https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/massive-tax-increases-coming-second-biden-term

lol at bitch bois and their pathetic crypto and brokerage account that they will have to pay taxes on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591064)

We'll just tax them based on the highest amount that the asset in question (BTC, Stonk, etc) was worth in any given calendar year on the open market. Because ya know, you *could* have sold it at that price and *that* would have been a taxable event! It's a *fact*!

;)

PS: Don't worry, a government that will try to pull shit like this would NEVER just shamelessly make it "legal" for them to raid your 401(k) down the line in the name of "promoting racial equity" or "addressing legacies of systemic racism" or whatever. Haha. Keep contributing, goys! It's a great use of your money! ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591081)

No. See PROPERTY TAXES.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593991)

Like real estate prices?

It's easy. You pick a valuation date.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593995)

On second thought, do it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591259)

"oh no, all the elites sucking the marrow out of our country will just move elsewhere! what will we do without the PE ghouls?!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591277)

Also, PE ghouls have a specific tax loophole that just needs to be closed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591455)

this is without even touching the obvious roadblocks of (1) how tf could wealth held in land, property, american businesses, etc. ever leave the country to begin with? and (2) what countries would they be going to that has more lenient tax policy for the rich than the us?

but yeah, uh, i guess apple will just dissolve it's american corporations and reform in uruguay or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591493)

As to other things, like land (land is inherently American, right?) that land can be either a) be held by a foreign corp, or b) simply sold with the proceeds transferred abroad.

"what countries would they be going to that has more lenient tax policy for the rich than the us?"

Singapore, UAE, Hong Kong, etc. There are advisors that do nothing but answer questions like these.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591590)

holy shit i guess we're on the same page, sign me up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593233)

Did you know Hitler expropriated factories from foreign entities and designated them for use by the German people? Odd case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593243)

many of the founders were concerned about this. accumulated generational wealth is just hereditary artisocrscy without the titles. paine proposed a 10% inheritance tax.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593279)

that's a spending and distribution issue. right now we have a government spending taxpayer money on dumb shit and distributing it poorly, and all that many comes from wage earners. i'd like the money to come from the wealthy at the very least in equal proportion. spending it wisely would be great too, but it's two different things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593349)

No question here the government spends money poorly. I wish they wouldn't spend it at all. Raising taxes on the rich is only cool if it means lowering them for the poor and middle class. I have never heard of a tax increase on the rich that lowers taxes for anyone else in my entire life. If you find one historical example I'd like to know. The "best" tax cut I've heard of is the flat tax which benefitted everyone, although it benefitted rich people more which makes people like you's heads explode.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593400)

we're deficit spending and have been for some time, so i don't think tax cuts are a great idea. and all i'm advocating for the wealthy being taxed as much as the middle class. lowering taxes there would be a nice bonus, but at the very least i think they should be getting taxed at the rate of their laborers.

lol @ flat tax though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593463)

higher taxes will ONLY lead to more spending though. This is a fact. It's inarguably. The more we take in, the more people will demand more programs. There's no increase in revenue that means less spend. This has never happened. No appetite for this. So don't lie.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593474)

i don't see what's so controversial about insisting that billionaires at least pay what their workers pay. you just said you were in favor of a flat tax, and this is that in principle. spending is a different thing entirely.

also, this type of thinking is the type of thing that keeps elites entrenched.

"we should make sure the kikes get taxed at the same rate as the goys"

"but the kike run government will waste it!"

"regardless of how it's spent, i don't think we should bare all the taxes."

"until the kike government gets to deficit neutral spending i refuse to tax the kikes."

"but that will never happen so long as the kikes run everything, because their spending benefits them at our expense too. why should we let them take our money to spend on themselves? shouldn't they, at the very least, bare an equal burden?"

"NO NEW TAXES!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593553)

should wealthy people pay a lower rate in taxes (often nothing) than wage earners whose net worth is frequently $0 or less?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47594099)

if you want to say a wealth tax will be hard to achieve that's fine but it's not what we're talking about. you're saying it shouldn't be attempted at all because it will just result in more spending. actually achieving it is a separate issue entirely, and i agree it's a pipe dream.

hypothetically, if a wealth tax in some form was proposed that would tax billionaires at the same rage as wagies, would you be for or against?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47594147)

I'll never forget I remember him telling me it was "too high!" I asked him why it was so low he said "Because we have to encourage people to take risks with their capital! There should be a reward for investing! Businesses need to be funded!" and then he spat all over me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47594229)

your logic that the law could not accomplish something because the current law has mechanisms that prevent it is circular. legal entities, trusts, securities, etc. are all fictional.

"Singapore, UAE, Hong Kong, etc. There are advisors that do nothing but answer questions like these."

so silicon valley is just going to pack up and move to these places? finance is fiction. the iphones apples makes and the cars tesla sells are real. a $100m coastal house in bel-air is real. a holding company is not. the dollars that it could be sold for are not. they are legal fictions and tokens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47592749)

By the way, Venezuela tried this. How did it work out?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593105)

taxing wealth at the same level as umc wagecucks won't cause people to flee the country you dumbfuck. and they could be prevented from doing so anyway.

there is probably some level of wealth tax that will lead to some sort of brain drain. however, i don't think if the wealthy are forced to pay tax rate as me will do it. buffet and plenty of other billionaires agree with me. even trump once proposed a large wealth tax on the ultra wealthy.

it's stunning that libertarian cucks like you are fine with bezos and his progeny paying no tax until the end of time because "oh are blessed billionaires and their generational wealth are sacred!" and then fork over 30%+ of your income like a good lil' boy. can't think of anything more cucked than that, really.

also nice "oof." and i get lambasted for reddit shit. that's a big yikes from me dawg!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593251)

Absolutely. If taxes increased dramatically and QOL declined (and yes, that's how it works) then you would absolutely see shifts to other places of the world.

