Jump to content

Taxes

sheeeit

By sheeeit
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Are you trying to say that every year property taxes on homes don’t increase based upon a government appraisal, which (unless they fight it) homeowners have to then pay despite the fact that they don’t sell their homes and those gains are therefore unrealized? Is that your stance? 

Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 44200

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm starting to wonder if Incredulity has ever owned a home.

I like how he's arguing with Sydney after I fucking owned him in my post about how stupid his premise of getting taxed on unrealized gains that go unleveraged doesn't even pass the muster of his argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49329

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

I like how he's arguing with Sydney after I fucking owned him in my post about how stupid his premise of getting taxed on unrealized gains that go unleveraged doesn't even pass the muster of his argument. 

 

You act line I haven’t been dragging my nuts all over his face the last half hour sir. Repeatedly 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

and remember, you were the guy who after reading immamac’s post offered up as an example people refinancing their homes to remove PMI. Fucking Laughable indeed. 

A person refinancing their home to remove PmI is financing unrealized gains, and as per Imma’s proposal would pay income tax on financing of unrealized gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49329

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not at all.

Feel free to go back and quote where I ever said Income taxes, or where I said I paid income taxes on my home refinance. This is all shit you’ve conjured up in your head because you couldn’t follow what other people were saying or don’t understand how property taxes work. That’s your fault dummy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4640

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Yes, because everyone has a salary.

I don’t have a salary, yet I am taxed.  Do you mean not everyone has income?  Good, federal sales tax will take care of that. 
 

27 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

you are advocating a flat tax on income. If we were to do that, and keep it revenue neutral, the poors taxes go up, everybody else's go down. It doesn't get more regressive than that.

Correct.  We all live and participate in America. It’s beyond fucking stupid how large a part of our population doesn’t contribute.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49329

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

A person refinancing their home to remove PmI is financing unrealized gains, and as per Imma’s proposal would pay income tax on financing of unrealized gain.

No dipshit, he didnt. But what they would do, and what everyone does now, is pay increased PROPERTY TAXES based on…wait for it…the unrealized gains on their home. I’m sorry you read people saying “taxes” and in your head you see “income taxes.”
 

lol you’ve seriously never owned a home before have you? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13351

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

you are advocating a flat tax on income. If we were to do that, and keep it revenue neutral, the poors taxes go up, everybody else's go down. It doesn't get more regressive than that.

All the fees we pay (DL renewal, park entrance fees, whatever) plus sales taxes are already heavily regressive. A flat income tax would shift the tax burden even more to the poor than it already is.

 

 

Flat taxes are one of the more stupid ideas that republicans love to float 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Feel free to go back and quote where I ever said Income taxes, or where I said I paid income taxes on my home refinance. This is all shit you’ve conjured up in your head because you couldn’t follow what other people were saying or don’t understand how property taxes work. That’s your fault dummy. 

Fat Chewbacca said, “ tax leverage on unrealized gains”

When you refinance your house to remove PMI what are you using to reduce LTV?  I won’t wait for you and fat chewbacca to catch-up.  
 

Answer: unrealized gains

 

 

 

 

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46980

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Fat Chewbacca said, “ tax leverage of unrealized gains”

When you refinance your house to remove PMI what are you using to reduce LTV?  I won’t wait for you and fat chewbacca to catch-up.  
 

Answer: unrealized gains

Correct . . . LTV goes down in most cases because value goes up.  Unrealized gains.  If someone refinances their house, say to take advantage of lower interest rates, and in the process LTV drops below 80%, thereby wiping out the need for PMI, where is the taxable event?  What income did they receive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49329

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Fat Chewbacca said, “ tax leverage of unrealized gains”

When you refinance your house to remove PMI what are you using to reduce LTV?  I won’t wait for you and fat chewbacca to catch-up.  
 

Answer: unrealized gains

 

 

 

 

No shit? Thanks for finally showing you understand, maybe, how property taxes work. And you know what those unrealized gains do? Increase the property taxes I pay every year. One might call it me having to pay taxes out of pocket on my unrealized gains. 
 

where is your rage about the unjustness of the property tax system?

