• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After decades, there's finally some little tax increase for billionaires paying 8%. Meet Manchin.

ttwtt78640 said:
You do not pay any federal (or state) income tax on the appreciated value of your home. If you don’t understand (or as you put it “see”) the difference between a property tax and an income tax then maybe you should educate yourself on that very important difference.

First of all, there is a difference between a liquid asset (e.g. stocks) and a non-liquid asset (e.g. real estate). This proposed 20% federal ‘wealth’ tax would only apply to the unrealized (annual) capital gains on liquid assets held by so called “billionaires” - households with a net worth of over $100M (like Speaker Pelosi’s) includes plenty of folks who are clearly not billionaires. It is unclear (to me) how a household’s net worth would be calculated under this new proposal.
Click to expand...
Florida used to have a Net Asset Tax up to about 15 years ago. It was a HUGE mess.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Seems to me we already pay a tax on those sorts of assets. My home is worth $650,000.00 and I pay taxes on that unrealized income every year. I don't have to sell it to be taxed on it. I really don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

Well .. you haven't answered so I'll answer it for you .. you don't pay taxes on unrealized income. You most likely pay personal property taxes on the value of your house, typically determined by some type of Property Valuation Authority. This is not based on the difference of what you paid for your house and what it's worth today .. aka .. unrealized income.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You do not pay any federal (or state) income tax on the appreciated value of your home. If you don’t understand (or as you put it “see”) the difference between a property tax and an income tax then maybe you should educate yourself on that very important difference.

First of all, there is a difference between a liquid asset (e.g. stocks) and a non-liquid asset (e.g. real estate). This proposed 20% federal ‘wealth’ tax would only apply to the unrealized (annual) capital gains on liquid assets held by so called “billionaires” - households with a net worth of over $100M (like Speaker Pelosi’s) includes plenty of folks who are clearly not billionaires. It is unclear (to me) how a household’s net worth would be calculated under this new proposal.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I explained ... Property taxes are based on the assessed value of your home (typically through some sort of property valuation authority), and not the difference of what you paid for it and what's it's currently worth.
 
Atreus21 said:
I'm sorry, I just don't look at wealthy people and immediately envy them. I'm not a marxist.
Click to expand...
Any time you see the words "envy" and "wealthy" you can largely counter on it being right-wing drivel. Nothing but propaganda to try to justify injustice. I remember slaves, jealous of the freedom their masters had. Selfish.
 
Craig234 said:
Any time you see the words "envy" and "wealthy" you can largely counter on it being right-wing drivel. Nothing but propaganda to try to justify injustice. I remember slaves, jealous of the freedom their masters had. Selfish.
Click to expand...

Hmm… is Nancy Pelosi a “billionaire”?
 
Craig234 said:
Because of COURSE Manchin wants to gut a core benefit for the country the rest of Democrats support.

www.commondreams.org

Manchin Blasted for Opposing Biden's Plan to Tax US Billionaires | Common Dreams

"Manchin is apparently eager to tax the obscenely rich in every way except the ones by which they actually make their obscene money."
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...
Unrealized gains may disappear just as easily as they appear in someones investments. It's another money grab by the democrats. How about the government stop wasting money? I'm all for raising the tax rate a percent of two on the upper income earners but taxing money not yet in hand is questionable at best. If you tax money and six months later the money is lost in the market just as it was earned, are you going to give them a rebate for the loss? The other concern is I know how the government works. Today it's the .01% and a year from now it's everybody because the democrats want more money to waste.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
Joe Manchin really does not want to tax them. If he did, his plan would have no exceptions. You want to tax all obscenely rich people or none of them, regardless of how they got way too much money.

Why does this guy identify himself as a Democrat? He leans conservative on every issue except Trump the Terrorist and likes what Mitch McConnell does as the Senate Minority Leader.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, I wish he'd just go ahead and change parties.
 
Craig234 said:
Any time you see the words "envy" and "wealthy" you can largely counter on it being right-wing drivel. Nothing but propaganda to try to justify injustice. I remember slaves, jealous of the freedom their masters had. Selfish.
Click to expand...
We have a tax structure that was put in place by our Congress. If it needs changing let the Congress come up with a plan. Pay "your fair share" isn't a plan. How often do the democrats use that phrase and never declare how much "fair share" actually is? That's because they are looking for an open tap from which they can continue to rob citizens of their money.
Raise taxes a few percent on the uppermost income brackets. More importantly cut some of the loophole deductions. The tax structure is the fault of Congress, they pass the legislation. Congress doesn't make many changes because they love to spend other peoples money, and those in Congress take advantage of all those loopholes to avoid paying taxes themselves.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Unrealized gains may disappear just as easily as they appear in someones investments. It's another money grab by the democrats. How about the government stop wasting money? I'm all for raising the tax rate a percent of two on the upper income earners but taxing money not yet in hand is questionable at best. If you tax money and six months later the money is lost in the market just as it was earned, are you going to give them a rebate for the loss? The other concern is I know how the government works. Today it's the .01% and a year from now it's everybody because the democrats want more money to waste.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that unrealized capital gains are not income. The definition of income does not change based on the person’s (or their household’s) wealth or net worth.
 
