Kamala Harris' economic plan (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

I tried to note some key points, pulled from a few sources, but not sure if I missed some

Harris offers proposals to cut food and housing costs, trying to blunt Trump's economic attacks

Vice President Kamala Harris has announced a sweeping set of economic proposals meant to cut taxes and lower the cost of groceries, housing and other essentials for many Americans.

apnews.com

• proposed for a federal ban on price gouging by food producers and grocers.
• proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for certain first-time homebuyers and tax incentives for builders of starter homes.
• unveiled her goal of adding three million new housing units during her first term. Additionally, she said, she would "fight for a law that cracks down" on "corporate landlords" that artificially inflate the price of their real estate holdings
• proposed tax breaks for families, as well as middle- and lower-income people, promising to expand the child tax credit to up to $3,600 — and $6,000 for children in their first year of life.
• proposed to enlarge the earned income tax credit to cover people in lower-income jobs without children — which the campaign estimates would cut their effective tax rate by $1,500 — and lower health insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act
• voiced support for ending taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers last week

 

[MT15]

I knew it was the daily show that addressed this issue before, but i couldn't remember who was making the point. A miracle...it was in my threads feed this am.



Someone may have posted on mad of an alternative plan to address this issue. It was to tax the loans based on these assets. Sounds fair to me.

Yeah. I do think I would prefer to tax the gains if they used them to secure loans. Anyway you have to be worth $100 M before it kicks in, IIRC.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah. I do think I would prefer to tax the gains if they used them to secure loans. Anyway you have to be worth $100 M before it kicks in, IIRC.

I think taxing loans like that is a pretty solid way to go.

I also like just a straight up wealth tax. That would be progressive as well. However, my wife pointed out that it would probably be easier to manipulate a wealth tax (hide assets, etc), than to just tax personal loans, b/c banks would have to file the loans creating a more accurate accounting.

 

[B4YOU]

Harris’ plan for 50k small business tax credits is also dumb. W-2 workers and low to middle income parents are the group most squeezed. Bank bailouts and PPP grants were enough business stimulus for my lifetime.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Harris’ plan for 50k small business tax credits is also dumb. W-2 workers and low to middle income parents are the group most squeezed. Bank bailouts and PPP grants were enough business stimulus for my lifetime.

I think helping everyone and anyone below the multimillionaire level is smart and the most beneficial way to go.

 

[Lapaz]

Harris’ plan for 50k small business tax credits is also dumb. W-2 workers and low to middle income parents are the group most squeezed. Bank bailouts and PPP grants were enough business stimulus for my lifetime.

Why do you think it would be dumb?

 

[Lapaz]

I think taxing loans like that is a pretty solid way to go.

I also like just a straight up wealth tax. That would be progressive as well. However, my wife pointed out that it would probably be easier to manipulate a wealth tax (hide assets, etc), than to just tax personal loans, b/c banks would have to file the loans creating a more accurate accounting.

I don’t like the wealth tax, because some people will have to sell assets to pay. Income taxes make sense, but not just a wealth tax.

 

[MT15]

I don’t like the wealth tax, because some people will have to sell assets to pay. Income taxes make sense, but not just a wealth tax.

It doesn’t apply unless you have a net worth over $100M, IIRC. I’m not worried about them.

 

[MT15]

New group endorses Harris.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/harris-endorsed-trump-murdoch-yelp-snap-ripple.html

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don’t like the wealth tax, because some people will have to sell assets to pay. Income taxes make sense, but not just a wealth tax.

Property taxes are paid all the time, which is a wealth tax, and it seems to work out ok. I'm not sure of any case where people have a net positive wealth and are also not earning income (either passively or actively). Also fund managers charge fees based on the portfolio size and unrealized gains already, and that model seems to work for them.

For example, my income tax (including social security and medicare) is about 27% of my income. However, it's also about 2.8% of my net worth. So if we replaced an income tax with a wealth tax of 2.8%, for me nothing changes (I wouldn't need to sell anything). For poorer people still trying to build their net worth, it would represent a tax break. And for the wealthy it would be a tax hike.

Where there could be an issue is for certain classes of people with large capital assets that don't generate sufficient income. I'd need to know more about those asset classes and see if there are issues with them having to sell off assets to pay the tax. Maybe some small farmers, although I'm not sure they aren't making an income off their land that could cover that or not... if not then logically they should be selling their assets anyway to maximize their returns.

Household wealth in the US is $161 trillion dollars. An average wealth tax of 2% (higher for richer people, lower for poorer people) would generate 3.2trillion dollars which would elminate the deficit.

