Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News of the Day III

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Originally posted by dannybolt View Post
    Yeah, we've seen this story before. Small groups of lawmakers get an agreement together, and the broader groups walk away.
    Let's see what happens

    Leave a comment:


  • dannybolt
    replied
    Yeah, we've seen this story before. Small groups of lawmakers get an agreement together, and the broader groups walk away.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChaseSpace
    replied
    Originally posted by RSchmitz View Post
    Oh Look! Nasty bipartisanship...

    I'd wait until it actually passes before waving the bipartisan flag.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Oh Look! Nasty bipartisanship...

    Leave a comment:


  • dannybolt
    replied
    Kind of. Property tax is based on an assessed value, which is only partially derived from market value, and my experience is that it doesn't really track with the market, so it's not a good proxy for a unrealized gain, because it isn't picking up all of the gains, just a fraction. For instance, my house has almost doubled in value over the last 5 years, but my taxes have only gone up a fraction, like less than 10%. If it were a tax on unrealized gains, I'd expect it to hew more closely to the market value of the house. If I understand your point correctly.

    You are basically talking about a wealth tax in your 2nd paragraph. Warren had something on that in her platform when she was running in 2020, but I don't recall the specifics.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChaseSpace
    replied
    Originally posted by dannybolt View Post


    Their "true tax" rate is laughable. And to make a comparison to ONLY people's earned income is frankly, really, really, really, sloppy work. If you are going to criticize Buffet for not paying taxes on his stock appreciation because it isn't realized, those same criticisms should be leveled are regular people's houses, 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. Because that is the comparison. Not rolling up all of a wealthy person's wealth and deriving a flawed tax rate and then comparing it against other people's earned income tax rates. It's not a good comparison.
    As for the bolded, couldn't you argue property tax is a tax on unrealized gains as you pay it annually and it fluctuates based on the assessed value on the home instead of having you pay a property tax only when you sell?

    Perhaps something like a property tax but on unrealized assets such as stock holdings but make the threshold high enough that only the uber wealthy would eclipse it and then keep the percentage low enough so they don't have to sell off an unreasonable amount of holdings in order to pay it(granted, the people who would be affected by it should have the cash on hand to pay it without having to sell anything)?

    Leave a comment:


  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Originally posted by dannybolt View Post

    Good God, whoever is the editor on that article should be fired for gross incompetence. There's misleading and incomplete data and inapt comparisons all over it.

    That ProPublica article doesn't seem to understand the concept of realized vs. unrealized gains. They criticize Buffet's tax rate as not capturing his wealth accumulation through stock appreciation, but that same principle holds true no matter who you are. For instance, my real estate and invested asset value accumulation over the last 5 years has far outpaced my traditional earnings, and if you look at the same metrics ProPublica is using, my ETR would be under 5%. While I'm doing just fine financially, I'm not wealthy by any stretch, and I'm not at all who this article is purporting to target.

    Their "true tax" rate is laughable. And to make a comparison to ONLY people's earned income is frankly, really, really, really, sloppy work. If you are going to criticize Buffet for not paying taxes on his stock appreciation because it isn't realized, those same criticisms should be leveled are regular people's houses, 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. Because that is the comparison. Not rolling up all of a wealthy person's wealth and deriving a flawed tax rate and then comparing it against other people's earned income tax rates. It's not a good comparison.

    It would be nice if that was the only problem.

    It criticizes Icahn for deducting interest on his loans, but that isn't deductible for an individual. It used to be a deductible expense for a Corporation, but the laws around interest deductibility have also been curtailed under recent Tax legislation. More likely, Icahn is using a Holding Company for his stock portfolio, and deducted the interest that way. Again, recent legislation has at least partially addressed this issue. If that was Icahn's arrangement, which is speculation because they don't disclose it in the article, he didn't have access to those funds unless he paid himself out from the company, which would be earned income and taxed at his marginal tax bracket.

    Their math doesn't even work. 292M in tax on 10B isn't 1.3%. Christ, that shit isn't hard. That's like, the bare minimum of reporting.

    It picks and chooses which years to complain about. It mentions that Bezos paid nothing in 2007 and 2011, but neglects to mention how much he paid in 08-10, or in 11 onwards. That's cherry picking your outrage.