Craig234 said:
Because of COURSE Manchin wants to gut a core benefit for the country the rest of Democrats support.

www.commondreams.org

Manchin Blasted for Opposing Biden's Plan to Tax US Billionaires | Common Dreams

"Manchin is apparently eager to tax the obscenely rich in every way except the ones by which they actually make their obscene money."
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...
Stop complaining and change the tax laws. Are these billionaires breaking the law?
Schumer supports the rich. He wants to eliminate the limits under SALT.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The bottom line is that unrealized capital gains are not income. The definition of income does not change based on the person’s (or their household’s) wealth or net worth.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this to me a little clearer? Let's say Anne has decided to invest in a company for a year. The market values go up and she sells her shares as planned, making a bunch of profit. Then she decides "Hey, that was good, I'll do it again" so she reinvests the money again. By contrast Bob has decided to invest in the company indefinitely. The market values go up, and he decides to keep his money in the company without selling and buying back in.

Are you saying that in Anne's case, she had 'realized' capital gains income which should be taxed, but somehow Bob - despite the same increase in net worth and functionally identical before and after outcomes - did not have any 'income' and therefore shouldn't be taxed? Why is that a significant distinction, as opposed to mere semantics at best?

Or are you maybe saying that Anne shouldn't be taxed either, that wealth accumulating in non-monetary assets should for some reason be forever off limits?
 
Hard to say what the outcome will be without reading the revised tax code and directions.

Will unrealized gains taxes be offsetable with unrealized losses?
Will these payments and deductions be annual lump-sum or amortized over time?
Are negative unrealized monies allowed to reduce taxable amounts to less than zero to offset W2 wages (deductible business loss)?

With unrealized gain profits, any future 'realization' of profit would probably be Tax-Paid and free from re-taxation, so in the long run, it just may be a wash, unless the wealthy never 'cash out' of investments; a pay me now / pay me later type thing, which would loosen the purse strings of the wealthy.

The proof will be in the tax code fine print. Bet it gets watered down in any event.
 
Lutherf said:
Florida used to have a Net Asset Tax up to about 15 years ago. It was a HUGE mess.
Click to expand...
Arkansas has a similar tax on the value of personal possessions, assessed every year. They took furniture off the list, but still tax on anything that has an ownership title. This way, Everybody has skin in the game except the indigent who own or earn nothing. It works well in this low-income state.
 
Mithrae said:
Can you explain this to me a little clearer? Let's say Anne has decided to invest in a company for a year. The market values go up and she sells her shares as planned, making a bunch of profit. Then she decides "Hey, that was good, I'll do it again" so she reinvests the money again. By contrast Bob has decided to invest in the company indefinitely. The market values go up, and he decides to keep his money in the company without selling and buying back in.

Are you saying that in Anne's case, she had 'realized' capital gains income which should be taxed, but somehow Bob - despite the same increase in net worth and functionally identical before and after outcomes - did not have any 'income' and therefore shouldn't be taxed?
Click to expand...

Yes, Anne received capital gains income while Bob did not.

When the market value of your house goes up during the year, do you claim that unrealized capital gain as annual income Or will you wait until you sell that house to give IRS their “fair share” of your profit?

Mithrae said:
Why is that a significant distinction, as opposed to mere semantics at best?
Click to expand...

Receiving capital gains income after (profitably) selling an asset is different than simply having had the potential to do so.

Mithrae said:
Or are you maybe saying that Anne shouldn't be taxed either, that wealth accumulating in non-monetary assets should for some reason be forever off limits?
Click to expand...

Nope, Anne must pay taxes on the capital gains income she received during that tax year.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Seems to me we already pay a tax on those sorts of assets. My home is worth $650,000.00 and I pay taxes on that unrealized income every year. I don't have to sell it to be taxed on it. I really don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this a little more. Are you being taxed on the equity in your home?
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
I understand that. But he wrote that he’s paying taxes on the unrealized income.
Click to expand...
Well, he said 'sort of' - the property tax is like a 'wealth tax' on the value of the property, while this tax would be on 'unrealized income' - so if a home had been bought for $100,000 and is worth $500,000, the property tax would be on $500,000 and a tax like this would be on $400,000 of that, except that it's only on very large amounts.
 
Craig234 said:
Well, he said 'sort of' - the property tax is like a 'wealth tax' on the value of the property, while this tax would be on 'unrealized income' - so if a home had been bought for $100,000 and is worth $500,000, the property tax would be on $500,000 and a tax like this would be on $400,000 of that, except that it's only on very large amounts.
Click to expand...
That's not really what is being discussed here. To make that comparison even remotely work he would have to be taxed completely separately from property taxes just on the increased value of his home.

Side note: Are we planning to allow deductions in the event of a decrease in stock values?
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
That's not really what is being discussed here. To make that comparison even remotely work he would have to be taxed completely separately from property taxes just on the increased value of his home.

Side note: Are we planning to allow deductions in the event of a decrease in stock values?
Click to expand...
As I said, he said 'sort of'; you asked for it to be explained.

Deductions aren't how it works; if the stock is worth less, then it counts less for the tax. Just like if your home value goes down, you can have the value lowered for taxes. Of course the actual capital gains tax is based on when you realize the gain, and losses are deductible then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom