You ready to pay Kama-Kama-Chameleon's 25% tax on the ultra-wealthy's unrealized capital gains?

[Hollie]

You're not going to read it, are you? You're not even going to open the link.

So your argument that we 'can't know' has turned into a basic Argument from Ignorance. Where you refuse to look at the evidence.

Well, that was easy.

Why should I accept your silly "because I say so" nonsense claim? Why don't you read it and tell us where Harris has endorsed or even proposed any of it. Don't expect others to be as ignorant and gullible as you choose to be.

 

[Marener]

It's a simple question. Where does Harris identify specifics for the capital gains tax?

Supposedly she or someone on her campaign says the support the Biden proposal which has specifics. She’s never claimed to have or promoted her own proposals.

Much ado about nothing. Just HDS.

 

[Hollie]

Supposedly she or someone on her campaign says the support the Biden proposal which has specifics. She’s never claimed to have or promoted her own proposals.

Much ado about nothing. Just HDS.

" Supposedly". Much ado about "someone heard from someone who heard from someone".

Super! You're attributing policy to Harris because" "supposedly".

But... but... but what about Trump?

 

[Marener]

" Supposedly". Much ado about "someone heard from someone who heard from someone".

Super! You're attributing policy to Harris because" "supposedly".

But... but... but what about Trump?

Seems like a problem for the OP, not me.

You can’t deny that the details don’t exist and that you haven’t been provided them. You don’t want to read the document, not my problem.

 

[Skylar]

Seems like a problem for the OP, not me.

You can’t deny that the details don’t exist and that you haven’t been provided them. You don’t want to read the document, not my problem.

A classic Argument From Ignorance! You gotta love the fallacies.

 

[WEATHER53]

Massive
Gassive farting nothing

 

[BackAgain]

The meaning of income that's not defined by the constitution, but by the USC. Which can easily be changed with simple passage of a bill?

You probably haven’t noticed, but many terms used in the Constitution aren’t “defined” in the Constitution.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) clearly defines “income” for purposes of authorized taxation.

It says that income taxes can be imposed on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion". Id at 431 (emphasis added).

Since it is a now a Constitutionally recognized definition, any mere act to change its meaning would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Properly so.

Without properly limiting “income” to involve REALIZED gains (such as mere rising prices per share of stock without a sale by the buyer), the idiotic notion of taxing the unrealized gains could lead to moronic consequences to our economic system.

Kamalalala doesn’t grasp this and wouldn’t give a shit in any case.

 

[my2¢]

I believe in a fair tax system that is simple in nature, apply to everyone, and is as low as possible to provide for the country's defense and necessary infrastructure. Such a system would tax gains in assets whenever they changed hands.

 

[Hollie]

Seems like a problem for the OP, not me.

You can’t deny that the details don’t exist and that you haven’t been provided them. You don’t want to read the document, not my problem.

I can deny that Harris has any connection to a Biden proposal that she has not endorsed.

I can't deny that You are falsely attributing a Biden proposal to Harris.

 

[WEATHER53]

So if your million dollar 401K goes up 10% (+$100K) you have to pay additional 25%($25K) tax when you file 1040?

What if It drops 10%? Do we get a $25K tax credit?

More bullshit of stealing from those who have it to give to those who won’t work for it.

 

[BackAgain]

Does anybody have a link to this plan by Harris?

I'd like to see her exact statement, directly from her or her campaign.

Taxing unrealized capital gains seems unworkable (Would the government have to reimburse for capital losses?), so I'd like to make sure that she actually made this proposal.

We all know how reliable internet information is!!!

Vice President Harris Lays Out Agenda To Lower Costs for American Families

mailchi.mp

She is responsible for this idiotic plan.

And to the extent that she would only apply the unrealized gain tax on folks with net assets over 100 million dollars doesn’t help. In fact, that itself is a violation of equal protection.

 

[Skylar]

You probably haven’t noticed, but many terms used in the Constitution aren’t “defined” in the Constitution.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) clearly defines “income” for purposes of authorized taxation.

It says that income taxes can be imposed on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion". Id at 431 (emphasis added).

Since it is a now a Constitutionally recognized definition, any mere act to change its meaning would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Properly so.

Without properly limiting “income” to involve REALIZED gains (such as mere rising prices per share of stock without a sale by the buyer), the idiotic notion of taxing the unrealized gains could lead to moronic consequences to our economic system.

Kamalalala doesn’t grasp this and wouldn’t give a shit in any case.

I have to admit, that's a solid argument. The explicit requirement under Glenshaw that income must be fully realized does look to stand in direct opposition to a tax on unrealized appreciation.

