"We Have A Historic Opportunity" - Senator Wyden Releases Dems' Plan To Tax Unrealized Capital Gains

Speaking of "no proof"... that's exactly what you have calling Trump a "criminal". No proof... after endless investigations, over and over, even a trial... YEARS OF IT... NO PROOF.

 

oh, so now your changing it to "Almost everyone was "lucky""

what happened to everyone gut lucky?

 

Since you made your entire reply about you-- what you don't want, what you think others should do, and how you feel about the way, "things are"-- I see no reason to change that, to go into a long argument over facts that I would suspect you are not even interested in. Instead, I'll ask you one question: if you are single, do you make over $400 k a year or, if you file a joint income tax return, with your wife (or partner), do the two of you have income that exceeds $800k per year? I have a strong hunch that your answer will conform with what the odds would predict as the very likely answer: no. In this case, the original plan would not have affected your tax bill at all. So, there should go your objection.

If you plan on responding that you don't believe that it would not have affected your taxes, please supply an actual reason why this would not have been the case.

Of course, it is all hypothetical now, since Senator Sinema reportedly has nixed a big part of how the Dems had planned to pay for the plan: by returning the corporate tax rate to where it had been, before Trump lowered it-- apparently, a great number of Arizonans are concerned about this (sarcasm). The Dems came up with a solution to this funding problem, with Sinema being agreeable to the alternative, Senator Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax-- and before you start complaining about not wanting your wealth taxed, it didn't kick in until you reached something like $50 million in net worth (so probably wouldn't apply to you)-- but then the thorn in the Democrats' other side, Sen. Joe Manchin, reportedly objected to that.

I have lost nearly all my faith in these two Senators' sincerity, at this point. Whatever gets salvaged from the plan will either no longer be fully balanced by increases in revenue, will be only a faint echo of what had originally been intended, or perhaps both. Free Community College, even with means testing, is reportedly out. I thought I heard, today, that the increased child tax credit is out, though I'm not sure, as that would be rather surprising. There is talk of universal pre-kindergarten also being on the chopping block. I hope that some of this reporting is erroneous, but at this point, the sensible course for commentators, wishing to evaluate the bill, is to wait to see what it ends up retaining, from its original design.

 

Gees I get tired of bums looking for free this... free that... free the other thing. Such bums do vex me.

 

I don't know what you expect me to do with that. It hardly can be called an actual, "argument." And I am certainly not going to put much effort into explaining the difference between "free stuff," and health care, child care, elder care, & higher education for those who cannot afford these things. Perhaps it is too subtle a distinction for your mind to fathom, but these "give-aways," actually benefit the nation, as a whole. It does not serve the nation, if our workers our under-educated. It does not serve our nation, if people cannot work because of a lack of anyone to mind their young children. Or to lack healthcare coverage. In a country of 330 MILLION PEOPLE, it is truly elementary level thinking, to believe one's own circumstances are representational, and a fair gauge, of everyone else's. Maybe you achieved whatever your full potential was; good for you. But a society should try to be conducive to all to do the same; and when citizens achieve their aspirations, overall society also benefits greatly. I could go on, but you probably have a Soldier of Fortune magazine, to get back to.

 

People with special needs need help and should get it. But folks who are simply too lazy to EARN for themselves... don't. I would appreciate you losing the condescending and insulting attitude... it says a lot about your actual and emotional age... and its not good.
I have seen people from disadvantaged backgrounds exceed without burdening anyone else. One of my roommates at West Point was raised in a urine smelling tenement in Spanish Harlem with no dad in sight. He worked hard and is an MD today. Another was the son of a coal miner and is a retired Colonel today. I love to see my tax dollars spent on those who actually need it, but hate to see my tax dollars wasted on bums that just want to "get over". I'm sorry if this is too difficult for you to fathom.

 

Please read... https://www.atr.org/10-problems-taxing-unrealized-gains

 

I'm not "changing" anything. I never claimed "everyone" (I'm not sure anyone did or if that's just a strawman you created). I will note, however that you're still being evasive. If your taxes went up, why are you so cagey about giving us specifics about how much / why?

 

Oh, really...Well that really means something, coming from the obviously mature, and very considerate, person who wrote this:

Also, Ein*****, the last line of your post, in which you faulted MY condescending attitude-- "I'm sorry if this is too difficult for you to fathom"-- is, itself, your own condescending attempt at an insult (not to mention, the crack about my, "emotional age"). Regardless of that, be assured, there is no sensible thought that you can express, that is beyond my ability to comprehend-- that is abundantly clear at this point, at least to me. Though it may not be so, to you-- then again, you could not even fathom the nature of your own remark, so my expectations for you are rather low. Maybe seeing how long it takes you to grasp this obvious difference in the relative depths of our fathoming capabilities, will provide my mind with an interesting diversion, while plodding through your hypocritical ramblings.