    This is yet another example of people writing articles about tax and finance that have no idea what they are talking about, making flawed comparisons and reaching incorrect conclusions based on their misunderstanding of how the laws work. A lot of what this article is decrying could be chalked up to timing differences, i.e., looking at unrealized asset appreciation vs taxation of realized income.

    It's worth noting that while asset appreciation is not taxed, asset depreciation doesn't give you a tax refund. Neither are taxable events until they are realized.

    As for getting loans against stock holdings, this is available to any layperson. It is the same as a Home Equity Line of Credit, a 401K loan, or any other type of secured loan. If the idea is to attack the wealthy for avoiding tax by funding their lifestyle through loans, you should also look at people with HELOCs and other loans secured against their assets. The wealthy just have more assets with which to loan against.

    This article could be summed up thusly: Tax capital gains like earned income. Period. That's how you smooth this out and make them equitable. Maybe take away basis step up because that is really the wealth building loophole, but that's going to attack middle class inheritances, so I wouldn't hold out hope on that one.
    Agreed on some of this, last year after the Covid crash I took a 120k HELOC out and purchased stock. That stock is now worth 400k. I borrowed at 2% interest on that stock to repay the HELOC free and clear. I can now constantly repay and borrow from my stock at a low interest rate to fund my living expenses as the stock continues to grow, and these loans are interest only with no repayment date. This is how the wealthy become wealthy, anybody can do it, it's just the rich do it at a greater scale.

    The problem I have is that the vast majority of people aren't taught this, they live pay check to pay check and open savings accounts with laughable ROI's that don't even keep up with inflation, which further reinforces the idea that they can never get ahead. You also have half the population drowning in debt and the option of leveraging assets isn't an option for them.

    I have a huge problem with the idea of taxes on stock purchases etc. because you are taking on risk, you aren't going to get refunded on that risk if it doesn't materialize. The current system lets you write off stock losses at least.

    I do think there is a way to capture some of the wealth that the rich accumulate in a fair way. When they take out these huge loans, add a tax on margin over lets say 10 million of about 1%. There is about a trillion dollars of institutional margin and a lot more in private loans being used right now, this tax can curve some of the market volatility and also bring ~100 billion in tax revenue.

    The problem with taxing capital gains like earned income, like I mentioned, is that the wealthy may never have to pay a dime of that until death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bolthed
    replied
    You’re hired! 😃

    Leave a comment:


  • dannybolt
    replied
    Originally posted by RSchmitz View Post
    Report came out yesterday which allegedly uncovers how some of the nations wealthiest billionaires such as Buffet, Musk, Bezos, etc. have paid very little in taxes.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/bezo...-in-taxes.html

    The long and short of it is that billionaires take out massive loans against their stock holdings and live off of that, effectively not creating a "taxable event", and can avoid paying taxes despite the fact that their net worth goes up tremendously. In essence, they won't pay much until they die if they avoid taxes this way.

    I think there should be a tax law that captures a tiny bit of these margin loans, but what I really want to talk about is just how powerful the method they are using is to create wealth. The biggest problem isn't necessarily what they are doing, but just how few people know how to do it or have the means to take part in this. It's really easy to buy stock and set up a margin account at a cheap rate.
    Good God, whoever is the editor on that article should be fired for gross incompetence. There's misleading and incomplete data and inapt comparisons all over it.

    That ProPublica article doesn't seem to understand the concept of realized vs. unrealized gains. They criticize Buffet's tax rate as not capturing his wealth accumulation through stock appreciation, but that same principle holds true no matter who you are. For instance, my real estate and invested asset value accumulation over the last 5 years has far outpaced my traditional earnings, and if you look at the same metrics ProPublica is using, my ETR would be under 5%. While I'm doing just fine financially, I'm not wealthy by any stretch, and I'm not at all who this article is purporting to target.

    Their "true tax" rate is laughable. And to make a comparison to ONLY people's earned income is frankly, really, really, really, sloppy work. If you are going to criticize Buffet for not paying taxes on his stock appreciation because it isn't realized, those same criticisms should be leveled are regular people's houses, 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. Because that is the comparison. Not rolling up all of a wealthy person's wealth and deriving a flawed tax rate and then comparing it against other people's earned income tax rates. It's not a good comparison.

