Michigan Democrat Mallory McMorrow compares the Trump administration to Nazi Germany

[Man With A Plan]

Sure, there is truth in that. But also truth in the idea that when the GOP suddenly decides to be fiscally responsible it always amounts to screwing the poor and working class and middle class. The wealthy are always excempt from the sacrifices of fiscal responsibility. In fact, they get massive tax cuts, which make just as little fiscal sense as Obamacare if not less.

Republicans:

Should we tax capital gains as they are accrued, instead of letting tax avoiders wait until they cash out their millions in profits in order to close the fiscal gap? No, of course not, that would have the wealthy paying more! They shouldn't have to pay taxes on it until they take it out to spend it!

Then should we stop taxing the interest that the working and middle class earn on savings accounts and CD's? NO! That would be fiscally irresponsible!

With all due respect? Anyone that thinks it's a good idea to tax capital gains as they "accrue" is insane. The gain isn't realized. That happens when the asset is sold. There may never BE a capital gain!

 

[konradv]

Democrats are the real fascists.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

With all due respect? Anyone that thinks it's a good idea to tax capital gains as they "accrue" is insane. The gain isn't realized. That happens when the asset is sold. There may never BE a capital gain!

When there is a capital gain, the account holder has full access to the money, can borrow against the money, or can choose to leave it to grow more. It's their money as soon as the gain is made.

The fact that it could be lost if they leave it in the investments doesn't change that. I could borrow money against my savings account without ever taking it out, lose the money at the track and then I would lose the interest I gained without ever withdrawing it.

You've been brainwashed to believe that the wealthy should not pay taxes because they do so much good with their money, while working class people tend to blow it on beer and cigarettes.

 

[Man With A Plan]

When there is a capital gain, the account holder has full access to the money, can borrow against the money, or can choose to leave it to grow more. It's their money as soon as the gain is made.

The fact that it could be lost if they leave it in the investments doesn't change that. I could borrow money against my savings account without ever taking it out, lose the money at the track and then I would lose the interest I gained without ever withdrawing it.

You've been brainwashed to believe that the wealthy should not pay taxes because they do so much good with their money, while working class people tend to blow it on beer and cigarettes.

You're not going to get people to invest if they have to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains. That's a "paper" profit! It doesn't exist until the gain is taken. Are we giving them a tax write off when the value of an investment goes down?

 

[Man With A Plan]

My family owns a large farm. On paper its worth about 6 million but that's if it's sold for development. So does that count as a capital gain? Do you expect us to pay a tax on that increased value even though we haven't realized it?

 

[LoveKimWexler]

You're not going to get people to invest if they have to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains. That's a "paper" profit! It doesn't exist until the gain is taken. Are we giving them a tax write off when the value of an investment goes down?

First, I appreciate your making an actual argument. The OP seems not to understand how to do that.

"People won't invest" is a valid argument, that I happen to disagree with. I believe that people will invest in profitable investments, even if they have to pay taxes on the profit every year. Just like people work for wages even though they have to pay taxes on the wages. It is not a 100% tax. Just as an example using easy number, if they have an asset that appreciates by 10% in year and pay 20% of the gains in taxes, then they profit by 8%. That's still more than the interest I get in my savings account, especially after the pas-as-you go income taxes I pay on that interest. So they won't sit on their money, they will invest.

My family owns a large farm. On paper its worth about 6 million but that's if it's sold for development. So does that count as a capital gain? Do you expect us to pay a tax on that increased value even though we haven't realized it?

I believe family farms should be except from all taxes, for many reasons, including food security and that I think much more of the burden of paying for government should be shifted to those who benefit most. But if a developer does buy it for $6M and sits on it while another developer buys your neighbor's farm and develops it, schools and malls open nearby, etc., driving the value of what was your farm to $10M, that first developer just made $4M whether he sells it that year or not. His net worth is $4M more. So yes, let them pay the taxes. I have nothing against him making the money, but I wonder why Uber drivers and mail carriers are being squeezed so that millionaire investors don't have to contribute.

 

[Man With A Plan]

First, I appreciate your making an actual argument. The OP seems not to understand how to do that.

