Bruddah IZ
DA
You make it so easy though.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
No difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If that holds up, a shorter illness period is really the only community spread argument they have left for mandating vaxxes.
www.medrxiv.org
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant
SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617.2 (delta) is associated with higher viral loads [[1][1]] and increased transmissibility relative to other variants, as well as partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies [[2][2]]. The emergence of the delta variant has been associated with increasing case...
www.medrxiv.org
Desert Hound
DA
In that article you have this for instance.
Let’s say you do not sell the asset this year. In this case, you still have a capital gain of $3 million, but the capital gain is “unrealized.” The tax code does not count capital gains as income until they are realized, meaning you sell the asset. But it is income in the sense that it allows you to spend $3 million, just as if you earned $3 million doing a job.
For those not paying attention or who simply do not understand...NO you cannot spend the 3 million until you realize the gain. At that point it is taxed. There is no loophole one is avoiding by not realizing a gain.
In terms of inheritance? We already have rather high rates of taxation on inheritance when the event occurs. Further if one thinks through the chain of events....income was taxed when earned, taxes had been paid on realized gains, taxes paid on purchases, etc. and then the gov comes back for another rather large bite at inheritance.
This is more misdirection to get the people who have little understanding of how things work to buy into the proposal.
Family farms are plainly not the target of his reform. The target is people like Elon Musk, whose net worth increased by $14 billion over five years, almost entirely in the form of unrealized capital gains that have not been taxed. If Musk simply holds onto his assets until he dies and passes them to his heirs, his billions of unrealized gains escape the income tax forever, thanks to the stepped-up basis rule.
Most of us work at a job, earn an income from that job, and pay income taxes on that income every year. This is not how it works for someone like Elon Musk. He generates huge amounts of capital gains, and each year he simply decides how much income he will realize. He does not realize most of this income each year, and therefore does not pay income taxes on it. Ensuring that Musk’s income is taxed at least once is the least we can do to make our tax code fair, and that is what Biden proposes.
The above implies he doesn't pay taxes or as many say NOT HIS FAIR SHARE. His money is not sitting in a bank idle. His money is actively invested in a myriad of projects, etc. Funding that helps other biz grow, hire people, creating a LARGER tax base, etc. That is actually rather productive and a net benefit to society.
You hear people say...so and so buys a fleet of Ferraris or has x amount of mansions. Why isn't he or she instead helping the poor? Again they misunderstand the nature of economics. If said person buys a fleet of Ferraris that keeps people at work. That helps that biz and their workers. It also benefits suppliers to Ferrari, etc. That also generates taxes etc. In other words what many think is wasteful spending is actually used to buy products that put others to work. That is a far more efficient use of funds vs gov taking those funds and distributing them based on political priorities.
Many/most people do not understand the above.
Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea that would have very bad "unintended" consequences.
Let’s say you do not sell the asset this year. In this case, you still have a capital gain of $3 million, but the capital gain is “unrealized.” The tax code does not count capital gains as income until they are realized, meaning you sell the asset. But it is income in the sense that it allows you to spend $3 million, just as if you earned $3 million doing a job.
For those not paying attention or who simply do not understand...NO you cannot spend the 3 million until you realize the gain. At that point it is taxed. There is no loophole one is avoiding by not realizing a gain.
In terms of inheritance? We already have rather high rates of taxation on inheritance when the event occurs. Further if one thinks through the chain of events....income was taxed when earned, taxes had been paid on realized gains, taxes paid on purchases, etc. and then the gov comes back for another rather large bite at inheritance.
This is more misdirection to get the people who have little understanding of how things work to buy into the proposal.
Family farms are plainly not the target of his reform. The target is people like Elon Musk, whose net worth increased by $14 billion over five years, almost entirely in the form of unrealized capital gains that have not been taxed. If Musk simply holds onto his assets until he dies and passes them to his heirs, his billions of unrealized gains escape the income tax forever, thanks to the stepped-up basis rule.
Most of us work at a job, earn an income from that job, and pay income taxes on that income every year. This is not how it works for someone like Elon Musk. He generates huge amounts of capital gains, and each year he simply decides how much income he will realize. He does not realize most of this income each year, and therefore does not pay income taxes on it. Ensuring that Musk’s income is taxed at least once is the least we can do to make our tax code fair, and that is what Biden proposes.
