I wouldn't have a problem with everybody paying the same percentage on their income but the poor might not like it.
I think SCOTUS is doing more harm. That is Trump's true legacy. The great irony is that by continuing to support him and many of the current GOP's policies, GOP voters have effectively lowered their pants, bent over and said "Give me more!" They are simply too ignorant to realize that, in the long run, they're getting screwed. That is, the vast majority of Americans don't benefit one iota from MAGA Republican policies, be they imposed by Congress or SCOTUS.
Absolutely, but the devil is in the details. Even my stock broker, who is as conservative as they come, agrees the tax code is unfair to the average Joe and is skewed heavily in favor of the rich, many of whom have not created a damn thing of value. However, no one in Congress from either party has the guts to reform the tax code.
Real estate is a bit easier to value and far less volatile (for the most part). The real issue is stocks, what day are the valued? If they are valued on Jan 1 and the stock gets crushed do you get to take an “unrealized” capital gain? If not why not you’re paying taxes on “unrealized” gains. Complete mess. Not saying you’re for it.
CPAs (not all) would hate that. Same with Intuit, HR block, Tax lawyers etc. 1/2 their employees would be gone.
Only if their loss exceeded their income and gains. Doubt they would like losing any money. I sure would like losing money to save paying 35%. That’s why I laugh when people bemoan charitable deductions, you don’t donate 10k so avoid paying 3500 in income tax.
Running tax losses is how you cash flow. You just die at the end with a step-up basis for your heirs. Come on now!
Too cold. Though I know some expats who live out of the London and really like the gun free safe lifestyle.
I’m not sure it is that hard to place a valuation, within a degree of reasonableness. Verifying it would be difficult, but not impossible, again within reason. I’d be surprised if most people of that level of wealth have that much of their net worth tied up in art and yachts. In terms of business interests, most businesses are already doing tax financial statements, and probably even regular audited f/s at that size. Assigning a value is not that hard. There aren’t that many people with over $50 million - maybe 25,000? Auditing that wouldn’t be impossible. You could also require a certification from something like a cpa firm.
Does that go for business expenses also? As for individuals most people don’t even itemize due to high standard deduction. I have no issue getting rid of itemized deductions but they really aren’t that big of a deal.
Par the course from a group of robed people who have largely spent the past few years seizing power from the elected branches. Whether something is wise policy is for our democratic systems to decide. It is not unconstitutional. (And no, it generally isn't wise policy.)
A wealth tax is a direct tax that isn't a tax on income, unless you're taxing changes in wealth from year to year. Because it's a direct tax that doesn't comply with the Sixteenth Amendment, it would have to be apportioned.
Another hit piece by MSM. "Could" "May" - all the appropriate caveats we see in non-news "news" stories. This one also includes the required shot at two Republican appointed justices. I guess none of the Democrat appointed justices have any investments? Propaganda at its best.
I believe it's called kicking the can down the road in DC but makes the plebs feel better if govt can somehow soak some more rich people on the way out...
The lawsuit before the IRS is over a $15,000 tax bill. If the law is struck it would obviously have broader ramifications than $15,000. They are using terms like “could” and “may” because they are attempting to project what striking down the law would mean… aka they are estimating figures. Not because it’s “propoganda”. Come on man. As the law itself is only from Trumps jobs act in 2017, the chaos from striking the provision could be hyerbole, unless the “think tank” fears the impact of a negative ruling goes beyond just what is contained within this law. From the article it seems to be about “repatriated income”, i thought everyone was in agreement large corporations shouldn’t get to just “park” earnings overseas indefinitely?
