Markets still falling like whoa

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,388]

1 hour ago, Storm the Field said:

Based on futures this morning, all 3 indices are back above their August 1st levels. Hope everyone survived the ~7% pullback that took 3 weeks to recover.

 

History will remember the July-Aug 2024 6-week depression.

 

[Incredulity 11,446]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

explain this line of thinking lol. 100M+ net worth individuals getting taxed will lead to more wealth concentration? That's really neat. I'd like to understand the math behind that.

Family held medium size businesses having to pay taxes on asset and business appreciation annually will lead to a massive wave of forced sales.  Who do you think those assets get sold to?

[immamac 42,400]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Family held medium size businesses having to pay taxes on asset and business appreciation annually will lead to a massive wave of forced sales.  Who do you think those assets get sold to?

Medium sized 100M+ corporations that are publicly traded? Can you point me to a few of those that exist. I'd love to invest - oh wait those don't exist at all because Megacorp already bought them all. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Seriously all your boogie men are comical and defy any real business acumen or logic. 

You think that these large corps are going to have free reign and the FTC isn't gonna actually do its job? Got news for you bud. They have already started and will continue to trust bust/take down monopolistic megacorps. 

Taxing the Ultra wealthy with assets over 100M is never going to lead to additional consolidation the math doesn't math that way. If they wanted to avoid a breakup they could just divvy it amongst the family and then it won't ever get taxed that way. This is an individual holdings tax not a corporate profits and valuation tax. 

[Incredulity 11,446]

Just now, immamac said:

Medium sized 100M+ corporations that are publicly traded

family held means private.  as in NOT publicly traded.  

 

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Seriously all your boogie men are comical and defy any real business acumen or logic. 

LOL.  ok.  

[immamac 42,400]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

family held means private.  as in NOT publicly traded.  

 

LOL.  ok.  

Oh right so the government randomly assigns valuations to privately held businesses and assets now? News to me. 

This is meant for liquid assets which change in value on an open market. This isn't a oh you have a 100M house so we tax you on it hurr durr no one would fucking pass that. 

[Incredulity 11,446]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Oh right so the government randomly assigns valuations to privately held businesses and assets now? News to me. 

This is meant for liquid assets which change in value on an open market. This isn't a oh you have a 100M house so we tax you on it hurr durr no one would fucking pass that. 

You are 100% wrong.  There has been no discussion of excluding private businesses and assets. 

[Incredulity 11,446]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

Oh right so the government randomly assigns valuations to privately held businesses and assets now? News to me.

yup, I'm the one with no business accumen.  LOL.

 

What do you thing the IRS does when they audit a return that includes a sale or transfer of a privately held business?

[immamac 42,400]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

You are 100% wrong.  There has been no discussion of excluding private businesses and assets. 

I'm not wrong. This isn't even drafted they aren't doing stupid shit stop fear mongering you fucking goon. 

[immamac 42,400]

Just now, Incredulity said:

yup, I'm the one with no business accumen.  LOL.

 

What do you thing the IRS does when they audit a return that includes a sale or transfer of a privately held business?

They look at if people actually sold the business for what they said they sold it for. 

You think they are understating value so they can sell it for less? I mean maybe the idiots you hang out with that think selling things for less nets you more money after taxes (it doesnt in literally any case) or are you saying they go after fraud for misreporting valuation to get a tax benefit by accepting full valuation in exchange but only reporting a smaller portion?

Or are you saying they inflate the valuation and accept less money and pay more taxes? Maybe those are the morons you speak of? 

[Incredulity 11,446]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

They look at if people actually sold the business for what they said they sold it for. 

You think they are understating value so they can sell it for less? I mean maybe the idiots you hang out with that think selling things for less nets you more money after taxes (it doesnt in literally any case) or are you saying they go after fraud for misreporting valuation to get a tax benefit by accepting full valuation in exchange but only reporting a smaller portion?

Or are you saying they inflate the valuation and accept less money and pay more taxes? Maybe those are the morons you speak of? 

The IRS is absolutely concerned if a family business is sold below fair value.    Anything that isn't arms length is going to get scrutiny.

[immamac 42,400]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

The IRS is absolutely concerned if a family business is sold below fair value.    Anything that isn't arms length is going to get scrutiny.

So you think that families illegally cashing out their fortunes from a family business is bad or good?

