this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
143 points (99.3% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
12 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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] carpoftruth@hexbear.net 75 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I love how unrealized gains are worth enough to borrow against, but somehow don't count as wealth for the purpose of taxation. Funny how that works.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] axont@hexbear.net 66 points 2 months ago (12 children)

"Okay imagine spending $100,000"

I literally can't imagine doing this at any point in my life, ever.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 62 points 2 months ago (4 children)

"At least 100 million in wealth"

Lol. Lmao, even. Are libs allergic to reading?

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Chuds especially. Dems sometimes read a lot, but only from their little silos of pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-progressive slop.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

After years of reading Paul Krugman op-eds I'm basically an economist

[–] miz@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] miz@hexbear.net 62 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Gorbachev in Russia would have thought it was a radical speech.

  1. he spent most of his last decades in Germany iirc
  2. he was a liberal
  3. he's dead
[–] DerRedMax@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)
  1. he's dead

Not to Newt Gingrich, he’s not. Rent-free afterlife.

These people are fighting a late-80’s Cold War with a non-existent adversary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] viva_la_juche@hexbear.net 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I saw someone posting something similar about this and a person replied “you don’t make enough money to be concerned about this” and they were like “you don’t know what I’m cooking! I’m certain I’ll be in this tax bracket by the next sitting president!” Lol

[–] chungusamonugs@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's been a conservative talking point for years. That if it weren't for [insert generic bad person here] you'd have a million dollars and a boat and 6 houses.

I'm amazed how many people still fall into it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 42 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I propose 10000% capital gains tax if someone makes over $100m.

[–] Florn@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

Once your income hits that point you prestige and have to start over as a McDonald's worker

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ryepunk@hexbear.net 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I refuse to believe any proposed policies from a democrat. They can offer anything they want and know they won't pass it because a parliamentarian will find the blue suit rule in effect on the day it's proposed (oops the tax code can't be amended if there is someone wearing a blue suit in Congress on that day, sorry hands are tied everyone, we do want progress though).

All they're going to do is tax cuts and wonder why they can't fund anything. Also bump that military spending up another 500 billion or so gotta make sure we're extra lethal and threatening to everyone.

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

But that money is protecting freedom!*

By giving Israel $ to kill more kids

[–] GaveUp@hexbear.net 39 points 2 months ago
[–] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This worked when they made everyone afraid of the estate tax, even though that only applies to the richest 2,000 or so deaths a year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] enkifish@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago

I like how the title to that post is just describing property taxes that every home owner already pays.

[–] peeonyou@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Anyone with $100 million is going to be able to evade the taxes anyway.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago

There's a hostage approach to how bourgeoisie and bootlickers alike talk about that: "don't try to tax milord, or milord will evade more taxes and you'll be sorry!"

[–] Hexboare@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How many fucking people with $100m+ would even keep their investments in their personal name?

Anyway, wacky proposal that they know will never get up

[–] LaGG_3@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago

Yeah, it's 100% football-lucy shit because these kinds of people have family offices incorporated to handle their assets.

[–] hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Think it's for people with extremely high net worths ($100 million+).

It's also a recipe for owning nothing. Nothing solid or fungible. You would look at a Thing, and say, this is going to cost me This Much. If its value goes up. And inflation is going to happen, so of course its numerical value is going to go up.

From t_d thread and the tax doesn't apply to "things" it applies to stocks. And the bit about how you would consider how much owning a thing would cost over time including inflation is already how assets are valued.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago (5 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 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 14 points 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Philosophosphorous@hexbear.net 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

fucking hilarious that they don't point out it only applies to those with 100 million, like to these people 100,000 is just throw away gambling money. even 50,000 is more money than i'll ever likely have at one time in my entire life, it would be life-changing to have that much money, and i'm a fairly privileged first world failson.

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You underestimate the immense class solidarity the bourgeoisie have with each other. A slight on billionaires is treated as a slight on all privileged classes, particularly in the global north.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hurting [...] economic growth

How

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

"Noooo! You don't understand, it's MY capital to sit on and do nothing with!"

[–] heatenconsumerist@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This will 1000% never pass. The logistics are impossible

[–] hexaflexagonbear@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's for publicly traded shares, so it really doesn't seem impossible. Logistics seem about as complicated as paying income tax on income received in a foreign currency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Or in other words...it forces capital to do its job?

Want captialism? Sorry, you're going to have to make regulations to encourage, if not outright force porky to do his job. If labor unions come under scrutiny because withholding labor hurts the economy, then the same logic must also apply to capital.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago

The only real job of capital is to transfer wealth from workers to capitalists.

[–] MelaniaTrump@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Trying to make Harris cooler than she is again, smh.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

lmao i love when it only effects 100 million in wealth but they try to think about the average poor american family having their house appreciate

load more comments
view more: next ›