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

[Freedomisneverfree]

That dried up OLD slut KumWhore has so many Democrats brainwashed. You get what you vote for...

 

[BackAgain]

Say what you want about whether it is or isn’t a good idea, the point is that the government has precedent for taxing unrealized gains.

They once had precedent for “separate but equal” too.

Precedent, when wrong, should be changed.

The estate is valued using current market value of things including stocks and bonds which means it’s taxed based on the value of property, not income which includes unrealized gains.

That sentence is gibberish. If they’re based on current value, part of the current value is likely to include unrealized gains.

And it shouldn’t.

 

[Marener]

They once had precedent for “separate but equal” too.

Precedent, when wrong, should be changed.

That sentence is gibberish. If they’re based on current value, part of the current value is likely to include unrealized gains.

And it shouldn’t.

When the estate tax is found to be unconstitutional, your argument will be much stronger.

It’s over 100 years and that’s not yet happened.

 

[BackAgain]

When the estate tax is found to be unconstitutional, your argument will be much stronger.

It’s over 100 years and that’s not yet happened.

My argument is plenty strong. It’s the applications the Constitution to some laws that need work.

 

[Marener]

My argument is plenty strong. It’s the applications the Constitution to some laws that need work.

I eagerly await the SCOTUS decision declaring the estate tax unconstitutional.

 

[BackAgain]

I eagerly await the SCOTUS decision declaring the estate tax unconstitutional.

Good for you.

 

[Marener]

Good for you.

Any day now.

 

[BackAgain]

Any day now.

 

[hadit]

The only reason you got wealthy was because of the laws this country gave you. As a gesture of gratitude, you ate obligated to pay your fair share in taxes.

Oh, I certainly pay my fair share. Can you even define what that is beyond just saying, "MORE"?

 

[AntonToo]

Yes, her stupid idea isn't original.

It is fundamentally an annual income tax, not wealth tax.

Unrealized capital gains still aren't income.

...do you seriously not understand what you are explained?

Unrealized capital gains FOR THE YEAR would be taxed as if they were part of income FOR THE YEAR.

No, they would not apply to capital gains from prior years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...do you seriously not understand what you are explained?

Unrealized capital gains would be taxed as if they were annual income, not wealth.

But it is not income.
There is a definition of income in the tax code.
Unrealized capital gains aren't included.

 

[AntonToo]

But it is not income.
There is a definition of income in the tax code.
Unrealized capital gains aren't included.

Dummy I don't give a shit what you call it, unrealized capital gains would still be part of taxable income for the year and not prior years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dummy I don't give a shit what you call it, it would still be part of taxable income.

It's not income and it can't currently be taxed.

 

[Nostra]

Do you have unrealized capital gains?

Anyone who has a 401K, or owns a home that has increased in value does.....among other things.

 

[Nostra]

Ain't no one here going to be paying this tax.

Only because this moronic idea is DOA.

Doesn't change the fact Commiela wants to do it.

 

[Nostra]

The mistake you're making is in counting the total unrealized capital gains since 1980 as the annually taxable amount. That's incorrect. The proposed tax on unrealized capital gains would apply to the increases in value that year. Which you'd pay only once. Not the total change in valuation since the purchase in previous years, paid every year.

So a stock was purchased at $10.00 a share and during the year increased to $12.00 a share, the portion that would be subject to unrealized capital gains taxes would be $2.00 per share. At 25%, that would be fifty cents per share. You pay that once.

However, the next year if there is no increase and the shares remain at $12.00, there would be no unrealized gains and thus no taxes on those shares. You do not have to pay the fifty cents per share unrealized capital gains taxes AGAIN from the previous year. You pay them only once, on the increase in value for a given year.

However, if the 3rd year the price went up to $15.00 a share, the unrealized capital gains tax would be on the difference in value for that year: $12.00 increasing to $15.00, for a total of $3 per share being subject to unrealized capital gains taxes. And only once.

NOT the original purchase price of $10.00 increasing to $15.00, for a total of $5 per share being subject to taxation and every year, as your example above portrayed.

What happens if the stock goes down to $5?

She giving you a rebate?

 

[AntonToo]

It's not income and it can't currently be taxed.

....are you drunk?

We are talking about a tax proposal that supposedly could be passed under Kamala, not current tax law.

 

[Nostra]

Dummy I don't give a shit what you call it, unrealized capital gains would still be part of taxable income for the year and not prior years.

How is it income if it is unrealized, Simp?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....are you drunk?

We are talking about a tax proposal that would supposedly could would be passed under Kamala, not current tax law.

She'd need to amend the Constitution to tax something that isn't income.

 

[krichton]

Isn't this 25% capital gains tax only applied to those worth 100 million or more? I love how right wing plebs and serfs are constantly idolizing the insanely wealthy, all while licking their boots