Taxing unrealized gains--for anyone, even the filthy rich--is bad policy and will lead to negative outcomes and unintended consequences (such as capital flight). Taxing wealth of the rich is only useful if it pays down debt. But the plan is to spend the money without reducing debt (read Congressional Budget reports) even though they claim to reduce the debt. It's confiscatory wealth redistribution by the most inefficient and corrupt means. The way to reduce the debt is to reduce entitlements, period. Start there. But nobody wants to touch that. So we will continually borrow from our kids. Why not just have a 100% death tax on everyone, so nobody inherits anything? (That's saying the quiet part out loud).
Taxing unrealized gains is not a bad idea when we have folks who are abusing retirement accounts to avoid paying ANY capital gains taxes at all. See Peter Thiel and his ROTH IRA:
So you want to punish ( alias tax ) theil for not breaking the law. Some are hiding money and not paying taxes with a maze of llcs. FYI before the more than likely income tax laws, the government was funded by tariffs. …”As originally adopted, the Constitution allowed a national legislature to impose tariffs and coin money while collecting excises and levying taxes—either directly on property or indirectly on imports, exports and consumption. In practice the federal treasury got by for the most part on tariff duties, supplemented by loans.”
Tariff = tax, tax = tariff. We just tend to use the word tariff for taxes specific to imports, rather than using it for everything.
What the Trump/GOP plan is really about is trying to eliminate the income tax and place a consumption tax - which we know is regressive and ends up with the lower incomes having a larger tax burden as a percentage of their income than it does the wealthy.
They do pay sales taxes and payroll taxes, of course. And if they drive a gas-fueled vehicle - gas taxes.
But the plan to reduce tax brackets from 7 to 2 (which is opposite of what I want: I'd prefer more tax brackets over a larger income range) which alone would end up causing an increase in taxes for those below ~$110k (can't recall the exact number, but it was over $100k from my recollection) and putting blanket import tariffs of 10-20%, with China at 60%, means everything is going to cost more too.
Example: Trump put a tariff on imported washing machines, and American manufacturers raised their prices accordingly too - because there was now a lack of competition to lower prices.
That's definitely a penalty but why does he need to be punished any more than a frugal schoolteacher with a knack for stock picking who turned her few thousand $ a year into a $10 million nest egg.
Sounds like envy to me. $5 billion is a lot but there is an annual contribution limit that's not beyond the reach of millions of citizens with a pretty good income. The allegation by ProPublica is that Thiel had access to stock trades not commonly available. When they publish a similar hit piece on Nancy Pelosi, I might pay attention.
Every investor has the option to decide what price to pay for a security. Thiel is in the business and certainly recognizes a bargain. I know a lawyer who represented startups and was paid with dirt cheap shares which have made him very wealthy. We all (at least those of us who are old enough and had good jobs) had the opportunity to purchase several thousand shares of McDonalds at $10 or less that would now be worth millions. But most of us did not.
You're missing the point that Thiel was both the buyer and the seller of the security and set the price 13x lower than what he would sell to Elon Musk a month later as an "insider".
He was fraudulently undervaluing his company in order to park his shares in a place where he could (and has) avoided paying taxes on the capital gains that you or I would be charged for.
I did not miss the point. If it's legal, it's legal. If it's not legal, surely that clever DOJ lawyer who joined forces with Alvin Bragg to manufacture a bookkeeping error into a potential 20-year prison sentence for a former president could have easily prosecuted Mr. Thiel. I would be more inclined to prosecute ProPublica for stealing confidential tax documents.
That idea is hogwash. Why are they not proposing unrealized losses? The whole thing is a money grab . "Taxation without representation is tyranny." The rich are paying more than their fair share. If they paid 90% taxes the USA would still be deficit spending. The real problem is spending. The politicians have no idea how to pay for anything. Spending and borrowing is what causes inflation, so the democrat communist party passes the inflation reduction act to spend more money which created more inflation. Komrade Kamala wants to justify spending by talking about the return on investment. It’s pure crap 💩. Marxism is not the answer for any country. But for those who want it they should try living in a Marxist country and see how much they like it. When you are anti capitalism you will destroy any country.
I'm advocating that contributions to Roth IRAs cannot include securities and other investments not available to other retail investors on the open market (Thiel loaded his up with PayPal stock that was artificially undervalued) and that there be total limits on the maximum value of the Roth IRA, with mandatory withdrawals required to keep the accounts under the limit, and those withdrawals would be taxed as regular capital gains. (Withdrawals made while the account is under the limit would remain tax-free.)
Not necessarily. This is something pointed out by Advisory Opinions and backed up by the study I linked. When there was a filibuster, judges had to be circumspect and balanced in their opinions because they knew they needed bipartisan support to be confirmed.
Now, they only need a simple majority and the incentives are different. They can be snarky and partisan in their opinions in an attempt to get the attention of presidents from their team.
Yes some support Komrade Kamala and tampon Tim who were not democratically elected protecting democracy in a constitutional republic. That’s pure genius hypocrisy.
I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, but I want to focus on one thing: There is no requirement for political parties to "democratically" choose their nominee. In fact, that is a recent innovation that has not worked out very well.
