More Grifting from Trump

[bornontheblue]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:34 PM, renoskier said:

how about taxing loans secured by unrealized gains?

Unconstitutional. Loans are not income. If there is an obligation to pay it back then it is not income. 

That is why you don't have to pay taxes on say a HELOC , or a cash out refinance. 

 

 

 

[bornontheblue]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:35 PM, Joe from Wyo said:

Closing the Angel of Death Loophole is absolutely a more plausible and possible way to do it too. Agreed. 

I would like to see payroll tax and social security  reform. 

Bill gates probably draws a check from Social Security but was only taxed a tiny fraction of his income on it. 

Means test for social security on an annual basis , and increase limits on income subject to SE Tax. 

 

 

[stanfordchef]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:34 AM, renoskier said:

how about taxing loans secured by unrealized gains?

The accountant says it’d be unconstitutional but there’s nothing to stop the meaning of the statute from being amended to consider this to be within the meaning of taxable income. Never really thought of this. Interesting idea.

[Sactowndog]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:40 AM, Joe from Wyo said:

The accountant says it’d be unconstitutional but there’s nothing to stop the meaning of the statute to being amended to consider this to be within the meaning of taxable income. Never really thought of this. Interesting idea.

Yeah but it would have other consequences like hitting everyone who refinanced their home and took cash out. Good way to piss off the entire country.   

[bornontheblue]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:26 PM, mugtang said:

That’s a good point. The 16th amendment gives them the power to tax income.  Not sure unrealized gains falls under that.  Although article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to “lay tax and collect duties” so Congress has likely always had the authority to tax whatever they want.

At the end of the day I don’t think it’ll pass Congress anyway.

I was telling a friend this, there are other ways to tax the top .1% more without a wealth tax.  If your net wealth is greater than $1 billion you get no deductions at all.  You take a loss on a stock, too bad.  You want a deduction for rental expenses , eat shit.  You won capitalism (or were born into wealth).  You can pay tax on all of the gross income you receive.   I don’t have an issue with any of that. 

I don't know about taxing the top .01 percent at gross income, but maybe modifying AMT to make sure they are paying a minimum effective rate is a good idea. 

Whoever wins the next election is going to be able to influence a lot of tax legislation as the TCJA expires. 

 

 

[stanfordchef]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:36 AM, bornontheblue said:

Unconstitutional. Loans are not income. If there is an obligation to pay it back then it is not income. 

That is why you don't have to pay taxes on say a HELOC , or a cash out refinance. 

 

 

 

Or like if you’re  at a certain income level (passive or otherwise) your benefits revert to paying into a slush fund of sorts to help aid in future functionality of the system. 
 

meant to reply to your SS reform post. 

[stanfordchef]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:43 AM, Sactowndog said:

Yeah but it would have other consequences like hitting everyone who refinanced their home and took cash out. Good way to piss off the entire country.   

I don’t think it’ll happen but just pointing out how it could. 

[mugtang]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:31 AM, Sactowndog said:

The best approach is to just eliminate the stepped up basis.  In an era of computer records the primary justification for it is no longer valid.  

I’m not super wealthy like Joe but even I have a whole account of primarily Growth stocks I never plan to sell and will just pass on to my kids.   Once I pass them on they get a stepped basis and throw off capital gains that will never get taxed.  Just ridiculous how slanted the tax code is for those who have wealth from which they don’t need income.   

I think stepped up basis is beneficial to everybody.  You can phase it out for people with wealth exceeding a certain threshold though. But, if your parents die and you inherit their house I don’t have an issue with your new basis being the fmv. 

[renoskier]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:36 AM, bornontheblue said:

Unconstitutional. Loans are not income. If there is an obligation to pay it back then it is not income. 

That is why you don't have to pay taxes on say a HELOC , or a cash out refinance. 

 

 

 

 

On 8/29/2024 at 11:40 AM, Joe from Wyo said:

The accountant says it’d be unconstitutional but there’s nothing to stop the meaning of the statute from being amended to consider this to be within the meaning of taxable income. Never really thought of this. Interesting idea.

isn't that the biggest problem with taxing billionaires, they have no "income"? they simply borrow against their increasing unrealized wealth

[415hawaiiboy 2.0]

Government already taxes property at unrealized gains (real property taxes).
 

Taxing a stock portfolio that’s marked to market would actually be more transparent than a property value assessment.

 

While I’m reluctant to change, I haven’t read into the pros and cons of this, but the concept seems ok and with negotiation it can become more appealing ($100MM or $1 Billion?  25% or 5% or zero as it is currently).  
 

The grocery price controls, I don’t know too much about that.  However, there appears to be pockets of price fixing, implicitly or explicitly, either by shared data.  Such as the government lawsuit against RealPage for apartment dynamic pricing:

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/realpage-doj-lawsuit

From a business perspective, you get higher margins by serving customers who are willing to pay a premium for “luxury.”  The market works for everyone when there are affordable stores, mid tier and premium.  However M&A, investors push an organization to seek premium.  
 

