You ready to pay Kama-Kama-Chameleon's 25% tax on the ultra-wealthy's unrealized capital gains?

[bendog]

Vice President Harris Lays Out Agenda To Lower Costs for American Families

She is responsible for this idiotic plan.

And to the extent that she would only apply the unrealized gain tax on folks with net assets over 100 million dollars doesn’t help. In fact, that itself is a violation of equal protection.

Previous supreme courts have made it clear that income taxes do not have to apply the same rates to different incomes. Equal protection is not at issue.

 

[my2¢]

That is essentially a realized gain.

Not when, for example, it's inherited.

I've seen many articles complain against the tax without giving the details of the tax. Makes me suspicious.

 

[Hollie]

Fine. Have it your way. Harris doesn’t want to tax unrealized capital gains.

Happy?

Fine. Just make representations you can't defend.

Happy?

 

[bendog]

Fine. Have it your way. Harris doesn’t want to tax unrealized capital gains.

Happy?

Well, no one wants to tax unrealized gains unless the taxpayer is worth over 100million.

https://www.thestreet.com/taxes/the-truth-behind-kamala-harriss-unrealized-capital-gains-tax-debacle

 

[bendog]

Not when, for example, it's inherited.

I've seen many articles complain against the tax without giving the details of the tax. Makes me suspicious.

The dems' plan has separate provisions to get rid of the stepped up basis (inherited property) and unrealized gains by people worth more then one hundred million.

All this is sort tied to the sunsetting 2017 McConell personal taxes law, and the elimination of SALT deductions. And I don't think the gop will have the House votes to enact that again.

 

[BackAgain]

The prime caveat being the Glenshaw was explicit that their ruling was "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions."

No.

That was a reference to another case. It wasn’t a caveat as to what the meaning of “income” was.

Bottom line: as used in the 16th Amendment, “income” had a meaning and still does. Nobody alive at the time of the Amendment would have contemplated “income” as a paper gain on the value of shares in a company without a sale to accept such gain.

 

[BackAgain]

Fine. Have it your way. Harris doesn’t want to tax unrealized capital gains.

Yes. She does.

 

[Marener]

Fine. Just make representations you can't defend.

Happy?

The entire thread is premised on a lie, according to you.

 

[Marener]

Yes. She does.

I thought so too but Hollie says you’re weak and gullible for thinking that.

 

[bendog]

The entire thread is premised on a lie, according to you.

Well the OP is ... if not a lie then an intentional misrepresentation of facts. The dems' plans are probably the opening bid, and no one is after unrealized gains unless the taxpayer is worth more than 100million, and the notion of stepped up basis for people who never have to work has been offensive since 1980.

 

[BackAgain]

Previous supreme courts have made it clear that income taxes do not have to apply the same rates to different incomes. Equal protection is not at issue.

You’re talking about a so-called “progressive” taxation schedule versus a “flat” tax.

That’s different from the imposition of an unrealized gains tax on just an arbitrary group of those citizens worth $100 million versus all those with a lower level of wealth.

The fact that it’s arbitrary like that is worrying enough. For, next year she might seek to obtain a new definition of the very wealthy (maybe lowering it to those with wealth of over merel a million dollars).

But the point is: it isn’t a progressive tax. It’s merely a soak the rich tax scheme.

 

[Hollie]

I thought so too but Hollie says you’re weak and gullible for thinking that.

False. You have a habit of making false statements.

 

[BackAgain]

Not when, for example, it's inherited.

I've seen many articles complain against the tax without giving the details of the tax. Makes me suspicious.

If the proceeds of an estate give the heir a lump some of say $2 million, that can be considered an income — “from any source.”

We can argue against the inclusion of an inheritance as “income.” But as long as it’s presently characterized as income, it is taxable.

That has nothing to do with whether it’s a realized gain. It’s dnits now in my possession and controllable by me, it is realized.

 

[Marener]

False. You have a habit of making false statements.

You said yourself Harris has no policy so there’s nothing to talk about.

 

[BackAgain]

I thought so too but Hollie says you’re weak and gullible for thinking that.

I’m not sure that’s what Hollie says.

But either way, I linked to her proposal earlier. It is what it is.

 

[bendog]

If the proceeds of an estate give the heir a lump some of say $2 million, that can be considered an income — “from any source.”

We can argue against the inclusion of an inheritance as “income.” But as long as it’s presently characterized as income, it is taxable.

That has nothing to do with whether it’s a realized gain. It’s dnits now in my possession and controllable by me, it is realized.

Currently, if a gain is not realized, it is not taxable.

The stepped up basis refers to inherited property, whereby the person inheriting the property gets his basis "stepped up" to the value the property is worth when he inherits it, and again, there is NO tax levied unless the income is realized by selling the inherited property.

The taxation of unrealized gains is a fanciful idea by dems to tax people worth over 100 million on unrealized gains.

 

[bendog]

You said yourself Harris has no policy so there’s nothing to talk about.

funny how that works. I've been waiting for that post of yours. LOL

 

[Hollie]

You said yourself Harris has no policy so there’s nothing to talk about.

It was you who insisted Harris was a party to the Biden bill.

 

[Marener]

I’m not sure that’s what Hollie says.

But either way, I linked to her proposal earlier. It is what it is.

Your link had nothing about capital gains taxes.

 

[Marener]

It was you who insisted Harris was a party to the Biden bill.

I said she endorsed it according to numerous media reports! But you said I’m weak and gullible for saying that. So apparently it’s not true.