You know, I recall Kamala's name being on the ballot in 2020 and ~80mil people voted for her to be VP - meaning she was trusted enough by those voters to be POTUS at literally any moment.
In 2024, Democratic voters overwhelmingly voted for the incumbent ticket - meaning they were overwhelmingly comfortable with Kamala being POTUS at literally any moment.
Let’s see her get 80 million votes again. I don’t suggest holding your breath but it’s still a free country somewhat. Until the democrat communist party gets their way, hopefully never.
Interesting concern though, 'cause I know which candidate is saying "Vote for me now, and you won't have to vote again" and to suspend the Constitution - and he tends to wear a lot of tanner on his face.
This is what I mean by Pro-Trump Derangement Syndrome: you have to somehow make Democrats out to be as bad or worse than Trump/GOP actually are - even when reality doesn't conform to that picture - because to do otherwise is to have to admit you're wrong.
You’re arguing over whether string is better than a bandaid. Without a massive cut in spending, nothing will solve the crisis. You can’t blame the Biden spending spree on entitlements.
Hanania likes to say GOP/right is the side of low human capital. That is exemplified in fiscal discussions as much as in any arena.
The GOP blocks tax ceiling increase….while still passing increasing spending bills. Essentially, they’re racking up the plastic then not wanting to pay the bill at end of month. Absolutely butt stupid.
A 10% import tariff simply increases the cost for all Americans, including those who can least afford such an increase.
And the threshold for the Harris tax increase is not “fine print”. But that doesn’t stop GOP voters or politicians from mischaracterizing or misunderstanding it. Again, butt-numbingly stupid. SMH.
Taxes imposed on corporations are much worse than tariffs. They increase the accounting burden on corporations and increase the product cost more than the amount of the taxes. And they have none of the tariffs' value in enforcing trade policies.
Taxing unrealized gains--for anyone, even the filthy rich--is bad policy and will lead to negative outcomes and unintended consequences (such as capital flight). Taxing wealth of the rich is only useful if it pays down debt. But the plan is to spend the money without reducing debt (read Congressional Budget reports) even though they claim to reduce the debt. It's confiscatory wealth redistribution by the most inefficient and corrupt means. The way to reduce the debt is to reduce entitlements, period. Start there. But nobody wants to touch that. So we will continually borrow from our kids. Why not just have a 100% death tax on everyone, so nobody inherits anything? (That's saying the quiet part out loud).
Taxing unrealized gains is not a bad idea when we have folks who are abusing retirement accounts to avoid paying ANY capital gains taxes at all. See Peter Thiel and his ROTH IRA:
https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank
Fine. Then pass a special tax to punish Peter Thiel. Leave everyone else alone.
Congress has been trying, but keeps mysteriously failing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/billionaires-may-be-spared-big-ira-tax-bill-in-build-back-better-plan.html
So you want to punish ( alias tax ) theil for not breaking the law. Some are hiding money and not paying taxes with a maze of llcs. FYI before the more than likely income tax laws, the government was funded by tariffs. …”As originally adopted, the Constitution allowed a national legislature to impose tariffs and coin money while collecting excises and levying taxes—either directly on property or indirectly on imports, exports and consumption. In practice the federal treasury got by for the most part on tariff duties, supplemented by loans.”
Tariff = tax, tax = tariff. We just tend to use the word tariff for taxes specific to imports, rather than using it for everything.
What the Trump/GOP plan is really about is trying to eliminate the income tax and place a consumption tax - which we know is regressive and ends up with the lower incomes having a larger tax burden as a percentage of their income than it does the wealthy.
That's an interesting theory. You may be onto something. The bottom 40 percent of earners already pays nothing in income taxes.
We could start a soak the poor movement, but they have so little to take! :D
They do pay sales taxes and payroll taxes, of course. And if they drive a gas-fueled vehicle - gas taxes.
But the plan to reduce tax brackets from 7 to 2 (which is opposite of what I want: I'd prefer more tax brackets over a larger income range) which alone would end up causing an increase in taxes for those below ~$110k (can't recall the exact number, but it was over $100k from my recollection) and putting blanket import tariffs of 10-20%, with China at 60%, means everything is going to cost more too.
Example: Trump put a tariff on imported washing machines, and American manufacturers raised their prices accordingly too - because there was now a lack of competition to lower prices.
I am in favor of a consumption tax.
One that replaces all other taxes, or in addition to said other taxes?
That's definitely a penalty but why does he need to be punished any more than a frugal schoolteacher with a knack for stock picking who turned her few thousand $ a year into a $10 million nest egg.
Sounds like envy to me. $5 billion is a lot but there is an annual contribution limit that's not beyond the reach of millions of citizens with a pretty good income. The allegation by ProPublica is that Thiel had access to stock trades not commonly available. When they publish a similar hit piece on Nancy Pelosi, I might pay attention.
Thiel loaded his Roth IRA with artificially undervalued PayPal stock ($0.0001 per share - NOT $0.01 per share).
Contribution limits are meaningless if the contributor gets to pick the value of what's being contributed.
