by Outcast_Searcher » Sat 30 Sep 2017, 15:54:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'T')he proposal to seize the wealth of others, by the force of government, does not speak of the worthiness of the rich person's character, but speaks volumes about the lack of character of the one proposing it.
Expecting the very rich to pay taxes at least at the same percentage as the middle class pays is not "seizing their wealth.
Bernie's and other Democratic proposals are the equivalent of Jacks or better, trips to win progressive progressive

There is another way to address this issue. It is a compromise (which, I know, neither side of the aisle likes making).
It is already done today for commodities. The idea is that accounts are "settled" at the end of the year, based on the closing prices of the commodity based securities (i.e. contracts, options, etc) for that year.
Then taxes are payed (or not) on net profits or losses on what happened that year. Full stop. Next year, same thing. There is a hybrid of long term and short term gain (or loss) rates used.
Just like with the 1099's now for stock options, stock mutual funds, stocks, etc., the brokers are required to keep the books, do the calculations, and send the taxpayer a tax form that documents this.
So if we just started doing this for stocks, funds, and options, the whole issue would go away.
The main disadvantage would be the loss of the incentive of deferring taxes on long term capital gains, of course.
But OTOH, just like with tax advantages for a house (like mortgage deductions), the question of whether such an advantage should exist is valid, IMO. (Let the complexity of capital decision making rest with the companies who are making stuff and gathering resources).
This would make the whole system simpler, and eliminate the entire issue of what to do with long term deferred capital gains at death. (As today, there would simply be a final year of income taxes, and the date of death would be the final settlement date for the current tax year. Done and done.)
One compromise to getting this done might be not to have estate taxes except for the truly huge "dynasty" families' estates that the far left claims they are really after with estate taxes. If only very large estates (say maybe $20 million or more in 2017 dollars) had an estate tax, then the entire issue of breaking up small businesses would go away as well. In short, only soak the truly rich -- if the honest objection is "unfair" hoarding of wealth in families.
But of course, the left won't agree to that, as their true motivation is to have as high a tax as possible on anyone who is successful, whether reasonable or not. The fact that top 1% pays almost half of US income taxes, the top 20% pay roughly 80%, and the bottom 60% pay about 2% of the income taxes isn't enough for them. At that point, to me, all the crying about how "unfair" the income tax system is loses 99% of its credibility.
So I don't see this debate being resolved in the forseeable future.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.