U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

If only I could convert @Mlle. Zabzie, then there'd be a tax code that would pay off the entire US debt in 10-15 years.

Phase one, take everything from those who have intentionally hurt everyday people to get wealthy. Zuckerberg gets sacrificed to the hogs as an opening shot. Not because he's rich but because the real harm he's done to children and the general public. 

Phase two will look a lot worse, but is entirely necessary. 

OMG.  Fully convinced you aren’t listening to me.  As I have said many, many times, my tax code would (I) eliminate the capital gains preference, and (ii) eliminate the step up at death.  I think (ii) solves the problem, but I might also have some provisions that tax functionally permanent margin loans.  

All that said, super-high marginal rates are not actually that constructive (unless you really want to bankrupt blue states, but maybe you do).  Right now in high tax blue states the marginal rate is around 50% (more if you are in California or NY).  Rates much higher than that increase the marginal benefit of cheating and there is a huge compliance problem (the era of the 90% rates was also a golden era of tax shelters).  An all-in rate in the 50s is probably about right.  

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Uh, nearly the entire Democratic party-in-government tried to modestly raise the top tax rate from 37 to 39.6% less than two years ago.  Sinema killed it.  Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, the good news is that given the incompetence of congress the TCJA is likely to sunset in 2026 so we will be back to where we were on rates (and the deductibility of state taxes).  Whee for gridlock?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, the good news is that given the incompetence of congress the TCJA is likely to sunset in 2026 so we will be back to where we were on rates (and the deductibility of state taxes).  Whee for gridlock?

I mean, we'll see.  The Bush tax cuts were also set to expire in 2010 due to the Byrd rules but by the time it came around Obama needed to deal their extension to continue unemployment benefits and cut taxes for, ya know, Americans that actually needed it.  The 2012 ATRA then basically extended most of the Bush tax cuts permanently.  So, who knows what will happen in 2026.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

OMG.  Fully convinced you aren’t listening to me.  As I have said many, many times, my tax code would (I) eliminate the capital gains preference, and (ii) eliminate the step up at death.  I think (ii) solves the problem, but I might also have some provisions that tax functionally permanent margin loans.  

I listen, just don't always agree.

Quote

All that said, super-high marginal rates are not actually that constructive (unless you really want to bankrupt blue states, but maybe you do).  Right now in high tax blue states the marginal rate is around 50% (more if you are in California or NY).  Rates much higher than that increase the marginal benefit of cheating and there is a huge compliance problem (the era of the 90% rates was also a golden era of tax shelters).  An all-in rate in the 50s is probably about right.  

Tell that to all the corporations and wealthy individuals who pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. Come on Zabzs. My Cuz pays almost nothing in federal taxes, which is why the high state and local taxes in Cali don't bother him. Arguably one of the five richest guys in Cali will literally get a major sports team, a new arena and corporate facilities (and maybe even a nearby hotel) for nothing because it's all a long term write off. This is a shell game and we both know that if you have the right people working for you you'll never lose at it.

If you make enough money to be taxed at the rates you're talking about and are actually paying them, you're a sucker. Mittens Rmoney bragged about paying 15% despite living in Taxassachusetts. Trump then bragged even more loudly about paying almost nothing for 20 years (while accruing a ton of wealth on the properties he was claiming a loss on). Quit worrying about broke schmucks and go after the real money, otherwise we'll never ever fix the deficit and any attempts to will just primarily hurt the broke schmucks.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Martell Spy]

Georgia’s GOP governor signs bill that could remove local prosecutors and DAs from their jobs

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/georgia-elections-oversight-commission-kemp-willis/index.htmlCNN
 — 

Quote

 

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed legislation Friday that will create an oversight commission with the power to remove local prosecutors and district attorneys from their jobs. The measure has been heavily criticized by Democrats, including an Atlanta-area DA, who is seriously weighing charges in connection with former President Donald Trump’s actions in Georgia during the 2020 election.

