Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
No man she proposed 25% tax on unrealized capital gains as per Zucman communist proposal (he previously wrote proposals for Warren when she was big about the wealth tax). He is the guy that thinks the Laffer curve maxes out at around 70% (actual, not statutory)
Zucman himself, the crazy french marxist economist, bragged about it
The info people are getting this from comes from this statement I believe. I still have no clue what the “25% tax rate” means and certainly not what “average 8% tax rate means”
Requires Billionaires to Pay at Least 25 Percent of Income in Taxes. Billionaires make their money in ways that are often taxed at lower rates than ordinary wage income, or sometimes not taxed at all, thanks to giant loopholes and tax preferences that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. As a result, many of these wealthy Americans are able to pay an average income tax rate of just 8 percent on their full incomes—a lower rate than many firefighters or teachers. To finally address this glaring inequity, the President’s Budget includes a 25 percent minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01 percent, those with wealth of more than $100 million.
That’s not even getting to the fact that I doubt congress would pass it so seems like white noise tbh, but sure let me just get mad at something without finding out the details.
pro-tip don't live in alabama
.
Plenty of teachers in the Red states make $30K a year.
Tens of millions of people make $30K or less in the red states.
They also pay about a 1/3rd less there to live. Some states avg 250k for a home v 900k in cali with much less land. And they dont experience the homlessness per cap or the same gas prices or food prices.
We do already, we will gain massively from the British choice of ending non Dom status
https://www.rsm.global/italy/rsmsts/en/n...
Problem with the USA is the very fascist (and illegal under international law but you never care about that) fiscal claim on citizens even if they leave the country, which requires renouncing citizenship, unlike every other country in the world ex
That’s a whole bunch of crazy packed in there!
Try saving 2k per year in the sp500 since year 2000 and tell me how much you have now (Roth IRA given you have very low income taxes as a low earner)
I’ll give u even better .
250$ per month /3k a year since 2003 for 20 years .
250$ is a lot per month in 2003 since 1 once of gold was around 350$ !
I don’t think they would had enough money to buy a house and buy an ounce of gold every month but let’s take this aside .
The median average was around little over 600 per week -> 2500$ per month .
So 250$ a month , pretty high saving rate of 10% going into stocks
(and only stocks -> what a dumb idea but anyway)
and never touching it , reinvesting dividend .
After 20 year u spend 60k and end up with around 185k (60k investment included) .
Ok so what ?
We are light years away for making 1 million only .
So I don’t know what you are getting at .
U can make money in the stock markets but you need money to make money to begin with ….
That is why the top 10% own 90% of the stocks .
The game millionaires /billionaires play and the game median workers has isn’t even comparable .
Plenty of teachers in the Red states make $30K a year.
Tens of millions of people make $30K or less in the red states.
This is false (and this was in 2022)
https://study.com/academy/popular/teache...
10th percentile (worst paid) in the worst state (Montana) is 28.7k
No other state has 10th percentile lower than 30k. Vast majority of teachers in red state make 40k or more, almost all more than 30k
"Plenty"
They are also building a golden pension for that salary, which makes saving less relevant for them.
I’ll give u even better .
250$ per month /3k a year since 2003 for 20 years .
250$ is a lot per month in 2003 since 1 once of gold was around 350$ !
I don’t think they would had enough money to buy a house and buy an ounce of gold every month but let’s take this aside .
The median average was around little over 600 per week -> 2500$ per month .
So 250$ a month , pretty high saving rate of 10% going into stocks
(and only stocks -> what a dumb i
At that point you, with a terrible under avg salary, have 185k to your name (tax free, compounding tax free). At 38-40.
You have 20+ years more to save and compound + your wife does.
That means you can easily retire with more than 1m in stocks as a couple, both with trash (ie super under average) jobs.
And then in retirement it keeps going, and your children inherit that and it's GG, Perma middle class or better.
Unless they squander the savings that is
The info people are getting this from comes from this statement I believe. I still have no clue what the “25% tax rate” means and certainly not what “average 8% tax rate means”
That’s not even getting to the fact that I doubt congress would pass it so seems like white noise tbh, but sure let me just get mad at something without finding out the details.
They consider the increase in asset values income even if unrealized and want to tax that at 25% for people over 100m.
