Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains.

@Alientcp said in #30:
> ??
>
> You need money to generate income.
> The more income you have and use to produce money, the more you gain.
>
> It starts slow, but it grows over time. When you have enough money, it starts to skyrocket as in the graph.
>
> Thats a natural progression. There is nothing wrong with it.

Maybe you don't understand the graph?

You're saying it's cool for the economy if the top 1% see hyper-exponential gains, ad infinitum, while the other 99% of the population barely sees its wages grow over 40 years - while costs continue to balloon for everyone? People are actually much poorer now than they were, when you factor in the costs of living - buying a house, etc.

If the natual progression of capitalism is to accumulate all of the wealth in the very top echelon - then it is a broken system

@salmon_rushdie said in #15:
> Elon Musk paid an effective 1.1% tax rate

Didnt he paid 11 billion in 2021?

>billionaires store their wealth in non-liquid sources, and then use those sources as collateral on massive low rate loans that aren't taxed. This is how they use their money - not by selling their assets and using that cash.

They often receive money into transactions, which are taxed, then use that money after tax to get something else, including non liquid.

The government wants to tax that same dollar again. They do it quite frequently.

Say, you get a loan, which shouldnt be taxed because its debt, of say 10 million. They make whatever transaction, they get 30, they pay the bank, they get taxed, they end up with about 7 of their own. Then they invest those seven, which were already taxed, and get 20.

Only 13 should be subject to taxes, but the government tax from all 20. Rinse and repeat.

They are only protecting the money from being taxed again and again. They already learned.

@Alientcp said in #32:
> Didnt he paid 11 billion in 2021?

That was an unusual situation ... "He exercised his options to buy Tesla shares at the 2012 price, a move that caused the equity in those options to be taxable to him as wages. That became the source of the overwhelming bulk of Musk's 2021 tax liability"

> They often receive money into transactions, which are taxed, then use that money after tax to get something else, including non liquid.
>
> The government wants to tax that same dollar again. They do it quite frequently.
>
> Say, you get a loan, which shouldnt be taxed because its debt, of say 10 million. They make whatever transaction, they get 30, they pay the bank, they get taxed, they end up with about 7 of their own. Then they invest those seven, which were already taxed, and get 20.
>
> Only 13 should be subject to taxes, but the government tax from all 20. Rinse and repeat.
>
> They are only protecting the money from being taxed again and again. They already learned.
I posted plenty of data showing the effective tax rate between 3.5-8% amongst the top 25 richest Americans.

I've never heard a billionaire complain earnestly about paying too much taxes, the law is written by them - the loopholes in place. All it takes is their competent accountants to fully exploit them.

www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-the-rich-should-pay-higher-taxes.html

@salmon_rushdie said in #31:
> Maybe you don't understand the graph?

I do, its a natural progression.

> You're saying it's cool for the economy if the top 1% see hyper-exponential gains, ad infinitum, while the other 99% of the population barely sees its wages grow over 40 years - while costs continue to balloon for everyone? People are actually much poorer now than they were, when you factor in the costs of living - buying a house, etc.

The other 99% of the population should start trying to make their own business.
They are not poorer. They are the wealthiest society that has ever lived in the history of human kind.

What you are seeing about the dollar having less value is the rampant debt of the government.

This is just the tip of iceberg for first world countries that had never faced those issues that often they created somewhere else in order to become first world countries.

But there is a solution. Fix government spending. Stop corruption. The tax code works allright, you dont need to increase tax. you need to cut spending.

> If the natual progression of capitalism is to accumulate all of the wealth in the very top echelon - then it is a broken system
That has always been the natural progression of capitalism.
If you dont like, you can go to a socialist country. Its a free society.

@Alientcp
Yeah, how'd that work out in the 1930s lmao

That's how you break economies. IF you want the economy to completely crash from overconcentration of wealth, if you want 99% of people to live like peasants and a few like royalty, then sure take no actions.

Funny thing about what you say, is that a vastly smaller % of businesses have been able to flourish due to increasingly powerful and controlling monopolies like Amazon. Between 2004-2017 65,000 small businesses shuttered in the US and even more during covid.

"Stop corruption"
Lmao - what do you think causes corruption?

Hint: hyper billionaires who have gutted campaign finance and bribery laws through pouring money into elected officials

What do you think causes the inefficient spending?

Government contracting out to massive defense, & medical corporations which bribe govt officials and are allowed to get away with massively inflated prices.