"People won't invest" is a valid argument, that I happen to disagree with. I believe that people will invest in profitable investments, even if they have to pay taxes on the profit every year. Just like people work for wages even though they have to pay taxes on the wages. It is not a 100% tax. Just as an example using easy number, if they have an asset that appreciates by 10% in year and pay 20% of the gains in taxes, then they profit by 8%. That's still more than the interest I get in my savings account, especially after the pas-as-you go income taxes I pay on that interest. So they won't sit on their money, they will invest.


I believe family farms should be except from all taxes, for many reasons, including food security and that I think much more of the burden of paying for government should be shifted to those who benefit most. But if a developer does buy it for $6M and sits on it while another developer buys your neighbor's farm and develops it, schools and malls open nearby, etc., driving the value of what was your farm to $10M, that first developer just made $4M whether he sells it that year or not. His net worth is $4M more. So yes, let them pay the taxes. I have nothing against him making the money, but I wonder why Uber drivers and mail carriers are being squeezed so that millionaire investors don't have to contribute.

With all due respect...that first developer did NOT make 4 million if he didn't sell it. He doesn't make 4 million until he DOES sell it at which point he is going to pay taxes on that profit! He doesn't get a write off if something happens that decreases the value of the property why would he have to pay a tax on a profit he hasn't realized?

As for your belief that people "will" invest even if they have to pay taxes on profits that they haven't yet made? I don't think you know how investors think. If I'm going to invest my capital I'm looking at risk and rate of return. If you tax my potential profit whether I've made it or not, that's simply one more thing that is going to decrease my eventual profit and one more more reason for me NOT to invest!

 

[LoveKimWexler]

With all due respect...that first developer did NOT make 4 million if he didn't sell it. He doesn't make 4 million until he DOES sell it at which point he is going to pay taxes on that profit! He doesn't get a write off if something happens that decreases the value of the property why would he have to pay a tax on a profit he hasn't realized?

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

As for your belief that people "will" invest even if they have to pay taxes on profits that they haven't yet made? I don't think you know how investors think. If I'm going to invest my capital I'm looking at risk and rate of return. If you tax my potential profit whether I've made it or not, that's simply one more thing that is going to decrease my eventual profit and one more more reason for me NOT to invest!

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

 

[struth]

It’s still in the bank… unrealized

Money in the bank isn’t realized? Are you really that stupid?

 

[struth]

That’s only because it was legislated that way. Both are unrealized income and that could easily change

Saving jnterested paid is realized you idiot

Something not sold, like the value of your home or a stock is unrealized because you haven’t sold it

 

[Man With A Plan]

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

He hasn't made a profit on those investments unless he sells them at which time he WOULD pay a rather large capital gains tax! If he didn't sell and passed away the government would still be getting a large chunk of his net worth in inheritance taxes. That to me is highway robbery by the way. He's paid taxes on his earnings his whole life. That money in his savings account? He already paid taxes on that. What right does the government have to take it when he dies? Bottom line? The government doesn't have a "revenue" problem...they take in plenty of money! They have a spending problem. How about we fix that before we start trying to find more ways to tax more people?

 

[Man With A Plan]

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

As for that "hypothetical" guy? If you start taxing him on unrealized profits he's going to put his millions into a tax shelter and you're not going to tax any of it. Happy now? Wealthy people aren't stupid. Protecting capital is what they DO!

 

[markef]

This is classic projection. One only has to look back at what the Democrats did to anyone that didn't want to get the Wuhan Flu mRNA vaccine.

Democrats equate Trump to Hitler, not because the comparison has any connection to logic and reality, but because leftist politicians have found that dishonestly slandering their opponents yields the best results from low intelligence Democrat voters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime?

Because his income was only the $40,000 in interest.

Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

He should be taxed on his interest when he receives it.

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

Land and other capital investments aren't income.

 

[struth]

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

Hypothetically, a retired CEO with a net worth of ten million dollars including a two million dollar home and 8 million cash in a savings account spends six million to buy land as an investment. At the end of that year, the land he bought is worth ten million, the home is worth 2.1 million, and his savings account paid 40K in interest. Now he will have a net worth of $14,140,000, an increase of $4,140,000.