Prior to the signing, Kemp’s office said that the measure, known as SB 92, would create “an oversight mechanism for district attorneys and solicitors-general across Georgia to ensure accountability in upholding constitution and statutory duties.”

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, make those real welfare queens in red states pay their fair share. If you don't put in what you take out over five years, you get nothing for the next five. Pretty sure that would change their behavior overnight.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I listen, just don't always agree.

Tell that to all the corporations and wealthy individuals who pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. Come on Zabzs. My Cuz pays almost nothing in federal taxes, which is why the high state and local taxes in Cali don't bother him. Arguably one of the five richest guys in Cali will literally get a major sports team, a new arena and corporate facilities (and maybe even a nearby hotel) for nothing because it's all a long term write off. This is a shell game and we both know that if you have the right people working for you you'll never lose at it.

If you make enough money to be taxed at the rates you're talking about and are actually paying them, you're a sucker. Mittens Rmoney bragged about paying 15% despite living in Taxassachusetts. Trump then bragged even more loudly about paying almost nothing for 20 years (while accruing a ton of wealth on the properties he was claiming a loss on). Quit worrying about broke schmucks and go after the real money, otherwise we'll never ever fix the deficit and any attempts to will just primarily hurt the broke schmucks.

 

@Tywin et al., c'mon back to you.   Tax is about two things, timing and rates.  If you solve for the rate differential, then what you are left with is timing.

Mitt's taxes were so low because (i) most of his income was from carried interest from Bain and other capital gains investments (offset by some losses along the way), which is a rate play and (ii) he used the power of estate tax and tax-deferred retirement vehicles to his advantage under then-current law, which is a timing play.  Trump's taxes were low for a combination of reasons as best I can tell, including reporting stuff that isn't exactly at a standard I would necessarily advise my clients at, and losing money by sucking wind at business.

If you eliminate the capital gains preference, then you eliminate the rate play. 

You are then left with timing.  Between getting rid of the step-up at death (removing the incentive to hold until you croak and borrow against it), and taxing margin loans that roll too long (Canada has something like this), you eliminate a lot of the issues on investment properties.  There will still be tax-loss harvesting products for publicly traded property available, but that is functionally a timing play (and not abusive in my view, but hey, YMMV).  The only other timing play you might want to look at reforming is the various deferral opportunities that are available under different sorts of retirement/deferred comp plans, but they are already highly regulated.

There are some other "gimmes" in the Code for various "favored" industries that I would probably eliminate including but not limited to real estate, insurance, oil & gas, "clean" energy, and "manufacturing."

 And I'm not sure what we "both know", because I disagree with your characterization.  

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, nearly the entire Democratic party-in-government tried to modestly raise the top tax rate from 37 to 39.6% less than two years ago.  Sinema killed it.  Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That one I did know about, but it's not a meaningful change in terms of inequality (though it might make some money for the government). The top rate has to be much higher (probably above 90%) to discourage pay packages that are a over a thousand times what the lowest paid (or sometimes even the median) employees make.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@Tywin et al., c'mon back to you.   Tax is about two things, timing and rates.  If you solve for the rate differential, then what you are left with is timing.

(i) You don't have to @ me if you're quoting me and (ii) you left out another very key component: power and control. If you think taxes have nothing to do with that, Idk what to say. 

Quote

Mitt's taxes were so low because (i) most of his income was from carried interest from Bain and other capital gains investments (offset by some losses along the way), which is a rate play and (ii) he used the power of estate tax and tax-deferred retirement vehicles to his advantage under then-current law, which is a timing play.  Trump's taxes were low for a combination of reasons as best I can tell, including reporting stuff that isn't exactly at a standard I would necessarily advise my clients at, and losing money by sucking wind at business.

If you eliminate the capital gains preference, then you eliminate the rate play. 

