jesus fuck. so say you buy a house for 100k and it goes to 1M in the first year you buy it, does that mean liberals want you to be taxed on the 900k increase in value? what if every year the value of your home then loses 100k and you make 50k/year in income. does the 50k get washed out and you carry over the other 50k to next year to wash out your income again? the tax code is complicated enough and liberals seem to want to make it even more complicated because billionaires (was millionaires) bad.
>>542163646>does that mean liberals want you to be taxed on the 900k increase in value?yes
>>542163646Bring back Patton
>>542163646Nobody, other than you and few bots, is talking about real estate.They're talking about stocks and bonds over a certain amount.Sometimes conservatives feign ignorance because they somehow think stupidity helps prove their point. You are one of those people, this is one of those times.
>>542163646No, Elon Musk would be paying income tax on hid fuckin stock portfolio where 99% of his net worth is.Are leftist retarded?
>>542163646I'm only going to say this once, rentfag:We do pay taxes on the 900k increase in value.Every middle class American pays wealth taxes.They're called property and excise taxes.Most of our networth is in home equity.You wouldn't know this because you are poor.
>>542163744The upshot is you will have already paid the tax when you have to sell your house to afford to pay the tax.
>>542164373>They're talking about stocks and bonds over a certain amount.what is the amount? my 401k has stocks and bonds that increase in value. do i get taxed on the increase in value now? i buy stocks that have increased in value, do i get taxed on that? i have a few baseball cards that have increased in value, do i get taxed on that? if i buy a car that decreases in value can i take that decrease against my income? if i buy a stock that decreases in value can i decrease my income by the amount of the decrease? if i open a business and the value of the entire business increases in value do i have to pay taxes on the increase in the value of the company even though the company hasn't been sold?
>>542163646The tax code in 1955 was completely different. It had an extremely high starting rate, but tons and tons of rate reductions. They ended up simplifying the tax code and the 33% the highest bracket pays now is equivalent to what they average paid in 1955
>>542164712That's only because they pay themselves less in the first place. In order to get those deductions they had to invest more in their companies, R&D, and employees. Now they can just do stock buybacks and juice their own portfolio without actually building anything. There's a reason there were no billionaires and now there are trillionaires and $1 in 1955 is not worth $1,000 today. There's also a reason all our infrastructure is dogshit and we don't make or invent anything anymore.
>>542163646Increasing taxes won't do shit when rich people can trivially "write off" their tax by just doing normal shit they'd do anyway. We don't need more taxes, we need changes to the tax laws that allow the rich to avoid paying tax by "writing off" 100% of their tax.
>>542164885>invest more in their companies, R&D, and employees. Now they can just do stock buybacksWhy are you conflating personal and corporate taxes?
>>542164905>>542165026>Why are you conflating personal and corporate taxes?I'm not. In most big firms now, you either have a majority shareholder who functions as Chairman and CEO, or dual class shares, or other special governance arrangements that let one man at the top set his own salary, stock options, etc. If you make it more expensive to set his personal share very high, he tends to lower it, and plunge that money back into the business, using the business to write off his lifestyle, but also, spending more on Capex, R&D, employee salaries, not diluting the stock in the first place (higher valuations for other shareholders), and whatever to avoid that high personal rate. Right now, with income and cap gains etc. to rates so low, you just pay yourself a trillion in compensation if you can, rather than do anything useful with it.
>>542164905>>542164712Obviously if we had a 1955 style setup, it makes sense to stop paying out execs after a certain point. Leftists are wrong about it bringing in more government revenue, but it would lead to corporations spending in other ways. And it used to.
>>542163646The rich are the real leeches
>>542164885Go back to preddit faggot.
>>542167822Scared for your shekels?
A good start would be eliminating corporate tax and payroll tax completely. And then jacking up income taxes and capital gains taxes. Taxes on financial transactions should also make a comeback.A VAT or some kind of federal sales tax is another idea. An automated payment transaction tax is another one.Though having said all of this, I still think the American population is clearly overtaxed and that is reflected in the decreasing ability of the lower classes to be able to save adequately. So even accepting that taxation needs to rise in some areas, or be shifted around to capture different areas, the government still needs to run larger deficits to facilitate the private sector's need and desire to save.