I'll need to dive into Glenshaw to see if their usage of 'realized' then is the same as our usage now.

The prime caveat being the Glenshaw was explicit that their ruling was "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions." With the question presented to the court being if dividends constitute income. They found that they did.

So the recognition of dividends as 'undeniable accessions to wealth,clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion' includes dividends as income. But doesn't explicitly exclude forms that don't meet that definition. ....though that's arguably a weak position.

Further, Glenshaw was citing the simple definitions of gross income as they exist under the law at the time. Strongly suggesting that the law's definition of income would have an impact over the standards applied by the court. If the law's definition of gross income changed, the court's application could change as well. This is a stronger argument.

 

[Marener]

I can deny that Harris has any connection to a Biden proposal that she has not endorsed.

I can't deny that You are falsely attributing a Biden proposal to Harris.

The first sentence of the OPs article says she’s backing the Biden proposal.

Numerous other news sources say the same.

What We Know About Kamala Harris’s $5 Trillion Tax Plan So Far

The vice president supports the tax increases proposed by the Biden White House, according to her campaign.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Hollie]

More bullshit of stealing from those who have it to give to those who won’t work for it.

Just another case of Democrats looking to bleed more money from taxpayers so they can spend more.

 

[BackAgain]

I have to admit, that's a solid argument. The explicit requirement under Glenshaw that income must be fully realized does look to stand in direct opposition to a tax on unrealized appreciation.

I'll need to dive into Glenshaw to see if their usage of 'realized' then is the same as our usage now.

Fair. Glenshaw involved a case where the issue was whether punitive damages (etc) came within the ambit of what qualifies as “income” and that question involved a deeper dive into “realized gains.”

 

[WEATHER53]

I have to admit, that's a solid argument. The explicit requirement under Glenshaw that income must be fully realized does look to stand in direct opposition to a tax on unrealized appreciation.

I'll need to dive into Glenshaw to see if their usage of 'realized' then is the same as our usage now.

The prime caveat being the Glenshaw was explicit that their ruling was "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions."

She’s a douche who wants to have you find 25k somewhere for a 100k income you did not receive

 

[Hollie]

The first sentence of the OPs article says she’s backing the Biden proposal.

Numerous other news sources say the same.

What We Know About Kamala Harris’s $5 Trillion Tax Plan So Far

The vice president supports the tax increases proposed by the Biden White House, according to her campaign.

www.nytimes.com

I suppose it's too much to expect Harris to actually make an endorsement.

So, as long as someone heard someone say Harris is endorsing the Biden plan, the weak and gullible can run with that. As long as you and the NY Times say so.

 

[Skylar]

Fair. Glenshaw involved a case where the issue was whether punitive damages (etc) came within the ambit of what qualifies as “income” and that question involved a deeper dive into “realized gains.”

The prime caveat being the Glenshaw was explicit that their ruling was "not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions." With the question presented to the court being if dividends constitute income. They found that they did.

So the recognition of dividends as 'undeniable accessions to wealth,clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion' includes dividends as income. But doesn't explicitly exclude forms that don't meet that definition. ....though that's arguably a weak position.

Further, Glenshaw was citing the simple definitions of gross income as they exist under the law at the time. Strongly suggesting that the law's definition of income would have an impact over the standards applied by the court. If the law's definition of gross income changed, the court's application could change as well. This is a stronger argument.

All and all, I think your position is strong enough that the courts would definitely have to decide if this is even constitutional.

 

[BackAgain]

I believe in a fair tax system that is simple in nature, apply to everyone, and is as low as possible to provide for the country's defense and necessary infrastructure. Such a system would tax gains in assets whenever they changed hands.

That is essentially a realized gain.

If you buy a thousand shares of company z at $10.00 per share, you are out $10k cash but have acquired value of $10k. While you are holding those shares, one day the price reaches a high of $57.00/share.

You are “up” $47,000. But, you don’t sell.

Harris would tax your paper gain (if you are within that class of what she arbitrarily labels “wealthy”) a quarter of that gain.

But what if you are later forced to sell all your shares in company z at a loss (say $5.00/share)?

Worse yet, this disrupts all investors’ various analyses of how to invest and for how long. It is very likely to create presently unforeseen market consequences.

 

[Marener]

I suppose it's too much to expect Harris to actually make an endorsement.

So, as long as someone heard someone say Harris is endorsing the Biden plan, the weak and gullible can run with that. As long as you and the NY Times say so.

Fine. Have it your way. Harris doesn’t want to tax unrealized capital gains.

Happy?