Edited by SydneyCarton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 44200

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

A person refinancing their home to remove PmI is financing unrealized gains, and as per Imma’s proposal would pay income tax on financing of unrealized gain.

lolwut?

If I borrow 88 dollars, bring 12 of my own and buy a 100 dollar thing, but the person will only give me the 88 dollars if I give them 1 dollar a year in interest and .8 cents a year until I only owe them 80% of whatever the thing I bought is worth (so either 80 dollars paid down or if the value goes up above 120) as insurance. After 3 years, my 100 thing is now worth 10,000. I get a formal appraisal and the person drops the .8 cents per year charge as per the agreement, but you still have to pay the 1 dollar a year in interest.

You say you want to refinance, maybe you are looking for a better interest rate or something. Everything is the same as situation above, except you borrow the EXACT AMOUNT you owe the person who lent you the 88 dollars (after 3 years that's 85 dollars). You borrow 85 dollars against an asset that is worth 10,000 dollars and you only have to pay .80 cents per year interest. Yay!

Now explain to me where the owner is capitalizing or leveraging the 9,900 dollars in this situation? 

Okay, now that you are just flabbergasted at how fucking wrong you are about everything lets go to another situation.

You know your thing is worth 10,000 instead of 100 after 3 years and you want to buy a bunch of other 100 dollar things, and you know because the way people like to lend money that you can borrow up to 8,000 and buy 80 OTHER THINGS. You of course would have to pay 100 per year in interest instead of 1 dollar a year per interest, but who cares YOU ARE RICH and you can have 81 things for 100 per year! You can also let other people borrow those things for 110 dollars per year. So you actually have 800 dollars PROFIT per year even after paying the interest!! You also under these new terms don't have to pay the .8 cents per year.

Understand now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Correct . . . LTV goes down in most cases because value goes up.  Unrealized gains.  If someone refinances their house, say to take advantage of lower interest rates, and in the process LTV drops below 80%, thereby wiping out the need for PMI, where is the taxable event?  What income did they receive? 

Fat Chewbacca proposed to, “tax leverage on unrealized gains.

 

thats the hypothetical taxable event that would be a complete fuck job to taxpayer a-z

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49329

Posted
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

Fat Chewbacca proposed to, “tax leverage on unrealized gains.

 

thats the hypothetical taxable event that would be a complete fuck job to taxpayer a-z

Except that every homeowner in America for the last 80 or so years is very familiar with the concept of being taxed on unrealized gains if they’ve ever owned a home. It may be an unwelcome concept to apply that to other areas of net worth or investments, but it’s not alien. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46980

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Fat Chewbacca proposed to, “tax leverage on unrealized gains.

 

thats the hypothetical taxable event that would be a complete fuck job to taxpayer a-z

I'll let "Fat Chewbacca" chime in, because I'm too lazy to go back, but as I recall this was referring to LOANS taken out by the wealthy AGAINST unrealized gains.  That's a completely different thing.  From an accounting perspective, it is no different than "realizing" those gains.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, immamac said:

lolwut?

If I borrow 88 dollars, bring 12 of my own and buy a 100 dollar thing, but the person will only give me the 88 dollars if I give them 1 dollar a year in interest and .8 cents a year until I only owe them 80% of whatever the thing I bought is worth (so either 80 dollars paid down or if the value goes up above 120) as insurance. After 3 years, my 100 thing is now worth 10,000. I get a formal appraisal and the person drops the .8 cents per year charge as per the agreement, but you still have to pay the 1 dollar a year in interest.

You say you want to refinance, maybe you are looking for a better interest rate or something. Everything is the same as situation above, except you borrow the EXACT AMOUNT you owe the person who lent you the 88 dollars (after 3 years that's 85 dollars). You borrow 85 dollars against an asset that is worth 10,000 dollars and you only have to pay .80 cents per year interest. Yay!

Now explain to me where the owner is capitalizing or leveraging the 9,900 dollars in this situation? 