[Incredulity 11,446]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

So you think that families illegally cashing out their fortunes from a family business is bad or good?

No idea what you are driving at here.  People and businesses should pay the taxes they owe.

To the original point.  Taxing unrealized gains is an absurd.  Even at a 100M threshold it will have significant negative impact on family businesses.  Somehow you think they will be exempt or that there isn’t an entire industry around valuation of privately held businesses.

[immamac 42,400]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No idea what you are driving at here.  People and businesses should pay the taxes they owe.

To the original point.  Taxing unrealized gains is an absurd.  Even at a 100M threshold it will have significant negative impact on family businesses.  Somehow you think they will be exempt or that there isn’t an entire industry around valuation of privately held businesses.

They wouldn’t and you are making stuff up. The point is to tax people who are leveraging their unrealized gains instead of selling them to skirt taxes. 

not everything is some complex fucking money grab by the government. Stop being such an idiot. 

[Incredulity 11,446]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

you are making stuff up

Quote one point I have made thats isn’t factual.

[immamac 42,400]

Just now, Incredulity said:

Quote one point I have made thats isn’t factual.

Just give it up. You are just fearmongering nonsense. 

The point is to tax wealthy hiding behind tax evasive practices in unrealized gains. It’s not about going after family businesses and a bunch of other babble you are on about. 

the intent is clear and it’s not to damage the economy.  Stop being obtuse. 

[Incredulity 11,446]

I guess this will be the first and only tax policy without unintended consequences.  Cool, cool.

[hornmpa96 2,597]

52 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You are 100% wrong.  There has been no discussion of excluding private businesses and assets. 

 

51 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm not wrong. This isn't even drafted they aren't doing stupid shit stop fear mongering you fucking goon. 

Just a couple of notes:

1. There is a 116 page legislative proposal which was released by Sen. Wyden and other co-sponsors which actually does provide the details behind this idea.

2. The annual mark-to-market rule and resulting tax applies to “Tradeable Covered Assets” which include publicly traded assets, assets readily traded in secondary markets (historically this definition has captured certain derivatives and non-publicly traded debt instruments), assets traded on online marketplaces which match buyers/sellers (crypto), and assets for which the Treasury Secretary determines a reasonable basis exists to annually value an asset. Obviously this last category is the key item for the Koch family, etc.

3. Non-tradeable Assets are covered by a separate provision in the bill.  These assets aren’t subject to the annual mark-to-market rules and gain will be taxed when the asset is sold. However, there is an interest charge applied to this tax to account for the “deferral” period of the gain. Tax and the interest charge is limited to a maximum of 49% on any gain. This provision is generally intended to cover privately-owned businesses.

[Incredulity 11,446]

21 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Just a couple of notes:

1. There is a 116 page legislative proposal which was released by Sen. Wyden and other co-sponsors which actually does provide the details behind this idea.

Are you refering to the "billionaire" tax proposal he made a couple years ago?  Or is there a more targeted proposal to the 100M threshold?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,779]

fucking finally
Fed’s Powell Declares ‘Time Has Come’ for Rate Cuts (msn.com)

[boilerhorn 1,299]

Dumb question regarding taxation of unrealized gains.

Assume someone bought 200 shares of BRK.A in Nov 2000 at $56k per share at a total cost of $11.2mm.
Today, those shares are valued at $135mm, and would have an unrealized gain of $124mm.

Does that person/owner get taxed on this unrealized gain?  Clearly, I am not in the realm of this example or I would know the answer.
And, if the owner would have to pay taxes on this unrealized gain, does it not put downward pressure on equities prices?

[Trey3216 15,321]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

So you think that families illegally cashing out their fortunes from a family business is bad or good?

Who the fuck is illegally cashing out fortunes on a family business?  How many times does it need to be taxed?  How many chunks of that pie are enough to satisfy the diabetic tax fantasy man?  

[Incredulity 11,446]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

How many chunks of that pie are enough to satisfy the diabetic tax fantasy man?  

[Trey3216 15,321]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

They wouldn’t and you are making stuff up. The point is to tax people who are leveraging their unrealized gains instead of selling them to skirt taxes. 

not everything is some complex fucking money grab by the government. Stop being such an idiot. 

Every single tax is a simple money grab built into a complex money grab by the government.  How's that nearly boiling water feeling, Kermit?    

 

Why the fuck can the government not spend less money?   They've got too many mouths to feed is the answer.  

