2024 Presidential Election

[C0|dB|00ded]

Why would a person with $100M invest in anything in the United States if they are going to get it taxed into oblivion year after year until they are right back to $100M, regardless of how well they do? No investor will invest a single cent if it's all risk and zero reward.

True, folks with big bucks are highly mobile, as is their cash. America can make it VERY expensive to move your money around if you are living under the big beautiful umbrella that is the US of A.

Getting taxed "into oblivion" and taking capital gains from an uber-wealthy individual that has been watching their wealth multiply for decades isn't the same thing.

No investor will invest a single cent if it's all risk and zero reward.

This isn't even close to true and you know it. Plus, there are 10's of millions of stock market investors who will never be taxed in this manner. We are ONLY talking about a group of 9,850 Americans. And the final group will be even smaller as not every single one of these will qualify.

There are thousands more of these "centi-millionaires" living outside the U.S. who likely have exposure to our markets.

Again, I am not an official proponent of this tax. I'm just cussing and discussing it as one solution to the wealth gap. I'm open to talk about any others... like abolishing the Dept. of Educ... lol

[Ta Town Shocker]

Why would a person with $100M invest in anything in the United States if they are going to get it taxed into oblivion year after year until they are right back to $100M, regardless of how well they do? No investor will invest a single cent if it's all risk and zero reward.

It would be time based and return based. My scenario is 20x over 7 years and I'm saying the tax would only be on 5x. That's not oblivion.

[Kung Wu]

This isn't even close to true and you know it.

It's 100% true, and you know it. No investor will invest in anything that is all risk and no reward.

[pinstripers]

Might be simpler just to kill them and bury the bodies in a shallow mass grave in the woods...........

[Ta Town Shocker]

Might be simpler just to kill them and bury the bodies in a shallow mass grave in the woods...........

AI is more than capable of doing the math in an instant.

[ShockerPrez]

The whole assumption underlying this is that the feds are somehow entitled to people's money because they are deemed 'by someone' that they have too much. That thinking is completely bogus. The government has no claim to anything. If the government has claim to an individual's property, then that means other citizens have claim to your property because the government is 'the people'. At least it was supposed to be.

You will have to excuse me for not wanting the government even get a whiff of that kind of power. And not voting for people that want it.

[ShockerFever]

1. The predictable crickets by the resident Democrat after he got owned and then shows up 5 days later pretending like nothing happened. That’s how losers try to escape the reality of defeat after getting owned. Let’s just pretend that didn’t happen, business as usual.

2. The Democrat says he’s going away and leaving the conversation but then shows up 2 hours later. Typical, dishonest Democrat.

[Ta Town Shocker]

The government has no claim to anything.

The government doesn't claim to own my 40 year old fishing boat but they still tax me for owning it. The overreach is ridiculous.

[ShockerPrez]

The government doesn't claim to own my 40 year old fishing boat but they still tax me for owning it. The overreach is ridiculous.

The state government taxes your boat. The federal government doesn't, correct?

[asiseeit]

Google will show you some competing opinions to yours.

WH Council of Economic Advisors, the White House mind you, verifies my belief

[WstateU]

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's 100% true, and you know it. No investor will invest in anything that is all risk and no reward.

Having to pay a deferred capital gains tax at a point in time before eternity does not equate to a significantly higher negative asymmetric investment risk, all things considered.

Now, if this tax was calculated on a short-term interval, like each year, it would be quite malevolent. But what about the guy holding $500M worth of Amazon stock w/ an unadjusted cost basis of $5? Maybe he's due for a little haircut?

Of course there would have to be remedies for long-term holdings that incurred a tax and later went belly up. Things would get complicated.

[C0|dB|00ded]

The whole assumption underlying this is that the feds are somehow entitled to people's money because they are deemed 'by someone' that they have too much. That thinking is completely bogus. The government has no claim to anything. If the government has claim to an individual's property, then that means other citizens have claim to your property because the government is 'the people'. At least it was supposed to be.

You will have to excuse me for not wanting the government even get a whiff of that kind of power. And not voting for people that want it.

If the government has no claim to anything, then we have no claim to security via massive military might, police, fire, emergency services, social security, etc. etc.

Plus, we're not talking about increasing the government's general revenue (or at least I'm not), we're talking about directly funding some kind of "wealth gap reduction" initiative.

And yes, this is 100% wealth (re)distribution. And there are a LOT of very wealthy people who are for it. And a lot of middle-class Republicans who aren't. Weird huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) reduced the fraction of taxpayers who owed the AMT from 3% in 2017 to 0.1% in 2018, including from 27% to 0.4% of those earning $200,000 to $500,000 and from 61.9% to 2% of those earning $500,000 to $1,000,000.

The major reasons for the reduction of AMT taxpayers after TCJA include the capping of the state and local tax deduction (SALT) by the TCJA at $10,000, and a large increase in the exemption amount and phaseout threshold. A married couple earning $200,000 now requires over $50,000 of AMT adjustments to begin paying the AMT. The AMT previously applied in 2017 and earlier to many taxpayers earning from $200,000 to $500,000 because state and local taxes were fully deductible under the regular tax code but not at all under AMT. Despite the cap of the SALT deduction, the vast majority of AMT taxpayers paid less under the 2018 rules.^[3][4][5]

The AMT was originally designed to tax high-income taxpayers who used the regular tax system to pay little or no tax. Due to inflation and cuts in ordinary tax rates, a larger number of taxpayers began to pay the AMT. The number of households owing AMT rose from 200,000 in 1982 to 5.2 million in 2017, but was reduced back to 200,000 in 2018 by the TCJA.^[6] After the expiry of the TCJA in 2025, the number of AMT taxpayers is expected to rise to 7 million in 2026.^[7][8]

[ShockerPrez]

If the government has no claim to anything, then we have no claim to security via massive military might, police, fire, emergency services, social security, etc. etc.

Plus, we're not talking about increasing the government's general revenue (or at least I'm not), we're talking about directly funding some kind of "wealth gap reduction" initiative.

And yes, this is 100% wealth (re)distribution. And there are a LOT of very wealthy people who are for it. And a lot of middle-class Republicans who aren't. Weird huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax

Why don't all the rich people who are itching to give their money away just start doing it?

How about they all start a fund, kick in everything they have over $100 million and get started redistributing it. It would be more efficient anyway outside of government. It's a free country.

Put up, Bill and Warren. You are smart guys, you can do it.

[pinstripers]

CB doesn't believe any of the **** he is spouting.