Why should he only be taxed on the savings account interest, when he can sell his home or his land anytime? Should he be taxed on his savings account interest only when he withdraws it?

Do you not see how taxing small savings investments, but not taxing land and other capital investments means that the working class carry the freight for the millionaires?

So the hypothetical guy above will keep his millions in the 2% interest-earning savings account? He won't put it into an investment that will pay much more in capital gains just to make sure the government does not get any of it? When the government will definitely get part of the interest he earns in a savings account?

Since when is real estate not taxed???

 

[LoveKimWexler]

He hasn't made a profit on those investments unless he sells them

So until he sells the investments, who owns the increased value?

at which time he WOULD pay a rather large capital gains tax! If he didn't sell and passed away the government would still be getting a large chunk of his net worth in inheritance taxes. That to me is highway robbery by the way. He's paid taxes on his earnings his whole life. That money in his savings account? He already paid taxes on that. What right does the government have to take it when he dies? Bottom line?

I cannot address that until you answer the question above. No long winded speeches, just say who owns the increased value.

The government doesn't have a "revenue" problem...they take in plenty of money! They have a spending problem. How about we fix that before we start trying to find more ways to tax more people?

Sure.

Which Republican's or any other politician's balanced budget example do you like the best?

Does that balanced budget cut equally across the board? Does it eliminate the new agencies Donald Trump created?

How much does it cut from Social Security?

 

[Man With A Plan]

So until he sells the investments, who owns the increased value?


I cannot address that until you answer the question above. No long winded speeches, just say who owns the increased value.

Sure.

Which Republican's or any other politician's balanced budget example do you like the best?

Does that balanced budget cut equally across the board? Does it eliminate the new agencies Donald Trump created?

How much does it cut from Social Security?

What you call increased value doesn't exist until a profit is taken. Do you really not grasp that? If I buy $100,000 worth of shares of Invidia and a month later it's value is $110,000 but I don't sell the stock and it then goes back down to a value of $90,000 should I have to pay a tax on the increased value that I never realized? What part of that being CRAZY don't you get?

 

[Man With A Plan]

So until he sells the investments, who owns the increased value?


I cannot address that until you answer the question above. No long winded speeches, just say who owns the increased value.

Sure.

Which Republican's or any other politician's balanced budget example do you like the best?

Does that balanced budget cut equally across the board? Does it eliminate the new agencies Donald Trump created?

How much does it cut from Social Security?

I'm curious...did you support the cost cutting suggestions put forth by DOGE?

 

[LoveKimWexler]

What you call increased value doesn't exist until a profit is taken. Do you really not grasp that? If I buy $100,000 worth of shares of Invidia and a month later it's value is $110,000 but I don't sell the stock and it then goes back down to a value of $90,000 should I have to pay a tax on the increased value that I never realized? What part of that being CRAZY don't you get?

How much is the stock worth the moment after you buy it? Nothing, because the value doesn't exist until you sell it?

No. It is worth $100,000 with some margin of error for you either overpaying or getting a bargain. Or would you have paid that much for something whose value doesn't exist?

Why do banks lend money on stock or land that has increased in value? Banks like to lend money with collateral whose value doesn't exist?

Not taxing capital gains is the greatest tax shelter for the wealthy we have. They can borrow against it and pay no taxes on the loan.

They can shelter it until they die and then it stays sheltered due to the rule of stepped up cost basis for inherited capital.

 

[LoveKimWexler]

I'm curious...did you support the cost cutting suggestions put forth by DOGE?

I have not studied the suggestions, but I'll say this: The cuts DOGE has actually made are real cuts that they are being very open about, so people who want to study them can. They've even had to backtrack on some.

I'll take that over some "fiscal hawk" complaining that we need to cut spending and balance the budget without ever putting forth an example balanced budget.

As to the "cost cutting suggestions" I don't give them a thought. You guys are in charge, no need to bother with suggestions. Start cutting and let the voters decide.