They consider not paying taxes on that and let it accrue compound interest a sort of tax elusion.
Even jijou got it
They consider the increase in asset values income even if unrealized and want to tax that at 25% for people over 100m.
They consider not paying taxes on that and let it accrue compound interest a sort of tax elusion.
Even jijou got it
They consider this, they consider that... if that's the case what do they mean when they say 8% effective tax rate. That is meaningless in the context of what you're talking about. Again, my problem with this proposal isn't that it's bad, it's that I have no idea what is even being said there. Yeah, you can say that makes the policy bad, but I have to see what they mean by it before I say it's what you're talking about.
I don't agree with this policy but I also think it's a pipe dream. The main reason I don't agree with it is because it seems like it's targeting a relatively small amount of taxes for very minimal reward. But even the super wealthy themselves have made light of how little they pay in taxes, so I would be fine with finding constructive ways to raise taxes in such a way that it impacts the middle class as little as possible. Or even just finding ways to tax rich people that would allow offsetting tax cuts on the middle class.
I mostly don't like policies that are taking advantage of populist sentiment while putting forth policies that they know have no chance of passing. So far I would say that's my biggest criticism of Kamala's policies. But if you read between the lines, the things I think are attainable are really good ideas, like cutting red tape and unnecessary regulations on development of new housing (one of my personal pet issues).
They consider this, they consider that... if that's the case what do they mean when they say 8% effective tax rate. That is meaningless in the context of what you're talking about. Again, my problem with this proposal isn't that it's bad, it's that I have no idea what is even being said there. Yeah, you can say that makes the policy bad, but I have to see what they mean by it before I say it's what you're talking about.
I don't agree with th
Please read again.
Right now their calculations show them that billionaires only pay 8% of their "full income" yearly, including asset appreciation as income.
They want to increase that to 25 as a form of AMT , including unrealized capital gains.
I know that because I read the enemy (zucman in this case) and he has papers on this.
Red tape on housing isn't a federal issue, is that part clear or should ee pretend it is for the sake of it? Red tape is worse in democrat controlled areas, they could and should have cut it already, they didn't, and someone running for a job that has no power over that tells you they want to cut it, when their own party members could cut it like many republicans did, but they dont.
Are they believable?
Please read again.
Right now their calculations show them that billionaires only pay 8% of their "full income" yearly, including asset appreciation as income.
They want to increase that to 25 as a form of AMT , including unrealized capital gains.
I know that because I read the enemy (zucman in this case) and he has papers on this.
Red tape on housing isn't a federal issue, is that part clear or should ee pretend it is for the sake of it? Red ta
Trump also doesn’t have the power to pass modernization reforms on the military, what is your point? Do you seriously not understand the role of the President in setting policy? They have the power to put pressure in various ways using the bully pulpit and using their deal-making abilities. For instance, they can free up funding for housing using HUD. They can propose bills that subsidize pro-housing policies. She also never promised these would be in Blue states, she just said she is targeting building 3 million new homes. She is president of the whole country, my friend.
I just feel like your standards for Kamala are way different than your standards for Trump. For instance you argued that you “read the enemy” but when we talk about Project 2025, you say Trump is against it. I’m willing to say that it’s at least a data point towards your argument once you admit Trump probably knows of P2025 and will try to implement it.
No I don't understand the role of POTUS to set policy at the state and local level because he can't.
It's already a stretch to allow POTUS candidates to have plans about laws to be passed by Congress but at least there is some causal link between a president and it's party in Congress.
There is none at the local level.
Which is why Biden was president for 3.5 years and local Democrats did nothing to cut housing red tape.
I said Trump said he has nothing to do with p25, while acknowledging a lot of it is in trump platform. Ofc he will try to implement firing civil servants, deporting illegals and so on, he is transparent about that.
And so if Harris wants to tax unrealized capital gains and she writes it down, that's a problem
At that point you, with a terrible under avg salary, have 185k to your name (tax free, compounding tax free). At 38-40.
You have 20+ years more to save and compound + your wife does.
That means you can easily retire with more than 1m in stocks as a couple, both with trash (ie super under average) jobs.
And then in retirement it keeps going, and your children inherit that and it's GG, Perma middle class or better.