How do you pay govt debt? With money, leveraged from the people who by and far profited most from its policies.

Hate to break it to you, but we live in a socialist country.

Socialism for the rich that is

@Alientcp

funny also how the actual billionaire, financial expert disagrees with you

"To Buffett, that means the next step should be figuring how to take care of people like “a guy who is a wonderful citizen” but “just doesn’t have market skills.”

His solution: Expand the earned income tax credit, which benefits people with low incomes. Even though “that probably means more taxes for guys like me,” Buffet said, “I’m fine with it.”

Fellow billionaire Bill Gates has made similar comments. “There’s no doubt that what we want government to do in terms of better education and better health care means that we need to collect more in taxes,” he said during a recent conversation in New York City. “And there’s no doubt that as we raise taxes, we can have most of that additional money come from those who are better off.”

Gates, like Buffett, acknowledges that he’s among those whose taxes should go up. “I need to pay higher taxes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a 2018 interview. “I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else, but the government should require people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes. The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population."

@salmon_rushdie said in #35:
> That's how you break economies. IF you want the economy to completely crash from overconcentration of wealth, if you want 99% of people to live like peasants and a few like royalty, then sure take no actions.

No. You dont break an economy from the over concentration of wealth. Money itself its not the wealth. Its the production of goods. As long as you have goods production, you are fine. But thats part of the issue too. There is less and less production, and more of it is overseas. Thats why china is getting stronger, they are producing.

>Between 2004-2017 65,000 small businesses shuttered in the US and even more during covid.

That is not Amazon problem, the problem is that the stores didnt had customers. The lockdown made sure they didnt had customers. Amazon would had troubles too if they didnt had customers. But their model is different.

But overall, before the lockdown, the small business were growing, which is consistent with the graph. At a certain point, when they are big enough, the graph starts to skyrocket for them too.

>"Stop corruption"
Lmao - what do you think causes corruption?

Greed. Corrupt leaders. Pay attention to who you elect.

>What do you think causes the inefficient spending?
USA had many great leaders over time. But that time has passed. Today, there are just clowns. They are debating between Trump and Harris. Thats how low they have gone. While I can say Trump is the better of the 2, both are a joke. A bad one.

Try get some one a bit more similar to Trump, but with a lot less flaws. Bring the jobs back to the country. Pay more attention to who is elected. Stop acquiring debt.

Those are the effects of bad leadership. Perhaps you have not seen it yet. I have. The rich are paying a fair share already.

@salmon_rushdie said in #36:
> funny also how the actual billionaire, financial expert disagrees with you.
>“There’s no doubt that what we want government to do in terms of better education and better health care means that we need to collect more in taxes”

Well, their premise to have more funds is to to collect more taxes.
Mine is that the government has to be more efficient with its spending.

>" The wealthy are definitely undertaxed relative to the general population."
Whats more? 30% of 100,000 or 25% of 20 million?

But in reality, the tax system is progressive. The less you earn, the less percentage you pay in taxes.
For the wealthy, it goes up to 45% of more. Thats almost half the income. Thats insane. And double or triple taxed in many occasions as described too.

What will happen if you tax more, they will just leave and find a place with lower taxes. They are the ones that generate most of the jobs to begin with. They will go, with their jobs and their money.

Efficient government. They are wasting tax money. The problem is not the income of the government, its the bleed of cash and the debt.

#29:
> Wow someone who has provided no sources wants sources. Lol

No one ever needs to prove a negative. In #28, the OP merely questions some unsubstantiated claims; the burden of proof is not on him, but on whoever is attempting to make those claims. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

I've always believed that when a policy debate turns personal, the debater who does that has run out of persuasive arguments. Why else resort to personal attack?

I don't think asking for sources is a personal attack. Does anybody? Indeed, if there are supporting sources, their production would actually strengthen the position of he or she who provides them on request.

Unless the sources are, you know, not very strong. As, for example, when somebody cites a source that is known to be clearly and unrelentingly partisan. I can think of some well-known sources that DO seem to be unrelentingly partisan. I suspect we all can name some such prominent source, although we might not all realize, or at least be willing to admit, every one of such prominent sources.

Why should we be wary of sources that are unrelentingly partisan? Because I think no political party is unrelentingly correct about everything. That's why I sometimes must admit disagreement with a party or politician that I usually support. Even if he or she has, you know, glorious boss hair.

That's a great exercise, by the way. It clears the mental pipes!