[Trey3216 15,321]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Just give it up. You are just fearmongering nonsense. 

The point is to tax wealthy hiding behind tax evasive practices in unrealized gains. It’s not about going after family businesses and a bunch of other babble you are on about. 

the intent is clear and it’s not to damage the economy.  Stop being obtuse. 

That may be the stated point...but that isn't the goal of the stated point.  

[immamac 42,400]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Who the fuck is illegally cashing out fortunes on a family business?  How many times does it need to be taxed?  How many chunks of that pie are enough to satisfy the diabetic tax fantasy man?  

That's what I'm over here wondering.

[Trey3216 15,321]

6 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Dumb question regarding taxation of unrealized gains.

Assume someone bought 200 shares of BRK.A in Nov 2000 at $56k per share at a total cost of $11.2mm.
Today, those shares are valued at $135mm, and would have an unrealized gain of $124mm.

Does that person/owner get taxed on this unrealized gain?  Clearly, I am not in the realm of this example or I would know the answer.
And, if the owner would have to pay taxes on this unrealized gain, does it not put downward pressure on equities prices?

You're the devil!!!!!  

1 minute ago, immamac said:

That's what I'm over here wondering.

I quoted you.  You're the one saying shit about "illegally cashing out", so take that argument up with yourself.

[immamac 42,400]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

You're the devil!!!!!  

I quoted you.  You're the one saying shit about "illegally cashing out", so take that argument up with yourself.

Yeah that's the only time the IRS gives a shit about valuations 

[hornmpa96 2,597]

28 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Are you refering to the "billionaire" tax proposal he made a couple years ago?  Or is there a more targeted proposal to the 100M threshold?

There is a more recent proposal which includes 2 triggers - being a billionaire or earning greater than $100 million. Either test needs to be met for 3 years in a row.

[Incredulity 11,446]

2 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

There is a more recent proposal which includes 2 triggers - being a billionaire or earning greater than $100 million. Either test needs to be met for 3 years in a row.

can you link that?  Googling is getting me nowhere.

[hornmpa96 2,597]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

can you link that?  Googling is getting me nowhere.

I’m struggling to link from my phone. I’m looking at Senate Finance Committee website and the press release with the legislative text was released on 11/30/23.

[jdhorn92 1,535]

40 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Dumb question regarding taxation of unrealized gains.

Assume someone bought 200 shares of BRK.A in Nov 2000 at $56k per share at a total cost of $11.2mm.
Today, those shares are valued at $135mm, and would have an unrealized gain of $124mm.

Does that person/owner get taxed on this unrealized gain?  Clearly, I am not in the realm of this example or I would know the answer.
And, if the owner would have to pay taxes on this unrealized gain, does it not put downward pressure on equities prices?

That's the way I understand it and that would be a travesty. With split Congress I cant see that going anywhere.  To add that to the discourse, if there is a net loss on paper is that then deductible?  Talk about a cluster of epic proportions.  Only one who wins in that case is tax preparers.  This will also lead to a boon in IRA, thus taking discretionary dollars out of the economy, which is 75% of the economy, loss sales tax, GDP etc..less tax revenue.

Edited August 23 by jdhorn92

[Parliament 14,086]

Thank God for the ignore feature.

[Incredulity 11,446]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Thank God for the ignore feature.

[jdhorn92 1,535]

4 hours ago, immamac said:

explain this line of thinking lol. 100M+ net worth individuals getting taxed will lead to more wealth concentration? That's really neat. I'd like to understand the math behind that.

wealth concentration= consolidation , thus less of an owner/people/investor pool.  That's the way Interpret it.

[immamac 42,400]

37 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

That's the way I understand it and that would be a travesty. With split Congress I cant see that going anywhere.  To add that to the discourse, if there is a net loss on paper is that then deductible?  Talk about a cluster of epic proportions.  Only one who wins in that case is tax preparers.  This will also lead to a boon in IRA, thus taking discretionary dollars out of the economy, which is 75% of the economy, loss sales tax, GDP etc..less tax revenue.

I mean if you think there's that many people with 100M in unrealized gains out there ive got some great ocean front property in Arizona you would be interested in. 

We are talking about less than 10k people out of 350M+

[ChickenSandwich 9,795]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean if you think there's that many people with 100M in unrealized gains out there ive got some great ocean front property in Arizona you would be interested in. 