Unless they squander the saving
38-40 ?
damn what age u finish school and what job u did be able to invest 250$ a month non stop for 20 years ?
having a car ?
girlfriend ?
house ?
kids ?
you are impressive for sure.
ps: if we take the same relative measurement taking gold price of today that 250$ a month would be around today over a 1400$ a month easily....
AND again, that is all-in in stock lol...
Did u ever manage money ?
what a dumb idea.
ah yes, market never go down.
No I don't understand the role of POTUS to set policy at the state and local level because he can't.
It's already a stretch to allow POTUS candidates to have plans about laws to be passed by Congress but at least there is some causal link between a president and it's party in Congress.
There is none at the local level.
Which is why Biden was president for 3.5 years and local Democrats did nothing to cut housing red tape.
I said Trump said he ha
dont u find this a problem ?
Is free speech and freedom of thinking w.e u want to be prevalent or it only applies to only what u actually agree with ?
No I don't understand the role of POTUS to set policy at the state and local level because he can't.
It's already a stretch to allow POTUS candidates to have plans about laws to be passed by Congress but at least there is some causal link between a president and it's party in Congress.
There is none at the local level.
Which is why Biden was president for 3.5 years and local Democrats did nothing to cut housing red tape.
I said Trump said he ha
You don’t even understand what goes on in a blue state. How could you, you’ve never stepped foot in a city counsel meeting. NIMBYs are a horrific amalgam of elitist liberal home owners that want to preserve “historic buildings” which often becomes an excuse to block developers, and conservative homeowners that don’t want apartments to be built in their neighborhood because they’re afraid of bringing down home values. Having a president that is supportive of more developer friendly policies can have a huge impact on what down ballot people run on, especially if it becomes a popular issue.
Bare in mind that at my current city counsel a cabal of like 40 dedicated home owners are able to come in and harass the city counsel to block pretty much any new proposed development, and the current acting mayor is a developer who has tried to push through new development but are blocked by the concern trolling and sometimes outright deceit of these psychos. She has proposed giving up federal land and lowering taxes to get this through, isn’t that something you should like? I’d have to see the details of her 40 billion dollar proposal to help localities come up with solutions on how to lower barriers to building, but again the devil is in the details on that.
I would say it’s awesome that we can actually debate the policy specifics of Kamala’s platform now, as a contrast to Trump who just wants to obfuscate and run on platitudes like “end inflation” on his own platform. Probably because all he cares about is getting back in power so he can avoid accountability.
You don’t even understand what goes on in a blue state. How could you, you’ve never stepped foot in a city counsel meeting. NIMBYs are a horrific amalgam of elitist liberal home owners that want to preserve “historic buildings” which often becomes an excuse to block developers, and conservative homeowners that don’t want apartments to be built in their neighborhood because they’re afraid of bringing down home values. Having a president that
Why didn't Biden do it , if it can work, it's basically free for the federal government, and why is the cabal working the way it is with a "supportive president in the white house"? because they don't give a **** about the president in your city council and in all others.
You have just described exactly why it has 0 to do with the federal government. Sometimes depending on state constitutions it could be a state matter, sometimes not even that , it stays an exclusively local matter.
Trump is proposing as well to build a lot on federal land but that doesn't help much (might in the long run, who knowns) because the price pressure is in desirable existing areas where it's not about undeveloped federal land.
If you deport millions of people from dense areas that significantly decreases housing prices. It's not a platitude, it's an obvious effect.
You don’t even understand what goes on in a blue state. How could you, you’ve never stepped foot in a city counsel meeting. NIMBYs are a horrific amalgam of elitist liberal home owners that want to preserve “historic buildings” which often becomes an excuse to block developers, and conservative homeowners that don’t want apartments to be built in their neighborhood because they’re afraid of bringing down
I agree with nearly all of this but I hope you're joking about "elitist liberal homeowners." NIMBYism is about the most bipartisan activity I can think of for douchebag busybody locals over 45 short of bingo and I don't care how blue the state or district is, D+10, D+20, doesn't matter I've been there and seen it. You will absolutely and consistently see plenty of representation from all types. And I mean literally anywhere you might build anything that would add an iota of traffic or displace a squirrel. More so when facing proposals for apartments or so-called affordable housing within their zip code.
