How are we going to pay for all this shit?

.

I see where Schumer said something like this in 2012. Are you aware of anything he's said more recently? Originally Posted by Tiny

Actually, yes!

In a Zoom conference with about 22 people recently, Senator Ron Wyden's completely asinine idea of an accrual-basis capital gains tax came up. The topic is, of course, of interest to investors and fund managers.

One person reported that someone with direct knowledge of Senate leaders' discussions with staffers said that when the question of pushing that idea came up, Schumer appeared to want to change the subject quickly, saying "We're not talking about that!"

Which possibly should come as a surprise to almost no one. Remember, Schumer (along with Hillary) made sure back in 2007 that the push to tax carried interest as ordinary income went nowhere.

Now more than ever, Democrats depend on campaign financing from high-net worth individuals (a lot of centimillionaires and a few billionaires).

And Schumer is said to be an honest politician -- that is, when he gets bought, he stays bought!

.

.



Actually, yes!

In a Zoom conference with about 22 people recently, Senator Ron Wyden's completely asinine idea of an accrual-basis capital gains tax came up. The topic is, of course, of interest to investors and fund managers.

One person reported that someone with direct knowledge of Senate leaders' discussions with staffers said that when the question of pushing that idea came up, Schumer appeared to want to change the subject quickly, saying "We're not talking about that!"

Which possibly should come as a surprise to almost no one. Remember, Schumer (along with Hillary) made sure back in 2007 that the push to tax carried interest as ordinary income went nowhere.

Now more than ever, Democrats depend on campaign financing from high-net worth individuals (a lot of centimillionaires and a few billionaires).

And Schumer is said to be an honest politician -- that is, when he gets bought, he stays bought!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Having been through the estate tax audit of my uncle, who cut me out of his will but thoughtfully made me executor of his estate, I’d question why anyone who’s subject to accrual based taxation of capital gains would remain a U S citizen. Not only would the taxpayer annually have to value every thing he’s got, but under Wyden’s plan I understand he’d be audited every 3 years. It would generate great business for the appraisers, tax lawyers and tax accountants though.

There are many people who are much more astute on issues than I am and I will give them credit when due. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Nobody's as astute as you on polling. Nobody here anyway.

I’d question why anyone who’s subject to accrual based taxation of capital gains would remain a U S citizen. Originally Posted by Tiny

Nutty idea. Sort of a mark-to-market scheme, unworkable like the wealth tax.

I am for eliminating stepped-up basis, though. I get it isn't always easy to calculate, but that difficulty shouldn't be the reason to abandon tax fairness and accountability.

Nutty idea. Sort of a mark-to-market scheme, unworkable like the wealth tax.

I am for eliminating stepped-up basis, though. I get it isn't always easy to calculate, but that difficulty shouldn't be the reason to abandon tax fairness and accountability. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Please see post #105 in this thread, which I dedicated to you.

Yes, mark-to-market's a better description than accrual based.

Nutty idea. Sort of a mark-to-market scheme, unworkable like the wealth tax.

I am for eliminating stepped-up basis, though. I get it isn't always easy to calculate, but that difficulty shouldn't be the reason to abandon tax fairness and accountability. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

The step-up in basis is one of the few breaks left! You get taxed to death enough while you breathe and toil to scrape out a living. In the name of fairness, the fucking tax collectors should stand down once you depart this earthly realm. They should let you pass on what you can to your heirs at market, not at some ancient cost basis.

What next, chungy? Do you also want to tax our IRA and 401(k) accounts if they grow too large prior to retirement? That's another dim-retard idea! And of course, each time the dim-retards attempt to confiscate more & more of our savings it's always done in the name of "fairness"!

What next, chungy? Do you also want to tax our IRA and 401(k) accounts if they grow too large prior to retirement? That's another dim-retard idea! Originally Posted by lustylad

I wouldn't let them get too large to start with. 401k's, that is. Why does Mr. Rich man get to plow $26,000 a year into his 401k, with matching from his employer on much of that? While Mr. Poor and Middle Class who are not offered 401k plans can put just $6,000 (no employer match) in an IRA? Not to mention that the Rich guy's tax saving is far greater on a dollar-per-dollar amount. After that, you want his already rich heirs to get a step up in basis when he croaks?!

Please see post #105 in this thread, which I dedicated to you.

Yes, mark-to-market's a better description than accrual based. Originally Posted by Tiny

I took a look. I read my linked review to make sure my memory was correct. It is. That Ghetto Whore was NOT on her period

.
And Schumer is said to be an honest politician -- that is, when he gets bought, he stays bought! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

this is where "honest services" comes in, eh?? i believe its another way of saying "bribes" or "kickbacks"

A big problem with a capital gains tax on a dead person is finding the records to determine the cost basis. How much did Aunt Edna and uncle Josh pay for their house back in 1969? How about Uncle Josh’s prized Remington bronze that he bought 40 years ago? Or for that matter stocks purchased before brokers started keeping records of clients’ cost basis, which wasn’t that long ago. This problem is argument enough to allow for stepped up cost basis.