We are talking about less than 10k people out of 350M+

A threshold which will inevitably be lowered.  They will just say what you need to hear to guarantee it passes, and it will then be adjusted to hit their funding targets.

[immamac 42,400]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

A threshold which will inevitably be lowered.  They will just say what you need to hear to guarantee it passes, and it will then be adjusted to hit their funding targets.

Ah yes the old goalposts moving before the game even begins argument. Always a classic. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,795]

Just now, immamac said:

Ah yes the old goalposts moving before the game even begins argument. Always a classic. 

because there is no government precedent to draw that possible conclusion.........

[immamac 42,400]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

because there is no government precedent to draw that possible conclusion.........

Sounds conclusive. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,795]

I think the history of Federal Income Tax from inception paints a fair picture. 

[immamac 42,400]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the history of Federal Income Tax from inception paints a fair picture. 

Oh the picture that we are historically low for the highest tax and effective tax rate? Lol 

[Mother mopar 3,288]

So what we thinking for rate cuts .5?

[boilerhorn 1,299]

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean if you think there's that many people with 100M in unrealized gains out there ive got some great ocean front property in Arizona you would be interested in. 

We are talking about less than 10k people out of 350M+

According to an Oct 2023 article in Investopedia, there are 9730 such folks in the USA.
https://www.investopedia.com/new-class-of-global-elite-have-emerged-8357556

It's not clear how much of that is unrealized gains.  And, what is the actual process here?  In the silly example I gave above, does the said person need to get taxed only on the marginal number above $100mm in unrealized gains?  In such a case, his unrealized gains would remain over $100mm.  And would the remaining be subject to the same taxation the following year.  Seems like it could be a tracking and logistics nighmare.

[immamac 42,400]

2 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

According to an Oct 2023 article in Investopedia, there are 9730 such folks in the USA.
https://www.investopedia.com/new-class-of-global-elite-have-emerged-8357556

It's not clear how much of that is unrealized gains.  And, what is the actual process here?  In the silly example I gave above, does the said person need to get taxed only on the marginal number above $100mm in unrealized gains?  In such a case, his unrealized gains would remain over $100mm.  And would the remaining be subject to the same taxation the following year.  Seems like it could be a tracking and logistics nighmare.

I believe it's a billion in assets or 100M in annual earnings from the post above and for 3 years in a row. I think the point is to get people to stop hoarding equities and using them for leverage and getting tax free loans. There is no other reason to hold equities with that level of value in an economic sense. Diversification becomes an issue as well. 

[boilerhorn 1,299]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I believe it's a billion in assets or 100M in annual earnings from the post above and for 3 years in a row. I think the point is to get people to stop hoarding equities and using them for leverage and getting tax free loans. There is no other reason to hold equities with that level of value in an economic sense. Diversification becomes an issue as well. 

Thank you for clarifying!  I skimmed over that part.

[MinerProphet 71]

And here I thought we were all on the same page that Taxation is Theft.

I need to get out more.

[Not a cat 5,601]

4 hours ago, immamac said:

 

the intent is clear and it’s not to damage the economy.  Stop being obtuse. 

[Skipper 6,012]

20 hours ago, immamac said:

I believe it's a billion in assets or 100M in annual earnings from the post above and for 3 years in a row. I think the point is to get people to stop hoarding equities and using them for leverage and getting tax free loans. There is no other reason to hold equities with that level of value in an economic sense. Diversification becomes an issue as well. 

I haven't spent a lot of time on this so very good chance there is a reason I'm wrong but it seems like it might be easier to regulate or tax this specific scenario compared to taxing unrealized gains.

[52-80 19,047]

On 8/24/2024 at 5:32 PM, Skipper said:

I haven't spent a lot of time on this so very good chance there is a reason I'm wrong but it seems like it might be easier to regulate or tax this specific scenario compared to taxing unrealized gains.

It is a 100% easier and more sensible to tax that scenario than to implement unrealized cg tax.  
 

it would almost be akin to a tax on consumption (a notional consumption of capital)…which is the fairest form of tax but we’ll save that diversion for another day. 

[Henry Hill 3,156]

Big earnings release on Wednesday for NVIDIA. Will we see a triple lindy? The beginning of the end of the massive bull run for AI? Or, will this be a nothing burger?

Anyone have any exposure aside from mutual funds and ETFs?