches the foundation and enriches the heads of the states in which they operate and little else.

[Darkpriest]

In the COP26 itself, it seems it will be a grand stand of words, with no real actions, aside of more taxes, to back it up. 

Unless we will get a clean fusion energy, the move to 'clean' energy on a global scale is unachievable. 

You'd need to stop migration movements (as movement from low energy consumption to high energy consumption of the individual will increase the overall energy consumption demand with each new head moving) , stop incentivisng growth and debt driven economy and move to a more stable, which could cope with decline in total values.

 

The increasing demand for energy grately outpaces ability to produce clean energy. We live in a world which is much more energy consumption driven. 

Compare the current state to a state a hundred years ago and calculate how many MWs a single person is using directly and indirectly daily today vs a one 100 yrs ago. 

 

Meanwhile, hypocrits galore 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/jeff-bezos-leads-parade-private-jets-cop26-his-65m-gulfstream

 

[Darkpriest]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Musk promises to help if UN can prove it can solve hunger problems

so my take away from this is if you have Tesla stock now would be a good time to sell

Not sure, seems Tesla is defying any logic and any fundamentals for it. It just keeps soaring. Near 1 175 now, when it was at 500s a couple months back. 

 

But what do I know, you could have became a billionaire this year by investing in a shiba inu **** coin this year, no more than a couple ks... 

 

As if someone wants to really break the market so bad, that it will turn into a purely speculative casino game. 

 

Issue is that in the end, casino always wins... 

[Malcador]

Not quite sure the US is spending that much to battle world hunger - International Affairs and even the PFDA above seem pretty vague.  USAID seems to spend money on fairly diverse things as well - https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2022-State_USAID-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf 

Reading US budget reports is always fascinating.

In any event, WFP's budget is about $8B and the US funds about $3B.  That $6B could help a lot, from that. 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

I'm always upset at the amount of food waste we create. We have enough food to solve world hunger, it is just a logistical issue. 

[Guard Dog]

4 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm always upset at the amount of food waste we create. We have enough food to solve world hunger, it is just a logistical issue. 

Not the least of which is the complete non-cooperation of the governments of countries that actually have hunger.