Every investor has the option to decide what price to pay for a security. Thiel is in the business and certainly recognizes a bargain. I know a lawyer who represented startups and was paid with dirt cheap shares which have made him very wealthy. We all (at least those of us who are old enough and had good jobs) had the opportunity to purchase several thousand shares of McDonalds at $10 or less that would now be worth millions. But most of us did not.
You're missing the point that Thiel was both the buyer and the seller of the security and set the price 13x lower than what he would sell to Elon Musk a month later as an "insider".
He was fraudulently undervaluing his company in order to park his shares in a place where he could (and has) avoided paying taxes on the capital gains that you or I would be charged for.
I did not miss the point. If it's legal, it's legal. If it's not legal, surely that clever DOJ lawyer who joined forces with Alvin Bragg to manufacture a bookkeeping error into a potential 20-year prison sentence for a former president could have easily prosecuted Mr. Thiel. I would be more inclined to prosecute ProPublica for stealing confidential tax documents.
That idea is hogwash. Why are they not proposing unrealized losses? The whole thing is a money grab . "Taxation without representation is tyranny." The rich are paying more than their fair share. If they paid 90% taxes the USA would still be deficit spending. The real problem is spending. The politicians have no idea how to pay for anything. Spending and borrowing is what causes inflation, so the democrat communist party passes the inflation reduction act to spend more money which created more inflation. Komrade Kamala wants to justify spending by talking about the return on investment. It’s pure crap 💩. Marxism is not the answer for any country. But for those who want it they should try living in a Marxist country and see how much they like it. When you are anti capitalism you will destroy any country.
Contributions to Roth IRAs are after-tax.
Are you advocating for double taxation?
I'm advocating that contributions to Roth IRAs cannot include securities and other investments not available to other retail investors on the open market (Thiel loaded his up with PayPal stock that was artificially undervalued) and that there be total limits on the maximum value of the Roth IRA, with mandatory withdrawals required to keep the accounts under the limit, and those withdrawals would be taxed as regular capital gains. (Withdrawals made while the account is under the limit would remain tax-free.)
I don't think there's anything there that I disagree with.
Technically most of the country already does so via property taxes, at least those assessed annually.
A radical judiciary is any judge who rules against you.
Not necessarily. This is something pointed out by Advisory Opinions and backed up by the study I linked. When there was a filibuster, judges had to be circumspect and balanced in their opinions because they knew they needed bipartisan support to be confirmed.
Now, they only need a simple majority and the incentives are different. They can be snarky and partisan in their opinions in an attempt to get the attention of presidents from their team.
I have never heard such nonsense! The answer is to stop spending!
TDS is incurable
Yeah, the pro-Trump Derangement Syndrome sure makes people support the weirdest things...
Yes some support Komrade Kamala and tampon Tim who were not democratically elected protecting democracy in a constitutional republic. That’s pure genius hypocrisy.
I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, but I want to focus on one thing: There is no requirement for political parties to "democratically" choose their nominee. In fact, that is a recent innovation that has not worked out very well.
You know, I recall Kamala's name being on the ballot in 2020 and ~80mil people voted for her to be VP - meaning she was trusted enough by those voters to be POTUS at literally any moment.
In 2024, Democratic voters overwhelmingly voted for the incumbent ticket - meaning they were overwhelmingly comfortable with Kamala being POTUS at literally any moment.
A vote for Biden was always a vote for Kamala.
Let’s see her get 80 million votes again. I don’t suggest holding your breath but it’s still a free country somewhat. Until the democrat communist party gets their way, hopefully never.
Yes, let's.
Interesting concern though, 'cause I know which candidate is saying "Vote for me now, and you won't have to vote again" and to suspend the Constitution - and he tends to wear a lot of tanner on his face.
This is what I mean by Pro-Trump Derangement Syndrome: you have to somehow make Democrats out to be as bad or worse than Trump/GOP actually are - even when reality doesn't conform to that picture - because to do otherwise is to have to admit you're wrong.
You’re arguing over whether string is better than a bandaid. Without a massive cut in spending, nothing will solve the crisis. You can’t blame the Biden spending spree on entitlements.
An interesting thread at https://x.com/dylanmatt/status/1829529422598394171 about the unrealized gains proposal, reasoning behind it, and other options that may be better.
Hanania likes to say GOP/right is the side of low human capital. That is exemplified in fiscal discussions as much as in any arena.
The GOP blocks tax ceiling increase….while still passing increasing spending bills. Essentially, they’re racking up the plastic then not wanting to pay the bill at end of month. Absolutely butt stupid.
A 10% import tariff simply increases the cost for all Americans, including those who can least afford such an increase.
And the threshold for the Harris tax increase is not “fine print”. But that doesn’t stop GOP voters or politicians from mischaracterizing or misunderstanding it. Again, butt-numbingly stupid. SMH.
Taxes imposed on corporations are much worse than tariffs. They increase the accounting burden on corporations and increase the product cost more than the amount of the taxes. And they have none of the tariffs' value in enforcing trade policies.
Neither candidate is an insurrectionist...more lies from Mr. Thornton. Although, one candidate IS a communist.