The solution is competition.  New entrants charge lower until they can go up the price scale.  Housing shortage, difficulties in making brick and mortar retail work (rents, insurance, cost of labor and goods, regulations, super dominant competition), means fewer start ups and new supply.  
 

Anyways, I haven’t dug into Harris’ economic policies, and I might not, because I don’t support Trump and any big change will have to go through Congress.  
 

On face, both taxing unrealized gains and finding solutions to control prices are good goals.

 

I don’t live in Hawaii anymore but I would want a job in the government that looks at the different ways to cut the cost of living (reducing shipping costs of goods, regulations, fees).  

[mugtang]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:43 AM, bornontheblue said:

I don't know about taxing the top .01 percent at gross income, but maybe modifying AMT to make sure they are paying a minimum effective rate is a good idea. 

Whoever wins the next election is going to be able to influence a lot of tax legislation as the TCJA expires. 

 

 

TCJA expiring is going to be a nightmare.  Whatever they replace it with I just hope they do away with 199A.  Phucking hate reporting that shit. 

[Spaztecs]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:55 AM, tailingpermit said:

I don’t see an issue with it, capitalism, baby!!!!!

There's sucker born every minute.

[stanfordchef]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:44 AM, mugtang said:

I think stepped up basis is beneficial to everybody.  You can phase it out for people with wealth exceeding a certain threshold though. But, if your parents die and you inherit their house I don’t have an issue with your new basis being the fmv. 

Yeah but it’s like that for all assets. I could see a homestead carve out for houses but I think removing it for other asset classes would be helpful in terms of raising revenue. 

[Sactowndog]

On 8/29/2024 at 10:54 AM, bornontheblue said:

I entertained the idea of voting for Kamala but I just can't . Her economic policies are abysmal. 

I will not be voting for Trump either. 

 

I mean I get it and you are in Idaho so it’s like pissing in an ocean but 3 thoughts….

1) the chances of them passing are slim

2) tax policy is the easiest thing to undo because it can be undone with a simple majority.  So really stupid stuff won’t last long.

3) the damage Trump can do to our governing norms will be long lasting and difficult to reverse.  

[stanfordchef]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:45 AM, renoskier said:

 

isn't that the biggest problem with taxing billionaires, they have no "income"? they simply borrow against their increasing unrealized wealth

Many certainly play that game. Frank McCourt was especially egregious about it. 

[bornontheblue]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:45 PM, 415hawaiiboy 2.0 said:

Government already taxes property at unrealized gains (real property taxes).
 

Taxing a stock portfolio that’s marked to market would actually be more transparent than a property value assessment.

 

While I’m reluctant to change, I haven’t read into the pros and cons of this, but the concept seems ok and with negotiation it can become more appealing ($100MM or $1 Billion?  25% or 5% or zero as it is currently).  
 

The grocery price controls, I don’t know too much about that.  However, there appears to be pockets of price fixing, implicitly or explicitly, either by shared data.  Such as the government lawsuit against RealPage for apartment dynamic pricing:

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/realpage-doj-lawsuit

From a business perspective, you get higher margins by serving customers who are willing to pay a premium for “luxury.”  The market works for everyone when there are affordable stores, mid tier and premium.  However M&A, investors push an organization to seek premium.  
 

The solution is competition.  New entrants charge lower until they can go up the price scale.  Housing shortage, difficulties in making brick and mortar retail work (rents, insurance, cost of labor and goods, regulations, super dominant competition), means fewer start ups and new supply.  
 

Anyways, I haven’t dug into Harris’ economic policies, and I might not, because I don’t support Trump and any big change will have to go through Congress.  
 

On face, both taxing unrealized gains and finding solutions to control prices are good goals.

 

I don’t live in Hawaii anymore but I would want a job in the government that looks at the different ways to cut the cost of living (reducing shipping costs of goods, regulations, fees).  

Taxing unrealized gains at the federal level would require an amendment to the constitution which will never ever happen in this political environment. 

cCties, counties, states etc are constitutionally allowed to tax unrealized gains like property. 

 

 

[azgreg]

 

[415hawaiiboy 2.0]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:48 AM, bornontheblue said:

Taxing unrealized gains at the federal level would require an amendment to the constitution which will never ever happen in this political environment. 

cCties, counties, states etc are constitutionally allowed to tax unrealized gains like property. 

 

 

So really, you are saying, it’s a wish list that will never happen.

[bornontheblue]

Reason 5,002 that taxing unrealized gains would be impossible to implement. 

What if you have a closely held investment tracked at income tax basis, but the FMV of the investment is probably much , much higher and very difficult to determine because there is not a market where the investment is regularly traded.  If this ever gets implemented I am going to get my business valuation certification and make tons of money in billable hours disputing the FMVs of closely held investments with the government every year. The courts would get overloaded with FMV disputes. 

Just stick to taxing income , It's much easier to implement, 

 

[gordonsolie]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:45 PM, mugtang said:

TCJA expiring is going to be a nightmare.  Whatever they replace it with I just hope they do away with 199A.  Phucking hate reporting that shit. 

That statute and its operation make zero sense. I get what they were going for, but the execution of it via 199A is very poor.