Then you’ve got the issue of tax fairness, which is made worse if the maximum federal long term capital gains tax rate goes up to 43.4%. One reason is that you’re taxing inflation. There are people with homes and other assets that in real terms, after inflation, are worth less than what they paid but still they get taxed. Admittedly this example isn’t typical, but it is illustrative. In real terms the rate is often a lot higher than 43.4% for assets held a long time.

Then you’ve got estates that have to pay the estate tax, currently 40%. So you’d have a 40% tax on the VALUE of the asset, plus, if Biden gets his way, another 43.4% top tax on the capital gain. And that’s not counting taxes levied by the states. If you die in New York City and you’re worth a lot of money then the total rate would be 56% of the value of what you own, PLUS a 58.2% tax on the capital gains.

As LustyLad may have implied, if it’s an income producing asset you own, you’ve paid tax on that income all the time you’ve owned it. Then you get these additional taxes piled on top when you die.

I wouldn't let them get too large to start with. 401k's, that is. Why does Mr. Rich man get to plow $26,000 a year into his 401k, with matching from his employer on much of that? While Mr. Poor and Middle Class who are not offered 401k plans can put just $6,000 (no employer match) in an IRA? Not to mention that the Rich guy's tax saving is far greater on a dollar-per-dollar amount. After that, you want his already rich heirs to get a step up in basis when he croaks?! Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Wow. You're comparing apples and oranges. 401(k)s were created so companies could replace traditional pension plans with defined contribution plans. That eliminates the risk of under-funding and PBGC (i.e. taxpayer) bailouts. You're confused if you think they're only for Rich fucks. They're for Joe Six-pack and every employee. Employer matches are supposed to encourage workers to participate. The reason most employers don't mind matching or partially matching employee contributions is because they no longer have to fund a pension plan.

IRAs were created so individuals could act to supplement their own retirements and not rely only on inadequate future Social Security benefits.

If you leave a company, you are allowed to convert the funds in a 401(k) to an IRA and manage those funds yourself, rather than be restricted to the company's investment options.

You're the first person I ever heard of who tried to make some kind of class warfare argument out of the fucking differences between 401(k)s and IRAs. The differences have nothing to do with rich versus poor. Your whining about the "Rich guy's tax saving" being greater for participating in such plans gives us insight into how warped your thinking is. All you're really doing is whining about how steeply progressive our income taxes are. Let's switch to a flat tax then! That way rich and poor alike will save the same percentage of every dollar they sock away for retirement! Problem solved!

Wow. You're comparing apples and oranges. 401(k)s were created so companies could replace traditional pension plans with defined contribution plans. That eliminates the risk of under-funding and PBGC (i.e. taxpayer) bailouts. You're confused if you think they're only for Rich fucks. They're for Joe Six-pack and every employee. Employer matches are supposed to encourage workers to participate. The reason most employers don't mind matching or partially matching employee contributions is because they no longer have to fund a pension plan.

IRAs were created so individuals could act to supplement their own retirements and not rely only on inadequate future Social Security benefits.

If you leave a company, you are allowed to convert the funds in a 401(k) to an IRA and manage those funds yourself, rather than be restricted to the company's investment options.

You're the first person I ever heard of who tried to make some kind of class warfare argument out of the fucking differences between 401(k)s and IRAs. The differences have nothing to do with rich versus poor. Your whining about the "Rich guy's tax saving" being greater for participating in such plans gives us insight into how warped your thinking is. All you're really doing is whining about how steeply progressive our income taxes are. Let's switch to a flat tax then! That way rich and poor alike will save the same percentage of every dollar they sock away for retirement! Problem solved! Originally Posted by lustylad

Can the so called “poor” people invest more than 6k a year????? Should the government match their contributions?

.

You probably saw the ProPublica piece that came out a couple of months ago, noting that a few uber-billionaires have paid little in the way of income and capital gains tax in recent years.

Of course, a lot has been written about the Sanders/Warren "wealth tax" idea, although there's wide disagreement on whether the plan would even be likely to pass constitutional muster.

As if on cue, along come left-wing professors Saez and Zucman, pushing a plan they suggest would be easier to implement while not risking any serious constitutional challenges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...-billionaires/

I love this excerpt:

"Economically, a tax on the stock of unrealized capital gains is an ideal tax, because it doesn’t distort behavior. The gains, after all, have already been made: Billionaires cannot go back in time and try to become less wealthy. Therefore, the traditional argument that taxation discourages effort and innovation becomes moot."

[End of excerpt]

Wouldn't distort behavior? Seriously?