The above implies he doesn't pay taxes or as many say NOT HIS FAIR SHARE. His money is not sitting in a bank idle. His money is actively invested in a myriad of projects, etc. Funding that helps other biz grow, hire people, creating a LARGER tax base, etc. That is actually rather productive and a net benefit to society.
You hear people say...so and so buys a fleet of Ferraris or has x amount of mansions. Why isn't he or she instead helping the poor? Again they misunderstand the nature of economics. If said person buys a fleet of Ferraris that keeps people at work. That helps that biz and their workers. It also benefits suppliers to Ferrari, etc. That also generates taxes etc. In other words what many think is wasteful spending is actually used to buy products that put others to work. That is a far more efficient use of funds vs gov taking those funds and distributing them based on political priorities.
Many/most people do not understand the above.
Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea that would have very bad "unintended" consequences.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You make it so easy though.
Desert Hound
DA
And that argument doesn't really hold up well either on a logical basis. Politics doesn't care however.No difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If that holds up, a shorter illness period is really the only community spread argument they have left for mandating vaxxes.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant
SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617.2 (delta) is associated with higher viral loads [[1][1]] and increased transmissibility relative to other variants, as well as partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies [[2][2]]. The emergence of the delta variant has been associated with increasing case...
The reality is the vaccine helps prevent serious illness. When vaxxed you still spread it. That rather important fact defeats the purpose of mandates, masks, etc.
The logical conclusion that should follow that realization is that, we have the vax, time to move on with life without restrictions. The virus is here to stay.
What these punish the rich advocates don't understand, or ignore, is risk. Many wealthy people have taken significant risk to earn their incomes. Of course, you will always have a Paris or Hunter that are born into wealth or influence without any identifiable skills, unless snorting coke is considered a skill. Just hanging out a shingle as a business owner involves a significant amount of risk. The liability and responsibilities you assume as business owner are incredible. Most people won't understand that until they sign they front of a check instead of the back of the check. That's why many people choose to be an employee and take the safe route of a paycheck. Many wealthy people failed a number of times before they became successful. Many wealthy took significant risks and leveraged everything they had and often paid employees before they ever earned a profit. This is why the business owners should get certain tax benefits, for risk and for the fact they employee others.
Now does that mean I'm all in on giving the rich tax breaks, no. I find it very troubling that someone like Bezos has so many employees on public assistance. I also find it troubling that the uber rich are getting more wealthy while small business continues to struggle. Often times tax policy that targets the "rich", ends up hurting "non-corporate" businesses the most.
I find it incredibly shallow and selfish when someone employed by the government, with no risk of losing their job, with pension benefits, that didn't have to show up for work during the pandemic think others should have to bear a heavier tax burden.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Hahaha! He completely ignored answering my post. I explicitly excluded borrowing against unrealized capital gains as I would address that separately and the post does not mention borrowing against unrealized gains as how one can "spend" unrealized capital gains - which he verifies. There's only one thing to do now.
That would not be fair, and it's not what's in the proposal. Here is a more sane analysis --
It’s Not About Farms: Don’t Let Lies Crush Biden’s Tax Plan
Several former Democratic members of Congress have joined a campaign to misrepresent President Biden’s proposal to close a huge tax loophole for wealthy people with capital gains. This proposed reform is the cornerstone of the president’s tax plan. If lawmakers fall for the lies, Biden's plan...itep.org
Debunked.
Will our hypothetical billionaire be allowed to write off the value of those Ferraris once they decline when he leaves the dealer lot?
If my bitcoin investment declines, I get to write that off too, right?
How bout my dog....every year he gets older I get to write that off too right?
If my kid gets thrown off his soccer team, do I get to write off all the lessons and club fees as "unrealized losses"?
If you really want some humor, click on the author's bio. His work experience is working for Bernie and the SSA.
If I earn a billion dollars by writing a great book series, I pay income tax on all of it.
But, if I earn a billion dollars by founding a great company, I don’t pay a penny.
I’m not seeing the fairness in this system.
If I earn a billion dollars by writing a great book series, I pay income tax on all of it.
But, if I earn a billion dollars by founding a great company, I don’t pay a penny.
I’m not seeing the fairness in this system.
How can your spend X million dollars without realizing capital gains?
There are lawyers who earn a million dollars a year answering that very question. The answer gets a lot more complicated than “borrow against it”.
