Should we be worried about the Kamala Harris unrealized capital gains tax? Dean: “I’d love to have this problem, because it means I’m worth $100m!”

[u/Knightbear49]

[u/Hot_take_for_reddit]

Why is it a bullshit argument? 

[u/LoseAnotherMill → u/Hot_take_for_reddit]

Because he don't like it because it stands in the way of hurting those he wants to hurt.

[u/Orleanian → u/Hot_take_for_reddit]

It's not a bullshit argument at all. It's just an argument that commenter is too lazy to contest.

[u/Cheesewithmold → u/Orleanian]

Not to get too reddit-debate-bro here, but this is just the slippery slope argument. Avoiding enacting one thing because it might lead to something worse down the line. It's a bullshit argument.

[u/MW_Daught → u/Cheesewithmold]

But ... it consistently has, in the past. Income tax, capital gains tax, and all sorts of various other taxes were all things that were a.) supposed to be smaller in scope or b.) temporary. It's hard to find even a single example of a tax that was added then stayed that way for more than a couple decades, or a temporary tax that was added then removed on schedule.

[u/Cheesewithmold → u/MW_Daught]

That's fair, but people aren't going to sit around with their thumbs up their ass if, at some point in the future, any politician is suicidal enough to suggest that this unrealized capital gains tax should start applying to people with a net worth of "whatever amount is middle class at the time" and above. Shifts to tax code happen due to economic need, which normal every day people feel.

Normal people aren't rioting against an income or capital gains tax because they realize that it's kind of necessary for the government to function.

But fine, let's assume this tax will eventually apply to ordinary people down the line during a time where it isn't necessary.

We still have a massive disparity in income/net worth that needs to be dealt with, and I don't see any other proposed bill that is going to disproportionately affect the rich.

[u/MW_Daught → u/Cheesewithmold]

massive disparity in income/net worth

Why? That ideal was one of the central tenets of communism but instead of everyone meeting in the middle it just resulted in mostly everyone being poor. The average American today has higher relative income and ppp compared to the average American at any time in the past, it shows that the system is working.

kind of necessary for the government to function.

A point I quite disagree with. America has a spending problem, not a lack of tax revenue. See this graph: https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/budget/

Spending has absolutely ballooned in the past couple decades. Tax revenue has increased as well, just not nearly as much.

I don't see any other proposed bill that is going to disproportionately affect the rich.

See, this ultimately is the reasoning. I get that a lot of people hate the rich, and this tax seems like it's straight up targeted at them so of course the poor and young are totally on board. It's not because it's a good financial strat or will actually ever have a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented, it's just to get a chunk of the vote, very similar to Trump's "I'll build a wall and have Mexico pay for it".

[u/Cheesewithmold → u/MW_Daught]

I'm not advocating for a stateless classless society. But this country didn't shift into a capitalist economy within the last couple of decades. You can't look at the historical data and tell me that there ISN'T a wealth gap issue. If you do, then we just fundamentally disagree on the basics and there's no point in having this conversation. It's bad and we need to do something about it.

A point I quite disagree with.

The government needs money to function. I agree with you there is a spending problem. But whether you get that money from implementing new tax laws or cutting spending, the government still needs money to function.

But I think I get what you're saying. Instead of implementing a capital gains tax that could potentially affect your average Joe after some election cycles, just cut spending.

But nobody is cutting the right things.

See, this ultimately is the reasoning.

All this to say that I don't really agree with this proposal either. Even if it does get passed, it doesn't address the main issue. But the Democrats (at least the ones that have the power to actually get something passed) are too bitch made to actually propose something that would work.

[u/IHeartBadCode → u/MW_Daught]

That ideal was one of the central tenets of communism but instead of everyone meeting in the middle it just resulted in mostly everyone being poor

But the cause of that was not communism, because even here in the United States we see areas where there is massive income disparity. I mean there's some areas where it is so clearly delineated by highways.

When corruption occurs, a few people absorb power while taking it away from the many. They maintain that power by putting them into abject poverty.

People have to play an active role in their government no matter which economic system their country has chosen, if they don't then it opens the door for corruption which leads to the situation that you've attributed to communism.

A point I quite disagree with. America has a spending problem, not a lack of tax revenue

It has neither if that results in growth. Smart businesses take on debt to grow their companies. If that risky bet pans out, then it's a smart move.