"taxing wealth at the same level as umc wagecucks won't cause people to flee the country you dumbfuck"

Depends on what their alternatives are.

"there is probably some level of wealth tax that will lead to some sort of brain drain. however, i don't think if the wealthy are forced to pay tax rate as me will do it"

At least you recognize the first sentence. Now, stop and think about what that rate might be and what would influence that.

"it's stunning that libertarian cucks like you are fine with bezos and his progeny paying no tax until the end of time because "oh are blessed billionaires and their generational wealth are sacred!""

I raised some proposals I'm fine with ITT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593446)

2. Death tax makes more sense than this.

3. Slash spending. Our idiotic congress is planning on sending $100 billion abroad to foreign countries over the weekend. That should be a total nonstarter. The question isn't who we should tax to pay for it, it is how do we stop doing stupid shit like this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591461)

2) fine, but this is simply another form of a wealth tax

3) reducing spending doesn't really address the issue of UMC wagecucks funding everything regardless of how much money we spend. but yes, spending should be cut.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591581)

2) but a far more reasonable one for a bunch of reasons.

3) speaking as a UMC wagecuck, that's simultaneously true and not true. It is true in that the burden on the UMC is insane, but this doesn't inherently change that particularly since it is easy to modify this in a way that it primarily hurts us. It is untrue in that when you constantly spend too much you are left constantly hunting for new sources of tax revenue. Because the truly rich can leave and start over somewhere else and we generally can't, we end up getting hosed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591979)

anyway, i agree that the government should incentivize entrepreneurship and commerce. i think our current regime does the exact opposite regarding tax policy by allowing massive wealth accumulation to be completely untaxed and instead taxing wage earners only. not only is it unfair, it stifles competition and commerce by allowing de facto quasi monopolies. it's the same as trust busting and the gilded age.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593505)

"anyway, i agree that the government should incentivize entrepreneurship and commerce. i think our current regime does the exact opposite regarding tax policy by allowing massive wealth accumulation to be completely untaxed and instead taxing wage earners only. not only is it unfair, it stifles competition and commerce by allowing de facto quasi monopolies. it's the same as trust busting and the gilded age."

Based on this, death tax above some large threshold is the most efficient tool.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593515)

i have some concerns about an inheritance tax being the sole measure but it is probably the easiest to implement, least controversial, and a good first start.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593566)

If this happened you would quickly see a fire sale of such assets along with general concerns about investing in the US. You would see wealth absolutely flee, property values crash and the start of a massive recession. I don't think you have any concept of how bad that would get, but it would make ITE look like a little economic blip.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593705)

0.5% on assets over $100m? 1%? 2%? obviously not, it doesn't even work out mathematically when you compound for growth if they stayed. there are a lot of other holes in this but it's easy to show this wouldn't happen at some wealth tax level.

again, i want to incentive growth and investment here. but i don't think giving the wealthy a free pass does that. and there is some level of taxation which will not cause a mass exodus, obviously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593763)

you're no better than a california shoplifter

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47592311)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5471233&mc=19&forum_id=2

you couldn't do it before but i'll give you another opportunity: why do you consider a tax on income not to be theft but a tax on wealth theft? the only difference taxing things you received during a year versus taxing things you have. in both cases the government is taking wealth people own.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47592959)

saying no taxes on anyone except the very wealthy, that's theft.

you support only taxing the very wealthy which is the same mindset as california shoplifting thieves. congrats.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47593967)

holy shit dude. i don't want to get into you with this in multiple threads, but this is just too good.

are you seriously not aware wealthy people report almost no income? for example, jeff bezos has often paid $0 in income tax, and in fact has received a child care tax credits designed for impoverished people?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47594138)

you fly around and change the topic like an adhd 8th grader

i'll start you out on an answer. it's not because they don't have any, but

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47596128)

TWIST: By strict definition, white goys "owning" anything is itself definitive proof of racism. These things go hand in hand, very directly and intentionally.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591428)

0% up to 100k for married people btw, and 15% after that up to about 600k. so, if you inherited a house worth $300k, you there are a substantial number of people that would not sell it because of the $30k in taxes?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47594158)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w50t6QtLMNwbdTnuZ_tBxVXMgOoshFw1/view

it also includes a lot of the stuff others suggested were needed.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-cuts-taxes-for-working-families-and-makes-big-corporations-and-the-wealthy-pay-their-fair-share/

note: this will never happen and biden doesn't actually support it. but a lot of people are talking out of their ass without taking 2 seconds to find out what the plan actually contains.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47592954)

(If you try to sit, sit) I'll tax your seat

(If you get too cold, cold) I'll tax the heat

(If you take a walk, walk) I'll tax your feet

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5518810&forum_id=2#47591859)