Who Will Increase Deficit Spending The Most?

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

warren doesn't understand it either

 

But why "ultra?"  Lets just go after the plain old ordinary millionaires like Liz & Bernie.   

[mspart]

Nah, we don't go after those guys.   Congress will most likely be exempt from this requirement. 

mspart

[Danny Deck]

This seems like a smart solution, and much more workable than the vague proposal from the Harris administration.

 

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1826361874654658880

[mspart]

Except borrowing money is not considered income.   Because you have to pay it back.

But more to the point, if borrowed money was taxed, that would shut down business expansion, business creation, and business investment.   I don't think that is what this country needs.  

What this country needs is to stop spending so much.   The more you have the more you spend.   There is zero fiscal responsibility in DC and we are 30Trillion in the hole because of it.   If we maintained a balanced budget, we would still have that debt but it would be manageable.  Growing it all the time is not manageable at some point. 

mspart

[Danny Deck]

How does taxing Jeff Bezos personally affect Amazon's investments? 

[mspart]

Perhaps I misunderstood.  I thought the effort was general, not targeted to a few individuals.   How does targeting a few individuals help anything? 

mspart

[Danny Deck]

The whole thing is largely symbolic, as I understand the original tax on unrealized gains, it applied to those with 100 million+ in assets. A lot of this is both sides jockeying to have populist rage on their side. You don't have to have effective policy to do that. Saying the very wealthy will have to pay taxes when they use debt to live their lavish lifestyles feels good even if probably wouldn't really do much for the bottom line.

A VAT seems like what we need in lieu of what we have, but we'll never get it. The rich would have a harder time avoiding it so they'll say we have to protect the poor from a regressive tax.

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

The whole thing is largely symbolic, as I understand the original tax on unrealized gains, it applied to those with 100 million+ in assets. A lot of this is both sides jockeying to have populist rage on their side. You don't have to have effective policy to do that. Saying the very wealthy will have to pay taxes when they use debt to live their lavish lifestyles feels good even if probably wouldn't really do much for the bottom line.

A VAT seems like what we need in lieu of what we have, but we'll never get it. The rich would have a harder time avoiding it so they'll say we have to protect the poor from a regressive tax.

I am stoopid...what is "VAT" and what does it mean?

[Wrestleknownothing]

25 minutes ago, mspart said:

Except borrowing money is not considered income.   Because you have to pay it back.

But more to the point, if borrowed money was taxed, that would shut down business expansion, business creation, and business investment.   I don't think that is what this country needs.  

What this country needs is to stop spending so much.   The more you have the more you spend.   There is zero fiscal responsibility in DC and we are 30Trillion in the hole because of it.   If we maintained a balanced budget, we would still have that debt but it would be manageable.  Growing it all the time is not manageable at some point. 

mspart

A whole lot of modern structured finance is about tax avoidance. Clever Wall Street traders and sales people make butt loads of money dreaming up structures to help avoid large tax hits for a less large, but still large fee. Over time some of those trades get roped into the tax code by clever bill writers to make them taxable. But, then new, more clever, trades are dreamt up. Whixh then creates a need for newer, more clever bills. And the cycle continues. The rewards for cleverness are high. So I would not be surprised to see some of the clever borrowing transactions get roped into tax code. Most of the trades take the form of a loan in some way, but are economically identical (or very close to identical) to a sale, leaving the person who borrows against the asset with no economic exposure to the asset. These are the types of "loans" that do not aid in capital formation. It is these trades that should be targeted rather than some generic sense of unrealized gains. That only the wealthiest can do these trades also achieves the desired effect. A generic tax on unrealized gains is problematic in so many ways. Determining the size of the gain is impossible, even for publicly trade stocks with a constant stream of prices, if you own any appreciable size. I just feel like an unrealized gain tax should be dead on arrival.

[Lipdrag]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

A whole lot of modern structured finance is about tax avoidance.

Yes.  Like 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc.  Tax delay, avoidance, deferment.  Subsidies.  Credits.  Deductible.  Make it all go away.  Flat tax after a personal exemption of $20k or so.  

If Social Security is an insurance system - like it was advertised and originally implemented - then treat it as such.  No double taxation, no offsets due to  any other income.  It was bought and paid for and is out of the taxes discussion.  If SS is an income re-distribution system then just put it in with the flat tax and make all outlays some sort of welfare/means test.

But, of course, none of this matters when politicians and bureaucrats can just keep spending without penalty anyway.  Let me get back to counting angels on pinheads.

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I am stoopid...what is "VAT" and what does it mean?

Value added tax.  It’s used in Europe. 

[Danny Deck]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I am stoopid...what is "VAT" and what does it mean?

Value Added Tax.

A tax on consumption rather than income. 

 

[ionel]

11 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

Value Added Tax.

A tax on consumption rather than income. 