You are then left with timing.  Between getting rid of the step-up at death (removing the incentive to hold until you croak and borrow against it), and taxing margin loans that roll too long (Canada has something like this), you eliminate a lot of the issues on investment properties.  There will still be tax-loss harvesting products for publicly traded property available, but that is functionally a timing play (and not abusive in my view, but hey, YMMV).  The only other timing play you might want to look at reforming is the various deferral opportunities that are available under different sorts of retirement/deferred comp plans, but they are already highly regulated.

You know I love and appreciate your advice. I just don't believe these reforms will get us anywhere close to where I think we need to be. If you made all these changes how much would change from Jeff Bezos' taxes in 2021, when he reportedly paid a little under $1B while his net worth went up by about $99B, per estimates? If you cannot get to him paying a real half of that, the changes are just lipstick on a pig.

Quote

Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98 percent “true tax rate.”

Or more broadly:
 

Quote

ProPublica analyzed the data by focusing on the soaring fortunes of the country’s wealthiest people in recent years and asserted they were paying a “true tax rate” of just 3.4 percent. The news organization came up with that rate by calculating estimates of the value of their stock portfolios and other assets and then how much they paid in federal income taxes. That is not how tax rates are normally measured.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/08/wealthy-irs-taxes/

And when I say we both know what will happen, it's that these same fuckers will find every way possible to avoid the 50% you're suggesting, which as of right now is totally meaningless because none of these people even pay close to that, and they never will unless there's a wholesale change in the entire system, one than includes them only being able to give $25 overall like anyone else can afford. So long as they can purchase anyone and everyone, what we get is what we deserve and things will only get worse as they harvest us all, you included.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The top rate has to be much higher (probably above 90%) to discourage pay packages that are a over a thousand times what the lowest paid (or sometimes even the median) employees make.

I don't think the the top rate has to be above 90%, but sure, sounds like everyone here is in agreement it should be much higher than it is.  Point is Dems -- or at least the vast majority of current Dems -- have been trying to restore those rates for decades at least to some extent.  Ignorance is bliss, but acting like they haven't doesn't change reality.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

 

That was definitely the reason, I'm sure.

ETA link to original article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/05/04/leonard-leo-clarence-ginni-thomas-conway/

So . . .  right-wing oligarchs pick up the tab on . . . let's see, luxury vacations, Bohemian Grove outings, CT's mother's rent free mansion, and buying out her noisy neighbors, Ginni's no-work gig, his nephew's tuition, Ginni's other paying gig doing . . . likely, no actual work either . . .  while also taking cases where his bestie Leo had an interest before the court.

That's just Justice Thomas.

What else are we missing, Mz SCOTUS expert-in-depth journalist-commentator Nina Totenberg?

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

That one I did know about, but it's not a meaningful change in terms of inequality (though it might make some money for the government). The top rate has to be much higher (probably above 90%) to discourage pay packages that are a over a thousand times what the lowest paid (or sometimes even the median) employees make.

That won't matter because their salary isn't getting raised that high - they're getting various value in stock, options, and other forms of equity. And there are a LOT of ways to ensure they aren't paying a lot of taxes on that. 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And there are a LOT of ways to ensure they aren't paying a lot of taxes on that. 

Which, btw, is another thing Dems tried to address:

Quote

The top capital gains rate would increase to 25%, from 20%, for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples making more than $450,000. That’s lower than Biden’s proposal, which would have raised it to the top marginal rate for wages and salaries of 39.6% for those earning more than $1 million annually.

In addition, lawmakers would slap a 3% surcharge on individuals earning more than $5 million. This means that their top marginal income tax rate would rise to 42.6%, and it would push their capital gains rate to 28% before the 3.8% net investment income tax is factored in.

And that net investment income tax would be extended to cover business income included on taxpayers’ personal returns, known as pass-through income. Currently, it is only levied on interest, dividends, capital gains and other forms of investment income.

The legislation would also end the higher estate tax exemption enacted under the Republicans’ tax cuts this year, instead of after 2025. The exemption would be $6 million per person in 2022, a sharp decline from this year’s $11.7 million level.

 

[Mindwalker]

8 of the 16 fake Georgia electors have accepted immunity deals.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

8 of the 16 fake Georgia electors have accepted immunity deals.