Sure, they have a point about past behavior. But what about entrepreneurs' and investors' future plans?

When thinking about policy proposals, I sometimes wonder how the great classical liberal thinkers of days gone by might view stuff.

Bastiat, for example.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Bastiat.html

He wrote that we must always consider the unseen as well as the seen.

Easy enough to observe would be the tax revenue collected from assessments applied to unrealized gains.

Not so obvious would be the damage caused by incentive-distorting effects that could result in founders, VCs, and investors eschewing the publicly-traded markets in favor of private equity, where arriving at taxable valuations would of course be far more difficult, as well as subject to continual tax court challenges.

The U.S. economy depends a great deal on liquid equity markets which benefit not only entrepreneurs in search of capital, but individual investors who have the opportunity to earn excellent returns in their 401(k) and other accounts -- greatly improving their prospects for a comfortable retirement.

In 1990, when pressed to accede to tax increases, George H. W. Bush famously said that when the big spenders started talking about taxing "the rich," it might a good idea for middle-class Americans to hang onto their wallets. (One of those taxes was the so-called "luxury tax," which backfired in embarrassing fashion and was deep-sixed by the Clinton administration in 1993.)

The senior Bush had a pretty good point.

.

Heres an idea for the cancel culture libs. Concentrate on cancelling the debt. Instead of adding trillions with do nothing help programs! Originally Posted by winn dixie

They'll never do that because that's how they become Millionaires. With all the money they supposedly spend on infrastructure and the Federal Grants they give to States every road in America should be as flawless as your kitchen floor and we all know they aren't. Everything is about money, nothing happens by accident everything is planned because of power and money. Everyone and everything in the middle suffers and no one tells the truth.

Maybe Peter Theils financial adviser can give us all some pointers!

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/24/the-...-the-same.html

Wow. You're comparing apples and oranges. 401(k)s were created so companies could replace traditional pension plans with defined contribution plans. That eliminates the risk of under-funding and PBGC (i.e. taxpayer) bailouts. You're confused if you think they're only for Rich fucks. They're for Joe Six-pack and every employee. Employer matches are supposed to encourage workers to participate. The reason most employers don't mind matching or partially matching employee contributions is because they no longer have to fund a pension plan.

IRAs were created so individuals could act to supplement their own retirements and not rely only on inadequate future Social Security benefits.

If you leave a company, you are allowed to convert the funds in a 401(k) to an IRA and manage those funds yourself, rather than be restricted to the company's investment options.

You're the first person I ever heard of who tried to make some kind of class warfare argument out of the fucking differences between 401(k)s and IRAs. The differences have nothing to do with rich versus poor. Your whining about the "Rich guy's tax saving" being greater for participating in such plans gives us insight into how warped your thinking is. All you're really doing is whining about how steeply progressive our income taxes are. Let's switch to a flat tax then! That way rich and poor alike will save the same percentage of every dollar they sock away for retirement! Problem solved! Originally Posted by lustylad

one wonders where CT gets his info? as you correctly state 401(k)s are available to all employees for companies that offer them, which would be just about every company large or small these days. and the caps for 401(k)'s and individual IRA cash contributions are the same for all employees no matter how much they make.


i take full advantage of this. i invest 32.5k a year, the combined max for an IRA and 401(k). the 6,500 IRA individual contribution limit i self fund by putting away $100 a week into my savings account. for those who know basic math i'd be short because that's only 5,200 per year. rather than just take 1,300 more from my savings account or my checking account i move 1,300 from my individual wealth account to make 6,500 in total. and that's accrued dividends from that account i don't cash out anything. that would incur tax on it.


but that's not all i do to fund the TWK retirement fund. i also put between 5 to 8k into my wealth account which is not a standard brokerage account. i have one of those too but don't do much with it in favor of my wealth account. oh i have about 10k in my fidelity brokerage account but that's a pittance compared to my other accounts.


while there are limits to some of my investment accounts, others have no limits at all. the 401(k) is capped at 26k a year assuming you are over 50 and i am, and the IRA account is capped at 6,500 a year for the individual cash contribution but has no limit when you roll over a 401(k) to it. i've rolled over 100k at times over the years. of course when you leave a company you don't have to roll over but it's the smarter way to go, regardless of losing the employee match. the real reason is that in a 401(k) your choices are limited to investment funds and bonds. you can't buy individual stocks. in an IRA you can.


there is no limit to what you can invest in a standard brokerage account or an individual wealth account. if i had 500,000 a year to put in i could. so in all i invest about 38-40k a year in various investments. with ideally 7 years to go that's another 266k in principle over the next 7 years and assuming flat market growth. on growth alone i figure my investments will grow about 25% as a conservative percent. i'd like to see that closer to 50 percent but we'll see how the markets are over the next 7 years.