As met61 likes to say, we’re being played.
Out of your league again, Grace. Almost all the participants in that study had symptomatic cases.No difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If that holds up, a shorter illness period is really the only community spread argument they have left for mandating vaxxes.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant
SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.617.2 (delta) is associated with higher viral loads [[1][1]] and increased transmissibility relative to other variants, as well as partial escape from polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies [[2][2]]. The emergence of the delta variant has been associated with increasing case...
That means the study had a massive selection bias- it excluded people whose vaccine kept them from developing symptoms.
The authors know this, which is why their conclusion doesn’t at all support your theory of vax/unvax equivalence:
“Combined with other studies, these data indicate that vaccinated as well as unvaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant might transmit infection, though other studies suggest this may be relatively inefficient. “
Or, in lay terms, don’t assume you are completely immune to transmission just because you are vaccinated.
Are you done posting studies and misrepresenting their contents?
You just explained why the proposal to tax unrealized gains applies only to those with a billion dollars in assets.
If you are a working class guy with a billion dollars in assets, can I recommend you consider quitting your day job?
Hüsker Dü
DA
My neighbor died on 1/6, she was lead to slaughter by people with a distinct agenda. She was used, many others were as well. Whipped into a frenzy then pushed to the front to do the dirty work by those with serious intentions.
Wow you are in a bad mood today again.
Fine...fair point...I guess another relevant question then is does it keep you from being symptomatic if infected...
But if this holds up it undermines the argument that the viral loads in the symptomatic vaccinated are lower than the symptomatic unvaxxed. That, in addition to the declining efficiency of the vaccines over time as well as that it's generally suspected that against the Delta the efficiency numbers presented by pharma are inflated, if they hold up still really undermines the case for vaccine mandates.
Facts not in evidence. Billionaires on occasion don't pay taxes in a given year. However, that is relatively rare and when it does happen its typically a tax deferral, or tax shifting, and not tax avoidance. The saying the only thing certain is death and taxes, is not only true its often death that triggers a lot of taxes, often on things that have already been taxed. That having been said I have no objection to closer scrutiny of the private foundations that the rich set up as tax planning tools. However, taxing unrealized gains is just plain stupid.
Your example of a book seller and a great company illustrate your fundamental misunderstanding of taxes and business. I'm going to reluctantly use Bezos as an example. He allegedly didn't pay income taxes twice in the span of about 15 years. Amazon however has paid billions in income taxes (albeit at what I would consider a low effective tax rate). Amazon has paid billions in its employers share of payroll taxes, its paid millions maybe billions in property taxes, I bet its paid millions or billions in other non-income taxes. (It still pisses me off he has a significant number of employees on public assistance)
As an author with a great book, how many people do you personally employ on a full time basis? How much do you contribute to a local communities tax base through property and sales tax compared to a billion dollar company? I could go on an on, but hopefully your beginning to understand the stupidity of comparing the two.
One could argue the Tax law should apply to people like this:
www.thesfnews.com
Newsom's Questionable Estate Tax Filings - San Francisco News
SACRAMENTO—According to a July 25 report by Jennifer Van Laar with Redstate, 3 months after California Governor Gavin Newsom was gifted his $3.7 million estate in Fair Oaks, he received a $2.695 million tax-free cash out. The 12,000 square foot mansion was built on 8-plus acres of land beside...
www.thesfnews.com
This isn't really true either. If you write a great book series, unless you also own a publishing company, a lot of the revenue will go to the book publisher. Part of the income you'll get is as an advance and that advance will be taxed in the year that it is earned. The rest of it is payable as royalties on an as earned basis in the year which it is earned (not all up front because it's such a great book series that it's gone up in value and you pay for it all up front even though you may not see the royalty income years into the future). Further, those royalties are not treated as salary since they are a rights payment, not a fee for "work", so you, unlike the shlub editor working at the publishing company, don't have to pay certain federal and state deductions on such income. Furthermore (assuming you hold onto the copyright of the work) the value of your copyright may rise given the success of the book series, but the book publisher (and not you) see the increase in that value because you negotiated a poor royalty structure on your payments.
Bad analogy because a book owner (besides the naked copyright) doesn't really control the whole value of the book.
Hüsker Dü
DA
The constantly aggrieved are simply that, assholes looking for yet another excuse to whine and cry. They don’t do personal responsibility, they play the blame game.