 

Is Trump in jail yet for the single worst individual case of voter fraud ever?

I'll hang up and listen.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

(i) You don't have to @ me if you're quoting me and (ii) you left out another very key component: power and control. If you think taxes have nothing to do with that, Idk what to say. 

You know I love and appreciate your advice. I just don't believe these reforms will get us anywhere close to where I think we need to be. If you made all these changes how much would change from Jeff Bezos' taxes in 2021, when he reportedly paid a little under $1B while his net worth went up by about $99B, per estimates? If you cannot get to him paying a real half of that, the changes are just lipstick on a pig.

Or more broadly:
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/08/wealthy-irs-taxes/

And when I say we both know what will happen, it's that these same fuckers will find every way possible to avoid the 50% you're suggesting, which as of right now is totally meaningless because none of these people even pay close to that, and they never will unless there's a wholesale change in the entire system, one than includes them only being able to give $25 overall like anyone else can afford. So long as they can purchase anyone and everyone, what we get is what we deserve and things will only get worse as they harvest us all, you included.

@Tywin et al. I will absolutely at if you if I feel like it even if I quote you.  That means you get two notifications to clear, and I hope you enjoy that.  Or at least, maybe the et al. will feel included.  Getting you once doesn't acknowledge your multitudes.

And again, I disagree with you.  You are now conflating rate and base.  I am talking about a system of income taxation that is determined on an annual accounting period on the basis of net income actually realized within the period.  You moved the goalposts.  Your Bezos example is on a wealth basis, without a realization requirement, and with an unclear accounting period.  I personally think a wealth tax is both impracticable and unconstitutional (though I know that is a not a universally held view and I acknowledge the other side of the argument) on any basis other than an accounting period which encompasses the taxpayer's entire life (i.e., an estate and gift tax).  I would not be opposed to an estate/gift tax which is actually payable (though you should probably give the beneficiary the benefit of a basis step up if tax is paid on the transfer to them).   

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@Tywin et al. I will absolutely at if you if I feel like it even if I quote you.  That means you get two notifications to clear, and I hope you enjoy that.  Or at least, maybe the et al. will feel included.  Getting you once doesn't acknowledge your multitudes.

@Mlle. Zabzie - this made my day.  Or evening, whatever.  Thanks.  

[Mindwalker]

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is Trump in jail yet for the single worst individual case of voter fraud ever?

I'll hang up and listen.

Yeah, no, and we all know he'll never be.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@Tywin et al. I will absolutely at if you if I feel like it even if I quote you.  That means you get two notifications to clear, and I hope you enjoy that.  Or at least, maybe the et al. will feel included.  Getting you once doesn't acknowledge your multitudes.

I hate to break your heart, but it doesn't work that way. You only get two notifications from a PM. Watch @Mlle. Zabzie.

Quote

And again, I disagree with you.  You are now conflating rate and base.  I am talking about a system of income taxation that is determined on an annual accounting period on the basis of net income actually realized within the period.  You moved the goalposts.  Your Bezos example is on a wealth basis, without a realization requirement

The guy who was once the richest man in the world at the time was paying himself I believe $80K a year. Why is that? Oh wait, because he was trying to dodge his taxes specifically because he wanted to be taxed on that number and not the massive wealth he gained in every other which way. But you already know that. 
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Yeah, no, and we all know he'll never be.

Different rules for different people. Oh Lady Justice, how blind you can be with stacks of cash shoved into your pockets.

[The Anti-Targ]

Some forms of taxation were impracticable when slide rules and abacuses were the most sophisticated forms of computer. Now with AI and huge processing power, formerly impracticable forms of taxation can be practically implemented. In fact AI could be deployed to create individualised taxation taking hundreds or even thousands of individual attributes into account to determine the amount of tax each person needs to pay, assessed on a daily basis and payable at whatever frequency is most practical for the individual concerned.

The govt simply needs to pass a budget and the AI can do the rest.