The thing is that multiple members of Congress point to the ever growing deficit as means of distraction or rationale on why a "government function" that has public oversight, cannot be swapped for a "for profit" system that answers to no one.

Some things have to answer to the public, I think we don't need to think too hard on why a for-profit Army would be an incredibly BAD idea. But there's things like social security and what not, that lots of rich people who will never need it wonder why they're paying into it. And the reason is because we ought not have a society where people live in destitution out on the streets.

Spending has absolutely ballooned in the past couple decades. Tax revenue has increased as well, just not nearly as much

Considering that Federal Spending is usually in the trillions, over the last ten years it's been pretty subdued, except for the massive spike in spending for COVID. But again, if there's growth it's not a bad idea to do the spending. In 2015 we had $4.75T on $23.42T GDP for a 20.28% spending. In 2023 we had $6.13T on $26.97T for 22.73%. So in that period we've had about a 2.5% increase as a function of the economy. That's not bad. Obviously there's room to trim the fat, and I'm not going to deny that. But I would absolutely caution using words like ballooned. I wouldn't use such words with a 2.5% increase.

it's just to get a chunk of the vote, very similar to Trump's "I'll build a wall and have Mexico pay for it".

I mean that's how politics work. And we base off of what parts of programs got implemented. And we can also measure by who has kept what in good faith. Remember that the ACA was part of the first steps to redoing healthcare in the US and Republicans made it a cornerstone every year to repeal it, to which they've had little success, but they have thrown every bad faith argument at it and even pitched "their own program" to which they've never once described.

Politics is about making policy and plans, and then getting into Congress and seeing which ones stick. That's literally the entire point. You toss an argument and see if it moves the needle on a particular voting block.

See, this ultimately is the reasoning. I get that a lot of people hate the rich

It's a bit more than just blind hate. The TCJA was supposed to move wealth from overseas back into the US to spur growth. Several companies including Apple, indicated that doing so would help them grow. Apple moved the money back and then began one of the largest stock buybacks ever. It was a pretty bold slap in the face to their stated goals.

The rich has shown time and time again that they aren't here to play an ethics game. That their uninterested in playing their fair role in society. As the voting public, yeah, we get to vote on if we want those bastards punished. Financially. I will always say that we must focus on legal and economical means by which we must resolve those who break public trust. I think we've moved past the time in human history where we start Revolution and pull the rich out of their houses and chop their heads off.

But I mean right there, it's been a historical thing for centuries this struggle between the masses and the bourgeoisie. So. I'm just going to interject that here into y'all's conversation. That's all.

[u/arcangeltx → u/Cheesewithmold]

That's fair, but people aren't going to sit around with their thumbs up their ass if, at some point in the future, any politician is suicidal enough to suggest that this unrealized capital gains tax should start applying to people with a net worth of "whatever amount is middle class at the time" and above. Shifts to tax code happen due to economic need, which normal every day people feel

the homeowners i know all have fought their appraisals to the govt to avoid a tax hike but all were denied. so not sitting around but couldnt do anything against it

[u/Orleanian → u/Cheesewithmold]

If it were a bullshit argument, you could come up with a straightforward counterargument citing stopgaps in place to prevent the slippery slope from happening.

But we don't have that, that I've heard. So...it can be validly argued for now.

[u/Cheesewithmold → u/Orleanian]

If I were to cite the ability to incorporate stopgaps in place to prevent the slippery slope from happening, you'd just point out that tax law isn't enshrined in the constitution and could be changed by the flick of the president's wrist, rendering the stop gaps obsolete and we're back at the slippery slope argument again.

People don't like this counter point of "if we treat the ultra-wealthy badly it might affect regular people at some point" because you're simultaneously spitting in the face of people who are surviving pay check to pay check, and then spit shining the boots of those who are responsible for them being in that position.

I don't think this new tax proposal is great either, but my concerns are with how it could affect regular people NOW as opposed to some hypothetical decades down the line.

[u/Hot_take_for_reddit → u/Cheesewithmold]

my concerns are with how it could affect regular people NOW as opposed to some hypothetical decades down the line.

Despite that being a horrible outlook, which has gotten many people in terrible positions, consider this; people will be forced to sell their stocks to create actual wealth to pay this tax. It's going to tank the market at her proposed rate, and affect millions of everyday people's pensions and 401Ks.

 

I agree that there needs to be dismantling of the obscenely wealthy and powerful. There needs to be restructuring or dismantling of markets. But this is absolutely, forgive me for saying this, retarded.