this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
159 points (99.4% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15880 readers
391 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The tax applies only to individuals with at least $100 million in wealth and mostly affects hedge fund managers.

t_d thread: https://archive.is/5pFXr

here's fox news trying to convince people that the tax will mean that if your home goes up in value, the government will take your house: https://archive.is/Ay89M

"This would be the most crazy tax structure we have ever seen. It makes Venezuela look normal. It makes Russia look normal," Gingrich stressed. "That speech last week in Raleigh, where [Harris] outlined her economic plan, that was crazy. That was so far to the left of Bernie Sanders that Gorbachev in Russia would have thought it was a radical speech."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Yeah I’m like 175% sure that they’d be able write off drops in the value of the stock.

My concern with this idea is, how exactly are they calculating the value each year? Average value over the calendar year, value at end of CY, value at YTD from the original purchase? If done wrong it could lead to gaming of the market such that when it’s time to calculate the value, the market always happens to be in a dip then, very odd.

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah I’m like 175% sure that they’d be able write off drops in the value of the stock.

Yeah, the "taxes on gains that no longer exist" argument, betrays their basic lack of understanding about how taxes on assets work. Do they just not understand that capital losses offset the tax burden of the gains?

I wonder if some of this confusion happens because most people don't have exposure to anything beyond income and property taxes?

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's exactly what it is. Everyone that complains about this has only ever had to deal with a W2 or 1099 form. They don't understand that as you get richer, you have so many different avenues to avoid paying taxes.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yep, it's also why the politicians and their idiotic "balance the government spending like a household budget" talk has traction. Most people don't understand how this stuff works at the higher echelons. This stuff goes way beyond what "kitchen table economics" can parse.

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

balance the government spending

God I fucking hate this. Both parties harp on about it, too. They'll both talk about their plans to "balance the budget." That's not how government spending works. Most of the money is money the government owes to itself. It's one of the benefits of fiat currency. Unfortunately, anything the government does is a gommunism and we can't have that or else the terrorists will win.

[–] HumanBehaviorByBjork@hexbear.net 15 points 3 weeks ago

it's all moot, this ain't passing. if it actually made it to her desk she just wouldn't sign it.

[–] Hexboare@hexbear.net 14 points 3 weeks ago

The other question would be which stocks would be included in a scheme, because stocks with low liquidity would be even simpler to game to rack up unrealised tax losses

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If I were president it would be calculated second by second but without correctiing by the fraction that second represents of the year (1/60x60x24x365) in order to tax them an astronomic sum

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

And def doable with the tech we have.