 

[B4YOU]

Why do you think it would be dumb?

It's dumb because it's just going to create business entity flipping for a 50K credit. Let's say I have a restaurant with some small investors. I can just create a new entity, purchase existing restaurant with new entity for 50k, and then claim a new small business credit of 50k.

Both parties are too tied to the ownership class. This program will function just like PPP grants without any demonstration of revenue loss/need. The government should focus on individuals and need based programs. It's a zero sum game for tax dollars and the lower and middle class are losing.

 

[Lapaz]

It's dumb because it's just going to create business entity flipping for a 50K credit. Let's say I have a restaurant with some small investors. I can just create a new entity, purchase existing restaurant with new entity for 50k, and then claim a new small business credit of 50k.

Both parties are too tied to the ownership class. This program will function just like PPP grants without any demonstration of revenue loss/need. The government should focus on individuals and need based programs. It's a zero sum game for tax dollars and the lower and middle class are losing.

That is an interesting devious manipulation of the tax credit law. I think you’re right that it could be abused that way, but what if the tax credit applies only to business income generated by that small business? I know businesses often don’t generate income in their first year, so it would have to apply after the business started becoming profitable enough to owe taxes.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don’t like the wealth tax, because some people will have to sell assets to pay. Income taxes make sense, but not just a wealth tax.

What do you think about local governments forcing people to throw away their personal stashes of old newspapers, containers and other items from within their houses and their collection of non-working appliances in their yards?

 

[LA - L.A.]

That is an interesting devious manipulation of the tax credit law. I think you’re right that it could be abused that way, but what if the tax credit applies only to business income generated by that small business? I know businesses often don’t generate income in their first year, so it would have to apply after the business started becoming profitable enough to owe taxes.

Most businesses generate some income in their first year. They may end up with no income after adjustments for allowed deductions, but most generate income. What new businesses struggle with is turning a profit in the first year.

 

[Lapaz]

Property taxes are paid all the time, which is a wealth tax, and it seems to work out ok. I'm not sure of any case where people have a net positive wealth and are also not earning income (either passively or actively). Also fund managers charge fees based on the portfolio size and unrealized gains already, and that model seems to work for them.

For example, my income tax (including social security and medicare) is about 27% of my income. However, it's also about 2.8% of my net worth. So if we replaced an income tax with a wealth tax of 2.8%, for me nothing changes (I wouldn't need to sell anything). For poorer people still trying to build their net worth, it would represent a tax break. And for the wealthy it would be a tax hike.

Where there could be an issue is for certain classes of people with large capital assets that don't generate sufficient income. I'd need to know more about those asset classes and see if there are issues with them having to sell off assets to pay the tax. Maybe some small farmers, although I'm not sure they aren't making an income off their land that could cover that or not... if not then logically they should be selling their assets anyway to maximize their returns.

Household wealth in the US is $161 trillion dollars. An average wealth tax of 2% (higher for richer people, lower for poorer people) would generate 3.2trillion dollars which would elminate the deficit.

It is those large capital assets that don't generate income that I worry about. A wealth tax will create problems for many people that aren't generating income from their assets, and I can envision this causing people to sell off their assets under duress. I know people already pay property taxes in many parts of the country, but sometimes people intentionally move to parts of the country with little to no property taxes, and in exchange they get fewer services, but that is their choice, so I think it is better to keep it as an income tax.

Most businesses generate some income in their first year. They may end up with no income after adjustments for allowed deductions, but most generate income. What new businesses struggle with is turning a profit in the first year.

I meant net income. I would hope all businesses generate income.

 

[MT15]

A wealth tax will create problems for many people that aren't generating income from their assets,

It doesn’t kick in unless you have a net worth over $100M, as in million. They can pay the 1-2%. It sorta surprises me you are worrying about them.

 

[Lapaz]

It doesn’t kick in unless you have a net worth over $100M, as in million. They can pay the 1-2%. It sorta surprises me you are worrying about them.

If it gets tied to inflation, then I would not mind, but I'd prefer to charge them an extra 2 to 4% on income.

 

[MT15]

If it gets tied to inflation, then I would not mind, but I'd prefer to charge them an extra 2 to 4% on income.

People that wealthy don’t have income like you and I. They have capital gains - and not even much of that because they don’t sell, they take out loans with their portfolio as collateral.

 

[Taurus]

If it gets tied to inflation, then I would not mind, but I'd prefer to charge them an extra 2 to 4% on income.

During his last few years at Microsoft, Bill Gates made $800,000 a year. At the exospheric levels these billionaires move in, what we think of as "income" is a comical side-effect they barely notice.