Again, there is nothing there, that is difficult to fathom; it is a curious thing, that you even believe that it could be. It is proof, however, that you did not understand my comment, in the post to which you are responding:

I guess I should have been more clear, for you: when I said that your own experiences were not representative of 330 million people, I had not added that, nor would those of a handful of people, from among those you have known throughout your life, be an adequate sampling-- my mistake, for not spelling out the ramifications of the number I cited, to the necessary degree to afford your appreciation of my meaning. Yes, and I hear that Clarence Thomas came from humble beginnings, as well; but there are only so many Supreme Court openings, to fill. Oh, I guess I should explain, so you don't misunderstand again, that I know that there were other jobs held by Justice Thomas, which would be admirable accomplishments: judgeships, or even just becoming a lawyer. But I would venture that the price of law school has far outstripped the rate of inflation, not to mention the rate of wage-growth, for those at the bottom end of the spectrum, since those days, so that what worked for Thomas might not actually suffice for someone, today, trying to follow in his footsteps. And even if there might be an exceptional case, in which extraordinary talent and luck combined, to allow someone to do something like this, it would not mean that it would be a template for success, that could be copied by any significant number of people. That is why free Community College, at least for those in need, is a worthwhile thing. And, in fact, you agreed, that you did not mind help for those, "with special needs," but you did not define what you meant by that expression. Still, I see no justification for your presumption, that everything in the "build back better," plan is "free this... free that... free the other thing," and characterizing all those who would benefit from the provisions in this plan as, "bums," who do so,"vex," you. There was no further analytical depth to that post of yours, for one to fathom. So, again, your expressing indignation over having your own sensitive feelings hurt by my, "condescending attitude," seems inconsistent with your own posts.

Further, though you did not elaborate on the vexing, I explained that your taxes were never a target for the funds for these programs. And the result of these programs, will be more successful people, to contribute more to the country's tax base, which will mean fewer bums, just looking for free stuff. So what is your well thought-out, and explicit (thoroughly, & unambiguously explained) objection?

 

Too bad, but look on the bright side, NOW you can pay even more under Biden AND still blame it on Trump!

 

as long as you are now admiting some people were not lucky during Trump's tax cuts and their taxes went up, were good

 

we will see, Biden still has over 3 years to go

Trump is history now

 

who is a Trump supporter?

Hmm, you may wish to get a smaller brush as your broad brush isn't working. Just because I am aware of the disgusting history of Democrats, the folks for whom you vote, does not make me a supporter of a specific man.

 

I find it very disturbing that you seem to think that the "norm" in America is to be lazy and live off the government. That is not how the country became great. It is, however, how the country will dissolve.

 

Again, you are confused. There's no "now admitting". I've always recognized there was some minuscule fraction of people whose taxes may have gone up. It's a tiny percentage. The vast majority of people received a tax cut under President Trump. AFAICT, "everyone" was a strawman that you constructed out of a figment of your imagination.

 

I guess I was one of the unlucky ones then

 

Paid about 8.9% under Obama (average), about 8.8% under Trump.
Wasn't much difference, except that last year. They reduced the amount of withholding last year, which resulted in me paying more in April.

 

Perhaps, but don't you feel good now knowing you're paying your fair share?

 

don't mind, I just mind those making more than me paying less tax per dollar than I do

 

Who will cost me about 10x what he saves

Wasn't Trump supposed to be for the little guy who doesn't have his own tax attorney on staff?

 

It is, IN FACT, YOUR COMMENT, which indicates that YOU believe it to be the norm for Americans to be lazy. In consideration of the current, human infrastructure package, which had aimed to provide access to affordable child care, elderly care, and higher education options, you replied:

AARguy said: ↑
Gees I get tired of bums looking for free this... free that... free the other thing. Such bums do vex me.
<End Snip>

That you encounter this situation enough for it to "vex," you, and to be tired of it, means that you find it to be commonplace. But, of course, one of your intellect, realizes this. Therefore you know that you are hypocritically projecting your own feelings, onto me.

Please cite, if you can, what I said in my post, which leads you to your very dubious conclusion, that I, "seem to think," that the American norm is to lazily live off the government. This is an utterly fallacious take-away, on your part, which does not say much for the potency of your mind's fathoming acumen, which you were so defensive about, when I even suggested that there was something which was possibly escaping your appreciation.

BTW, I had not specified that your not fathoming the difference between these things, listed in my first paragraph (above), and just, "free stuff," for bums, as you categorize them, was the result of any deficiency in your intelligence; rather, the clear indication (from your quoted comment, above) is your lack of any empathy for, or interest in, the difficulties which others, who would benefit from the bill, encounter. It is, in truth, this condescending attitude of yours, which occasioned my response which you criticized for being condescending towards you (while simultaneously making condescending remarks towards me). So, if my condescension, "says a lot about my...emotional age...that's not good," then what should we infer about your own emotional age, from your ubiquitous condescension?

 

How the hell can you tax gains that haven't happened yet?!

 

SPEND LESS!!!!

 

The tax would apply to all stockholders. Also there are limits to capital losses to reduce tax liability. Luckily, It won't happen.

 

He was (/ is). That's why the vast majority of people paid less taxes, no CPA needed. Doubling of the standard deduction was particularly helpful in this regard.