Okay, now that you are just flabbergasted at how fucking wrong you are about everything lets go to another situation.

You know your thing is worth 10,000 instead of 100 after 3 years and you want to buy a bunch of other 100 dollar things, and you know because the way people like to lend money that you can borrow up to 8,000 and buy 80 OTHER THINGS. You of course would have to pay 100 per year in interest instead of 1 dollar a year per interest, but who cares YOU ARE RICH and you can have 81 things for 100 per year! You can also let other people borrow those things for 110 dollars per year. So you actually have 800 dollars PROFIT per year even after paying the interest!! You also under these new terms don't have to pay the .8 cents per year.

Understand now? 

Please direct me to the fantasy land where any “asset” appreciates 100x in 3 years and a 10% return is boilerplate.

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 44200

Posted
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

Please direct me to the fantasy land where any “asset” appreciates 100x in 3 years and a 10% return in boilerplate.

are you a fucking stupid? I used round numbers and exaggeration to make my point. What fucking land asset costs 100 dollars you fucking rube. 

Admit you are wrong and stop fucking up this thread with your stupidity and general lack of understanding of basic financial topics. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4640

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

“Why don’t we tax the people who don’t have anything more? It’s not fair that my taxes are higher than Homeless JimBob’s! I am very rational and smart, not like you stupid emotional libs!”

America. Where everyone is equal, unless it’s not in our best political interest for you to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4640

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Imagine living in America in 2021 and thinking the problem is that the rich have it too hard and the poor don’t have it hard enough. 

Oh they have it plenty hard, I'm sure.  But rewarding them for their inability to do something more has never made sense to me.  What's the word yall love, social contact?  How can you be invested in this contract with America, when you don't ante up.   This is purely academic anyhow, middle class will continue to get buttfucked more than everyone else.  Rinse, repeat. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28395

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

These discussions go on and on - nothing changes (a design feature).

Bill Moyers/Paul Krugman frame the issues well (8 years ago) on the danger of doing nothing:

 

 

this is a fascinating discussion - midway through they even talk exactly about incredulity and fattyflatty's hollow arguments against taxation 

It's really worth the discussion around 15:40 or so, they touch on how ObamaCare was funded basically entirely by small taxes all over investment and earned income for the highest earners. It's all just a cornucopia of fucking koch bros talking points

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh they have it plenty hard, I'm sure.  But rewarding them for their inability to do something more has never made sense to me.  What's the word yall love, social contact?  How can you be invested in this contract with America, when you don't ante up.   This is purely academic anyhow, middle class will continue to get buttfucked more than everyone else.  Rinse, repeat. 

Payroll taxes. How do they work again?

Oh those don’t count. I forgot.

Everyone except the ultra rich are getting butt fucked by the politicians controlled by the ultra rich.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86945

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Imagine living in America in 2021 and thinking the problem is that the rich have it too hard and the poor don’t have it hard enough. 

I think that’s the opening statement of the GOP platform 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13351

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh they have it plenty hard, I'm sure.  But rewarding them for their inability to do something more has never made sense to me.  What's the word yall love, social contact?  How can you be invested in this contract with America, when you don't ante up.   This is purely academic anyhow, middle class will continue to get buttfucked more than everyone else.  Rinse, repeat. 

Lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31991

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It really isn't funny.  I mean there are rich people getting richer!!  And they aren't contributing *anything!!1!

*except jobs (for hundreds of thousands), charitable donations, technology, societal advancement, some taxes

They're also reaping massive benefit from the system that other people are paying a larger percentage of their income and wealth to maintain.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I think that’s the opening statement of the GOP platform 

The "middle class" has it the hardest of all. The "middle class" is subsidizing this country. The poor contribute nothing and are net takers and the rich contribute, both directly and indirectly, but not in a meaningful way in comparison and to the ratio of the "middle class". 

And yet it seems some in the middle class wake up and think "cool, I'm being squeezed from both sides, but why not squeeze harder? I don't want to retire or leave a decent inheritance for my children and their children."