If anything the elitist liberal types might be slightly more cautious when using euphemisms to describe what and who they don't want anywhere near their neighborhood, but that's about it.
I agree with nearly all of this but I hope you're joking about "elitist liberal homeowners." NIMBYism is about the most bipartisan activity I can think of for douchebag busybody locals over 45 short of bingo and I don't care how blue the state or district is, D+10, D+20, doesn't matter I've been there and seen it. You will absolutely and consistently see plenty of representation from all types. And I mean literally anywhere you might build
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/6q613q9hp3/t...
July 2022 poll, republicans are more in favour of reducing regulations relative to building houses than democrats.
43-40 for republicans, vs 39-45 for democrats. And this is with whites going 35-44 and old people going 31-56
Might not look huge but at the margin in can mean a lot.
This means white old democrats oppose reducing regulation A TON MORE than white old republicans, and white old people are a core constituency in councils as you all know, they have time on their hands to go there on workdays and so on.
Luciom having seen your other work you here are not nearly qualified to argue with me on this issue, this is something both I my wife have a combined 40 years of dealing with firsthand. Insta-Google all the stats you want but even just a quick glance at those figures tells me the methodology likely sampled general population and not homeowners, and certainly not who shows up to the council meetings. Maybe all those slighty/not sure types all live where you do but that's not who shows up around here.
We could talk about homeownership rates (and values) sorted by age and political affiliation and dig into all of that, which would make somewhat more sense than your lazy attempt here, but the point is that NIMBY types are far more active and vocal when these come up. If you ever once stepped foot into one of these proposal meetings you'd immediately realize you were looking at a VERY specific subset influencing local policy. You don't get outraged mailers telling you to attend in support of new construction to provide more affordable housing, it's to show up and stop the so-and-so from ruining so-and-so and causing traffic.
EDIT: Granted, I never polled everyone in attendance and it's at least possible that all of those disproportionately white aging homeowners are liberals while the conservatives are all at home hoping that lower income families can get that much needed apartment complex built, but some of those rants make it a little hard to believe.
They consider the increase in asset values income even if unrealized and want to tax that at 25% for people over 100m.
They consider not paying taxes on that and let it accrue compound interest a sort of tax elusion.
Even jijou got it
You act like it is so hard to understand that the ultra rich pay very little taxes and have a bevy of lawyers and accounts taking advantage of every loophole. The no capital gain until divestment coupled with the increased basis at death basically eliminates any tax on these holdings when the party never will have any financial reason to sell.
This never effects anyone with a 401k.
You act like it is so hard to understand that the ultra rich pay very little taxes and have a bevy of lawyers and accounts taking advantage of every loophole. The no capital gain until divestment coupled with the increased basis at death basically eliminates any tax on these holdings when the party never will have any financial reason to sell.
This never effects anyone with a 401k.
Ye which is why i wrote to change that insane thing of the cost basis reset at death, which afaik only the USA worldwide has.
Unlike taxing unrealized capital gains, which almost no country in the world does.
Think about why Harris goes with the latter and not the former though
Harris is proposing taxing UNREALIZED capital gains 25%, can we call it communist expropriation now or even this doesn't qualify? There are very few countries in the world who tax unrealized capital gains
25% on $1M isn't 100% on every capital gain, so this isn't communist. As I understand it, it's 25% on gains over $1M, btw.
25% on $1M isn't 100% on every capital gain, so this isn't communist. As I understand it, it's 25% on gains over $1M, btw.
?
It's 25% of UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS for everyone with more than 100m.
You start the year at 200m net worth (a nice house car and stuff , and 195m in stocks in your company).
End of year your stock is worth 500m, because a round of financing of your company valued it as such.
In almost no country in the world you pay anything on those virtual 300m. You pay on the 2-3m you take in as salary.
In Kamala world they sequester 25% of those 300m which you never actually touched and which you don't have, they want 75m for the paper value of the stock you own which is worth that maybe right now but who knows when you will finally cash in.
You can't sell (keyman clause, illiquid, whatever), it's your turn.
Kamala red guard wants 75m or it's prison time. You never had 75m cash in any bank account.
Your move, welcome to Kamala world