    It would be nice if that was the only problem.

    It criticizes Icahn for deducting interest on his loans, but that isn't deductible for an individual. It used to be a deductible expense for a Corporation, but the laws around interest deductibility have also been curtailed under recent Tax legislation. More likely, Icahn is using a Holding Company for his stock portfolio, and deducted the interest that way. Again, recent legislation has at least partially addressed this issue. If that was Icahn's arrangement, which is speculation because they don't disclose it in the article, he didn't have access to those funds unless he paid himself out from the company, which would be earned income and taxed at his marginal tax bracket.

    Their math doesn't even work. 292M in tax on 10B isn't 1.3%. Christ, that shit isn't hard. That's like, the bare minimum of reporting.

    It picks and chooses which years to complain about. It mentions that Bezos paid nothing in 2007 and 2011, but neglects to mention how much he paid in 08-10, or in 11 onwards. That's cherry picking your outrage.

    This is yet another example of people writing articles about tax and finance that have no idea what they are talking about, making flawed comparisons and reaching incorrect conclusions based on their misunderstanding of how the laws work. A lot of what this article is decrying could be chalked up to timing differences, i.e., looking at unrealized asset appreciation vs taxation of realized income.

    It's worth noting that while asset appreciation is not taxed, asset depreciation doesn't give you a tax refund. Neither are taxable events until they are realized.

    As for getting loans against stock holdings, this is available to any layperson. It is the same as a Home Equity Line of Credit, a 401K loan, or any other type of secured loan. If the idea is to attack the wealthy for avoiding tax by funding their lifestyle through loans, you should also look at people with HELOCs and other loans secured against their assets. The wealthy just have more assets with which to loan against.

    This article could be summed up thusly: Tax capital gains like earned income. Period. That's how you smooth this out and make them equitable. Maybe take away basis step up because that is really the wealth building loophole, but that's going to attack middle class inheritances, so I wouldn't hold out hope on that one.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Report came out yesterday which allegedly uncovers how some of the nations wealthiest billionaires such as Buffet, Musk, Bezos, etc. have paid very little in taxes.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/bezo...-in-taxes.html

    The long and short of it is that billionaires take out massive loans against their stock holdings and live off of that, effectively not creating a "taxable event", and can avoid paying taxes despite the fact that their net worth goes up tremendously. In essence, they won't pay much until they die if they avoid taxes this way.

    I think there should be a tax law that captures a tiny bit of these margin loans, but what I really want to talk about is just how powerful the method they are using is to create wealth. The biggest problem isn't necessarily what they are doing, but just how few people know how to do it or have the means to take part in this. It's really easy to buy stock and set up a margin account at a cheap rate.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Originally posted by Bolthed View Post
    How long until trans rights are recognized?
    What laws/rights would you like to see?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bolthed
    replied
    How long until trans rights are recognized?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoek
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Puckhead
    replied
    R's lost alot in 2020, but they didn't lose ENOUGH. From the US Senate down to the state legislatures, R's pickup up seats they were projected to lose. I'm not enough of a practicing political scientist to say that it was the quality of the Democratic candidates or the rhetoric ("defund the police", etc etc) that resulted in Republicans maintaining their grip on state houses.

    Until the Republican party is absolutely crushed in at least a couple of consecutive cycles, they will continue to pander, obstruct, and fail miserably to lead their 30-40% of the electorate.

    Leave a comment:


  • RSchmitz
    replied
    Originally posted by ChaseSpace View Post

    So they cut everything they want off at the kneecaps in order to get any R's to glance their direction and after Cheney being sent up the river they will be even less likely to do so meaning Dems would have to cave to everything the R's want in order to get them to begin a dialogue?

    Seems like a solid way to hand the White House and a super majority in the House and the Senate to McConnell.
    You are framing this as if Democrats are giving up concessions when they don't have to, and on top of that are committing political suicide in doing so, shooting themselves in the foot. However you should be able to deduce that politicians, of all people, aren't going to do something that isn't in their best interests. These people have teams of advisors whose entire job it is to coordinate with others within the party to create strategy and leverage political capital to pass their agenda and get re-elected. Why are you convinced that in spite of this, they are making the illogical choice to concede their agenda anyways?

    We have a broken system of government, but not that broken.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X