The answer to doing more for the poor is to tax the rich more. And when I say rich, I mean 10-20-50mm type multimillionaires, not 50-60 year olds with 2.1mm over a career of earning (and paying taxes their entire lives) and saving.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19454

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Lots and lots of tax discussions and tax rates and Billionaires etc.

I am opposed to a billionaire tax scheme because history and human nature has told us that the billionaires and their tax/money support people are much, much, much smarter than congress.  Once the legislation is enacted, they will simply figure out ways to avoid it.  As is typical (see ACA- Obama and Dems said the exact same thing about the cost for the program being "paid" for and now even they admit the program cost trillions) we are going to pass legislation and then spend the money but the revenue is never going to be as much as predicted.  As a result, the super wealthy won't actually pay for it, the rest of us will.

However, I do agree that the wealthy could/should pay more in taxes but it has to be enacted in a way that they can not evade it.  You absolutely have to consider how any new taxes are actually going to be collected.  Congress does not care.  They pick an entity (in this case the super wealthy) who are a tiny fraction of the population and who the vast majority of the population don't feel sorry for at all (meaning they can pick on the super wealthy and not have any political blowback- its too fucking easy) and claim that group is going to pay for the new spending (it is "paid" for) when they absolutely know in their hearts that it won't work.

I would keep the current tax rates where they are.  For certain the corporate rate and possibly raise the top rate to 40% on income over $2M.

My solution is really simple and really easy to implement.  

1) National Sales Tax with Tax Rebates- I would enact a 2% federal sales tax with zero exemptions.  Hard to get exact figures but our GDP is around $20T so 2% would raise about $400B.  The arguments that this would be a regressive tax have some validity so you can easily set an income level of say $50K and every filer at that limit or under gets a direct tax refund on their taxes of 2% of their income.  This would affect about 75 million tax payers.  If we assume an average refund for all 75 million of $700 (I used $35,000 as the average amount spent annually and 2% of $35,000 is $700) which is about $50B so the net is about $350B.

Lots of hand wringing about the extremely rare group of people that borrow against their portfolios and the Bezos and Musks etc.  They can not avoid this.  Those people spend a lot.  

2) Import Tax of 2%- Our imports total about $2.5T annually.  This raises another $50B.  There should be a cost to importers to access our free marketplace.  If countries put a 2% import tax on us then so be it.  

3) Fuel Tax- The US uses around 170B gallons of fuel (gas, diesel, aviation etc) annually.  A $.50 fuel tax would raise $85B.  It would also have the effect of weaning the country off of gas.

4) Real Estate- The combined value of US real estate (residential and commercial) is around $50T.  A federal 1/4% tax would raise $125B.

5) Foreign Corporate Tax- I would leave the corporate rate exactly where it is right now at 21%.  Our tax rate for our businesses has to be competitive with the market in a global economy.  I would enact a plan where US multinational companies can realize and repatriate all of their profits back to the US for the exact same rate they are legally paying in whatever country they happen to be doing business in.  If Microsoft earns $100M in Ireland and Ireland's tax rate is 12% then Microsoft can bring those profits back to the US for 12%.  It is estimated US companies pay about $400B in foreign taxes annually.  

The infrastructure to collect these taxes already exists and is in use.

The total from these 5 items is a little over $1T annually.  

Lastly, the only way this makes sense in the long run is if spending is kept in check.  Currently our taxes are approximately 32% or so of our GDP.  I would freeze these taxes at current rates.  I would then mandate that total government spending can not exceed 35% of GDP.  If you want/need more money then you have to grow the economy to get it.  So there is a % deficit on existing tax revenue.  With a $20T GDP that means a shortfall of $600B.  My plan raises an extra $1T so there would be a surplus of $400B which should be used to pay down the debt.  Even a modest $400B pay down would have a massive impact on the value of the dollar globally.

If we get into a war or have a Covid issue or a bank collapse, then the govt would have to raise the percentages on the 5 items above to pay for it.  

TL, DR:

You're a moron

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...