 

We all know it's a great idea but also know it'll never happen cause it just ain't fair those stink'n filthy rich folks just won't pay their fair share!  

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Lipdrag said:

Yes.  Like 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc.  Tax delay, avoidance, deferment.  Subsidies.  Credits.  Deductible.  Make it all go away.  Flat tax after a personal exemption of $20k or so.  

If Social Security is an insurance system - like it was advertised and originally implemented - then treat it as such.  No double taxation, no offsets due to  any other income.  It was bought and paid for and is out of the taxes discussion.  If SS is an income re-distribution system then just put it in with the flat tax and make all outlays some sort of welfare/means test.

But, of course, none of this matters when politicians and bureaucrats can just keep spending without penalty anyway.  Let me get back to counting angels on pinheads.

Except 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc. are categorically different from what I poorly described.

All of those are structured to encourage investment/capital formation by deferring taxes, not avoiding. And they are specifically identified in law (hence names like 401k which refers to section 401, paragraph k of the Revenue Act of 1978).

The trades I am refering to are to allow asset owners to synthetically sell appreciated assets without paying taxes on gains. These trades are not available to any but the ultra-wealthy because they need to be large enough for Wall Street to care.

A classic, simple trade is called "buy, borrow, die". Buy an asset, if it appreciates significantly rather than sell borrow against it in a way that is tied to the price of the asset, then include the asset in your estate so that when you die the basis is marked to market and your heirs pay little to no taxes on the gains, but also don't get the gains because you borrowed against those.

There are many, more clever trades that do not require death.

[Bigbrog]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Except 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc. are categorically different from what I poorly described.

All of those are structured to encourage investment/capital formation by deferring taxes, not avoiding. And they are specifically identified in law (hence names like 401k which refers to section 401, paragraph k of the Revenue Act of 1978).

The trades I am refering to are to allow asset owners to synthetically sell appreciated assets without paying taxes on gains. These trades are not available to any but the ultra-wealthy because they need to be large enough for Wall Street to care.

A classic, simple trade is called "buy, borrow, die". Buy an asset, if it appreciates significantly rather than sell borrow against it in a way that is tied to the price of the asset, then include the asset in your estate so that when you die the basis is marked to market and your heirs pay little to no taxes on the gains, but also don't get the gains because you borrowed against those.

There are many, more clever trades that do not require death.

Can I give you my money to invest Wrestlingknownothing??

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Except 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc. are categorically different from what I poorly described.

All of those are structured to encourage investment/capital formation by deferring taxes, not avoiding. And they are specifically identified in law (hence names like 401k which refers to section 401, paragraph k of the Revenue Act of 1978).

The trades I am refering to are to allow asset owners to synthetically sell appreciated assets without paying taxes on gains. These trades are not available to any but the ultra-wealthy because they need to be large enough for Wall Street to care.

A classic, simple trade is called "buy, borrow, die". Buy an asset, if it appreciates significantly rather than sell borrow against it in a way that is tied to the price of the asset, then include the asset in your estate so that when you die the basis is marked to market and your heirs pay little to no taxes on the gains, but also don't get the gains because you borrowed against those.

There are many, more clever trades that do not require death.

But the estate will have to pay off the loan correct?

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Can I give you my money to invest Wrestlingknownothing??

Are you ok with the death clause? 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Can I give you my money to invest Wrestlingknownothing??

My proudest moment came when I was visiting my wife's cousin who I had been helping due to an accident he suffered. His 20 year old daughter, who is very blunt, came up to me and said, "I want you to make me rich."

I told her I had no get rich quick schemes, but I knew how to make her rich slowly. But first she would need to read several emails I was going to write. I wrote the emails and figured that would be the end of it.

A few months later she called me to say she had read the emails, and opened an account at Vanguard that she funded with $500, was she done? With a tear in my eye I told her almost. She now regularly makes deposits to her account and invests it wisely.

She isn't close to being a millionaire yet, but she will be.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

But the estate will have to pay off the loan correct?

Yes, that is where the gains go.

[mspart]

That is a proud moment indeed.   Getting a youngin to begin investing for their future is quite the deal.   Congratulations.

My mom "made" me invest the max amount to the company matching level when I got my first big job.   Been investing ever since.   Almost to a point where I can retire.   Probably another year or two. 

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

That is a proud moment indeed.   Getting a youngin to begin investing for their future is quite the deal.   Congratulations.

My mom "made" me invest the max amount to the company matching level when I got my first big job.   Been investing ever since.   Almost to a point where I can retire.   Probably another year or two. 

mspart

That is a loving mom.

[mspart]

Yep, she was. 

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

4 hours ago, Danny Deck said:

This seems like a smart solution, and much more workable than the vague proposal from the Harris administration.

 

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1826361874654658880

i actually thought it was just a black line... like something had been redacted, 

so nothing.. but still better than the plan of harris

[Scouts Honor]

 

[jross]

congress will spend the most