Posted on 08/21/2024 3:12:59 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen
In President Joe Biden’s proposal in the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget of the United States Government, and more specifically in the General Explanations of the Administration’s FY 2025 Revenue Proposals, the Biden administration has proposed a slate of bold shifts in tax policy that could redefine high income tax planning and investment strategies.
Among the most striking initiatives in the FY2025 Budget Proposal is a set of proposals taxing unrealized gains—a concept ---SNIP-- . A shift in tax policy towards tapping revenue streams in unrealized gains is almost certainly on the horizon-
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
This is the one thing those a$$holes will fight to the death.
Because their donors don’t want it.
“dangerous inequality”
10000 to 1 inequality is not dangerous at all.
Inequality up to 10 to 1 accounts for all the problems of inequality.
In California, well-paid ‘essential’ public employees and tech workers drive up prices of the stuff ordinary people need such as housing.
Yep. Only 1 good kind.
“Some reasons the American stock market is going well...”
Are you sure? Take inflation out of the equation and those stocks are not making much. Put the money in the bank and you get almost Zero income, but have to list it on income tax. Again inflation is deadly, losing 15% annually just on raised prices.
Yes. It is a deadly game that eventually will collapse the system and then, and then, and then. We shall see how that plays out.
Keep your powder dry.
True, this is one of the few times the corruption of the GOP works in our favor.
The federal government has a power to tax limited only by the “No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
At least one government can take 1% of the value of your house, or 2%.
Why not 3% a year? or 4%? or 8%?
Rates of property tax in major NE cities were very high in the 1960s. My father said a $60,000 house in Albany, NY in 1968 would have paid $3,000/year, i.e. 5%.
Italian tasso = rate
Italian tassa = tax
“do you support the notion that taxing unrealized gains is an illegal takings?”
Congress can tax the length of my arm, at the rate of 10 cents an inch, or anything else I might have.
The way around the direct tax clause is to tax at higher rates in less wealthy states and then give out tax rebates to equalize the effective tax rates.
Article I, Section 8 does not require tax rates to be equal by state.
The Articles of Confederation required states to levy a property tax by value and hand the funds over to Congress. That would be an indirect tax. Congress had the power to collect it from all states when the Constitution came in effect and some states (VA, NY, NC, RI) had not ratified the Constitution.
Bookmark
The corrupt evil running government want your home equity.
This has been coming for a long time....
Taxing income is one thing; taxing property (like ownership shares in a company) is another. Taxing real property is yet another level. California had to institute proposition 13 because property taxes were rising so fast that people had to sell their property to pay the taxes on it. That was a de facto confiscation of private property for government "use" disguised as a tax.
I think this has it roots in the Kelo vs. New London, CT decision where SCOTUS reinterpreted "public use" as "public good." This let city councils declare perfectly fine neighborhoods as "blights" on the community because the people who owned the property weren't using it in ways that generated enough taxes to the city's liking. Cities wanted to take property from one private owner and give it to another private owner who would put it to better use for the "public good" that would come from an increased tax base. In other words, it would be a taking disguised as a tax.
This was an abomination of a decision. Eminent domain abuses became widespread. The worst case of it was on the intracoastal waterway area of Florida's Atlantic coast. City councils wanted to "blight" whole communities of 1970s style "Florida homes" that were common at the time and still owned by the original purchasers or their families and were paying common property tax on their homes.
Developers wanted to take that property so they could build luxury yacht clubs for the wealthy that would generate higher taxes for the cities. "The property was too good for the people who currently owned it," was the common complaint by the existing homeowners. The residents took the city to court and won.
Article I, Section 8 does not require tax rates to be equal by state.
No, but the 5th amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. A tax that is intended to force the divesture of the thing being taxed is a de facto taking with just compensation because the owner is left without the property, no compensation, and less than the property's worth after the tax is deducted.
-PJ
Expecting the courts to protect us from crazy taxes is like fighting off a bear with a fly swatter.
:-)
Albany, NY
$60,000 house
1966 $3000 tax
1967 $3000 tax
1968 $3000 tax
1969 $3000 tax
1970 $3000 tax
$15,000 in tax on a $60,000 house
100% legal
Correct.
This will cause deflation of the market, and ultimately a concentration of assets as the big fish eat the rest.
Using your Albany house example, what if it was a family farm in Kansas or Nebraska? Can the government tax the farm to the point that the family has to sell it in order to pay the tax?
Also, suppose your house in Albany was fairly taxed in 1970, but a city mayor and his developer friend decide to spread a rumor that a business park will be developed near your community that will bring 5,000 new jobs to the region. Suddenly, property values rise in anticipation of the demand for homes by the new workers who will flood to the area in search of jobs. The government now raises taxes on the property's unrealized boon in value, and longtime residents can't pay the tax. They are forced to sell their homes, and the developer now gets to buy the property at distressed prices.
Then the business park never gets built, property values deflate, and the developer now owns property that can be used to build new, larger, luxury homes.
Is this an illegal taking?
Did you know that New London, CT thought that Pfizer was going to build a research center there, but the project was never fully realized. Pfizer eventually pulled out and relocated its staff, the proposed hotel-retail-condo "urban village" was never built, the land remained vacant and generated zero taxes. The land became a dump for storm debris after Hurricane Irene in 2011, and now a developer is planning to build 100 apartments, a 100 unit hotel, and a community center on the property.
That's the danger of seeking unrealized gains with the unintended (or intended?) consequence of forcing owners to divest just to pay the tax.
That can't be legal or constitutional.
-PJ
“A tax that is intended to force the divesture of the thing being taxed is a de facto taking with just compensation because the owner is left without the property, no compensation, and less than the property’s worth after the tax is deducted.”
Their only intention is to buy votes.
Buying votes takes money.
Buying votes takes taking money.
They care not what Bezos might currently own. All they contemplate is the top 400 net worths in a magazine.
As long as the taxing threshold will bypass the Warren household, all will be swell.
When Joe Biden makes a vote buying promise, he intends to keep it, the Supreme Court be damned, or packed.
One branch of the Vanderbilt family had a house in NYC that was taxed at as I recollect $129,000 in 1929 (about $13 million in 2024 dollars). That was about their entire yearly income. They felt they had to sell off the property.
Their house was sold, torn down and the Bergdorf-Goodman store built on the land. That store is where E. Jean Carroll claimed to have been raped.
-PJ
Imagine if I had $20 million in Apple stock and two young granddaughters.
If I wanted to gift them half my shares each, the IRS would insist a gift tax be paid which would involve selling shares to pay the tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.