The BIT Act (Billionaire Income Tax)

[pknopp]

Are people still buying Xbox Game Passes

I have no idea.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What about them, Grumblenuts? More information was needed in your OP. What will happen to individuals with more than $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, or those with over $1 billion in assets for three consecutive years?

I assume it is some kind of new tax, but how much? How will they tax "assets" How will the IRS hire lawyers smarter than the lawyers that billionaires can afford?

How will they ensure that the rates will never go up, or the income requirement for paying this new tax never go down?

 

[ThisIsMe]

If I had a billion dollars in the bank they wouldn't need to tax me because I would be handing out millions to important charities. The homeless, the hungry, military organizations that need to help those with lost limbs or widows, protection of children etc.

If you have a billion in the bank and aren't helping those in need, I cannot see an afterlife in which G-d says "come on in".

In america, even if you did all that charitable work, dems would still want to tax your wealth away.

 

[BackAgain]

To target individuals with more than $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, or those with over $1 billion in assets for three consecutive years. International discussions are also underway regarding a coordinated tax on billionaires.


Direct link. How much is enough? Too little? Too much? Who should decide? Billionaires or the rest of us?

What if some guy has made well over a billion dollars in his work life. He has managed to save over a billion dollars in cash (stored in banks and invested in the market, etc.). But he has retired.

Granted, his bank accounts and investments should still produce some income for him. And I suppose that taxing the actual income he might withdraw is subject appropriately to taxation.

But the balance of his accumulated wealth has already been taxed when he earned it.

We tax “income.” We don’t tax accumulated wealth (given that it was already taxed).

So this proposal in the OP deserves to die on the vine.

 

[pknopp]

What if some guy has made well over a billion dollars in his work life. He has managed to save over a billion dollars in cash (stored in banks and invested in the market, etc.). But he has retired.

Granted, his bank accounts and investments should still produce some income for him. And I suppose that taxing the actual income he might withdraw is subject appropriately to taxation.

But the balance of his accumulated wealth has already been taxed when he earned it.

We tax “income.” We don’t tax accumulated wealth (given that it was already taxed).

So this proposal in the OP deserves to die on the vine.

The money one puts into an account isn't being targeted. It's the money made by that money. .

One can still argue that one way or the other but it needs argued correctly.

 

[BackAgain]

The money one puts into an account isn't being targeted. It's the money made by that money. .

I know. I am referring to the interest income.

One can still argue that one way or the other but it needs argued correctly.

When you use the indefinite pronoun “that,” it isn’t clear which point you are referencing.

 

[pknopp]

I know. I am referring to the interest income.

When you use the indefinite pronoun “that,” it isn’t clear which point you are referencing.

Whether money not actually in your pocket should be taxed.

 

[BackAgain]

Whether money not actually in your pocket should be taxed.

Not the question.

The better question is more straightforward:

Should the U.S. government even be allowed to tax accumulated wealth after taxes were already paid on it when it was first earned?

I can get that taxation will apply to interest thereafter earned on that post taxed (invested) wealth. Similarly, I can get that accumulated wealth (from previously taxed income) now invested in the stock market (etc) is likely to generate new income and that new income may be taxed.

But why then target billionaires? Those same rules should apply to all of us.

 

[pknopp]

Not the question.

The better question is more straightforward:

Should the U.S. government even be allowed to tax accumulated wealth after taxes were already paid on it when it was first earned?

The money earned was NEVER taxed.

I can get that taxation will apply to interest thereafter earned on that post taxed (invested) wealth. Similarly, I can get that accumulated wealth (from previously taxed income) now invested in the stock market (etc) is likely to generate new income and that new income may be taxed.

But why then target billionaires? Those same rules should apply to all of us.

As far as targeting billionaires.......

They invest a million. Make $50k on it. If they want to buy something, they dont take that money which would trigger taxes they borrow it (at very favorable rates) and then get to write that off.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What about them, Grumblenuts? More information was needed in your OP. What will happen to individuals with more than $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, or those with over $1 billion in assets for three consecutive years?

I assume it is some kind of new tax, but how much? How will they tax "assets" How will the IRS hire lawyers smarter than the lawyers that billionaires can afford?

How will they ensure that the rates will never go up, or the income requirement for paying this new tax never go down?

I'd assume it's still just a proposal. From the OP link:

the bicameral Billionaire Income Tax Act. The measure aims to restore fairness in federal taxation by requiring the ultrawealthy to pay taxes on wealth gains as they occur, rather than allowing billionaires and millionaires to indefinitely defer or avoid taxation.

AI Overview


As of October 2025, the Billionaires Income Tax Act is a legislative proposal that has been introduced in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, backed by several Democratic lawmakers
. It is not a law and its passage is uncertain. The bill aims to tax the unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest Americans, a significant change from the current tax code.

I was interested in related discussion. But if you really wanna get down into the weeds, be my guest:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3367/text

 

[g5000]

You want your 401K to be next? ******* with billionaires is how you will get it.

Oh wait, did you think they will just stop with billionaires?

You are just part of a battery farm to those people....."Just the tip baby", comes to mind.

.
Allow me to introduce you to the Slippery Slope Fallacy

.

 

[g5000]

that pension and SS can disappear overnight,

the work of the rich is what keeps it alive,,

Nope.

There is a cap on payroll taxes for the rich.

 

[g5000]

Our economy has been rigged for a long time, tilting the playing field in favor of the wealthy.

I bring up tax expenditures frequently. That is just one example.

Another example: Bailing out sclerotic and criminal banks whose policies lead to their failure only to be bailed out and kept alive rather than allow banks with better business models to rise and replace the zombie banks.

 

[g5000]

To target individuals with more than $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, or those with over $1 billion in assets for three consecutive years. International discussions are also underway regarding a coordinated tax on billionaires.


Direct link. How much is enough? Too little? Too much? Who should decide? Billionaires or the rest of us?

There is an error in the link. I don't know if it is a typo or ignorance:

• Require annual taxation of non-tradable assets like stocks, regardless of sale;

Stocks are not non-tradable assets.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope.

There is a cap on payroll taxes for the rich.

considering they pay the majority of the taxs that cap is to high,,

 

[g5000]

considering they pay the majority of the taxs that cap is to high,,

Their taxes have not risen commensurate with their rate of wealth growth.

Even worse, Trump has given himself and George Soros a tax break.

Talk about self-dealing!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our economy has been rigged for a long time, tilting the playing field in favor of the wealthy.

I bring up tax expenditures frequently. That is just one example.

Another example: Bailing out sclerotic and criminal banks whose policies lead to their failure only to be bailed out and kept alive rather than allow banks with better business models to rise and replace the zombie banks.

How much did the bank bailout cost the taxpayer?

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is an error in the link. I don't know if it is a typo or ignorance:

• Require annual taxation of non-tradable assets like stocks, regardless of sale;

Stocks are not non-tradable assets.

.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Check out "non marketable stocks."

 

[g5000]

How much did the bank bailout cost the taxpayer?

If you mismanage your business and are going under, how much does the government offer to you to help you out?

Understand the difference?

Sociallsm for the rich and powerful, tough shit for you.

This is not how capitalism works. This is how capitalism fails.
.

 

[progressive hunter]

Their taxes have not risen commensurate with their rate of wealth growth.

Even worse, Trump has given himself and George Soros a tax break.

Talk about self-dealing!

they still pay far more than their fair share,,

they same rules they use also apply to you and me,,