speak when spoken to poor kid
Democrats move to finalize new ‘billionaire’ tax proposal, targeting 700 wealthiest Americans
- Thread starter ipatent
- Start date
I've got nothing against taxing billionaires or even me. But this is just not enforceable. Except for publicly traded stocks, the "value" of most assets the rich hold is very arbitrary any time except immediately after sale to an arms length counterparts (which of course is the only time this law isn't required). Heck Trump has apparently made a business of convincing a lender property A was worth $500M while convincing tax authorities it was worth $50M.
Is seems a much better idea would be to simply tax any loan proceeds where the loan was backed by collateral of the billionaire. They can reclaim the tax when or if they ever pay the loan back. That directly taxes the behavior they're concerned about and eliminates the valuation issues.
Is seems a much better idea would be to simply tax any loan proceeds where the loan was backed by collateral of the billionaire. They can reclaim the tax when or if they ever pay the loan back. That directly taxes the behavior they're concerned about and eliminates the valuation issues.
Manchin OK with wealth tax
Pivotal Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin appears to be on board with White House proposals for new taxes on billionaires and certain corporations to help pay for President Joe Biden’s scaled-back social services and climate change package.
Pivotal Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin appears to be on board with White House proposals for new taxes on billionaires and certain corporations to help pay for President Joe Biden’s scaled-back social services and climate change package.
%%
My goals are not billions, but every player in capitalism is important.
A limited flat tax is most fair.
Pretending a hi earner should pay more is the worst kind of class envy. Almost as bad as paying people to sit on thier but; but even that could work well due limiting a lifespan/social security from playin couch potato.
NOT a prediction +not bank insured.
Banks will also loan on a passsbook account,so some exceptions apply to lending on income stream.....
Senate negotiators homing in on proposal to tax billionaires
Democratic Senate negotiators are homing in on a final proposal to tax the nation’s wealthiest individuals and families as a principal source of revenue for a major human infrastructure spending bill.
The proposal would apply only to taxpayers who have more than $1 billion in assets or who earn $100 million in income for three consecutive years, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
It would apply to around 700 taxpayers and is projected to raise hundreds of billions of dollars.
Democratic Senate negotiators are homing in on a final proposal to tax the nation’s wealthiest individuals and families as a principal source of revenue for a major human infrastructure spending bill.
The proposal would apply only to taxpayers who have more than $1 billion in assets or who earn $100 million in income for three consecutive years, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
It would apply to around 700 taxpayers and is projected to raise hundreds of billions of dollars.
You already have to pay all your unrealized capital gains when you renounce your U.S. citizenship. And until you renounce you're liable for U.S. taxes on worldwide income. The the Monaco thing won't work for U.S. billionaires, actually treasury would love for them all to renounce.
I could be misunderstanding you here, but does a bank really need to see an income stream from someone like Zucherberg or Dorsey? Gates? Benioff? Ellison?
"We can't approve your request for a loan because you don't have an hourly wage."
I mean... what I miss?
Why not? The bank lends you the money on, say, a home-equity-loan. You do not pay, they can hold your home hostage, and eventually seize it if you fail to meet terms after a certain time-frame, yes?
It's actually two pieces of the tax code paired together that they're taking advantage of. The first is that when you die, the assets in your estate are all stepped up to their value the day you died. Any built-in capital gains are instantly erased. The second is that any money you borrow against an appreciate assets doesn't trigger any tax liability.
So, lets say you have $100M in stocks and they've appreciated significantly so if you sold them you would pay a big chunk of capital gains tax. You figure you're going to need $50M between now and when you die and give what's left to your children and you think you're going to live 25 more years. There are two options. Option one, you sell $2M per year every year for the next 25 years and pay 23.8% in long term gains plus medicare levy tax. So you really need to sell $2,625,000 per year to get $2M in spending money (assuming 100% gains for simplification). Over the 25 years, you end up selling $65,625,000 in stock and leaving your poor heirs a measly $34,375,000.
Or, you borrow the $2M per year you need against your appreciated stocks every year, which as you know literally anyone can do at any broker using margin. If you've got $100M, you're probably borrowing at this point at almost no interest. You get $2M to spend without paying a cent in tax. At the end of 25 years, your heirs pay back the $50M in now outstanding loans and end up with $50M, tax free because of the basis step-up.
Which is why I would advocate that instead of this impossible to enforce valuation of hard to value assets every year, we either tax the loan proceeds of these types of loans for this same group of people, or we get rid of the step-up basis concept. The latter really is indefensible, if you're going to be fair you keep the basis where it's at and keep the taxation system as-is. However that would take a while to realize the revenue, which is where the first option comes in. Either one targets the exploitation of the tax code most folks see as unfair, where as the proposed measure is a blunt instrument purporting to target that but causing all kinds of unforeseen (and in some cases foreseen) consequences.