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

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

As others have pointed out, the reason this comes up is because the way people get around paying taxes. For the super rich, they don't get an income. They get stock options. And then they don't sell the stock, they take loans against it to live on, constantly refinancing until they die and then they let the estate settle the debt, and the heirs get the remaining money through tax free vehicles.

Under my scenario, you don't tax income (except maybe payroll taxes), but you'd tax wealth. I can't think of many scenarios where a wealth tax would be a hardship for people. Maybe for some seniors who have accumulated a moderate amount of wealth through savings and have been paying income taxes all this time, and now live on the investments - that might be a bit unfair to them, but I don't think egregiously so.

 

[Sendai]

As others have pointed out, the reason this comes up is because the way people get around paying taxes. For the super rich, they don't get an income. They get stock options. And then they don't sell the stock, they take loans against it to live on, constantly refinancing until they die and then they let the estate settle the debt, and the heirs get the remaining money through tax free vehicles.

Under my scenario, you don't tax income (except maybe payroll taxes), but you'd tax wealth. I can't think of many scenarios where a wealth tax would be a hardship for people. Maybe for some seniors who have accumulated a moderate amount of wealth through savings and have been paying income taxes all this time, and now live on the investments - that might be a bit unfair to them, but I don't think egregiously so.

The value of a stock option that exceeds the purchase price is taxable income whether stock is sold or not.

A federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. If it took an amendment to tax income you can be sure it will take an amendment to tax wealth. So not gonna happen.

Real estate tax is a state or local tax and not prohibited by the federal constitution. Depending on the states constitution it’s possible for a state to tax wealth.

 

[LA - L.A.]

As others have pointed out, the reason this comes up is because the way people get around paying taxes. For the super rich, they don't get an income. They get stock options. And then they don't sell the stock, they take loans against it to live on, constantly refinancing until they die and then they let the estate settle the debt, and the heirs get the remaining money through tax free vehicles.

Under my scenario, you don't tax income (except maybe payroll taxes), but you'd tax wealth. I can't think of many scenarios where a wealth tax would be a hardship for people. Maybe for some seniors who have accumulated a moderate amount of wealth through savings and have been paying income taxes all this time, and now live on the investments - that might be a bit unfair to them, but I don't think egregiously so.

Seems like a no-brainer and the best way to go to me. If we don't tax income, then there is no disincentives to earning more income, like some say they are worried about creating. On the flip side, if you tax wealth then you create disincentives against extreme wealth hoarding, and that's a very good thing for society.

 

[LA - L.A.]

A federal wealth tax is unconstitutional.

Says you without any legal citation whatsoever. Old dog, old tricks.

Directly quote the part of the constitution that defines what "income" and "wealth" are. Also, point out the part of the 16th Amendment that defines "income" in a way that explicitly forbids taxing wealth as a source of income or forbids taxing loans secured by wealth as a source of income, which those loans are most certainly used as.

​

 

[Sendai]

Says you without any legal citation whatsoever. Old dog, old tricks.

Directly quote the part of the constitution that defines what "income" and "wealth" are. Also, point out the part of the 16th Amendment that defines "income" in a way that explicitly forbids taxing wealth as a source of income or forbids taxing loans secured by wealth as a source of income, which those loans are most certainly used as.

​

​

​

“Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit, in itself, of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal. Id.”

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Eisner v. Macomber

supreme.justia.com

 

[Lapaz]

As others have pointed out, the reason this comes up is because the way people get around paying taxes. For the super rich, they don't get an income. They get stock options. And then they don't sell the stock, they take loans against it to live on, constantly refinancing until they die and then they let the estate settle the debt, and the heirs get the remaining money through tax free vehicles.

Under my scenario, you don't tax income (except maybe payroll taxes), but you'd tax wealth. I can't think of many scenarios where a wealth tax would be a hardship for people. Maybe for some seniors who have accumulated a moderate amount of wealth through savings and have been paying income taxes all this time, and now live on the investments - that might be a bit unfair to them, but I don't think egregiously so.

I still don’t like the idea of a wealth tax, and I think it will be bad politically. I think being paid by being given stock options is a loophole that should be closed. That is different than paying a tax for existing wealth. I think the motive for some is to reduce people’s wealth, and I think that is unAmerican. If the goal is to assure that everyone pays taxes, and that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income and new wealth from securities, then I totally support it, and that would be popular, but the goal of reducing wealth is not going to be popular, and is fraught with problems.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Eisner v. Macomber

supreme.justia.com

Like I thought, you got nothing, so you be picking cherries again. Nothing in the Constitution nor the 16th Amendment explicitly forbids taxing wealth. Even the case you cited has this little tidbit that you left out:

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through saleor conversion of capital"​

Getting a cash advance loan against capital is definitely a gain derived from the capital, so taxing those loans as income is allowed by the very case you cited.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the motive for some is to reduce people’s wealth, and I think that is unAmerican.

Based on what? What's "American" about hoarding extreme wealth? Where was it written or spoken by the people who wrote the Constitution that America was founded so that individuals could hoard extreme amounts of wealth?

 

[Lapaz]

Based on what? What's "American" about hoarding extreme wealth? Where was it written or spoken by the people who wrote the Constitution that America was founded so that individuals could hoard extreme amounts of wealth?

What does the constitution have to do with this? Socialism seeks to reduce and equalize wealth. Capitalism seeks to increase wealth. America is a Capitalist nation. We have elements of socialism, but the American way has always been use Capitalism to increase one's personal wealth.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What does the constitution have to do with this?

Do you really not understand what the Constitution of the United States of America has to do with what is American or unAmerican?

...but the American way has always been use Capitalism to increase one's personal wealth.

So you cool with slavery, forcing people off their ancestral lands, and women not being able to vote? You consider all of that American?

 

[B4YOU]

As others have pointed out, the reason this comes up is because the way people get around paying taxes. For the super rich, they don't get an income. They get stock options. And then they don't sell the stock, they take loans against it to live on, constantly refinancing until they die and then they let the estate settle the debt, and the heirs get the remaining money through tax free vehicles.

Under my scenario, you don't tax income (except maybe payroll taxes), but you'd tax wealth. I can't think of many scenarios where a wealth tax would be a hardship for people. Maybe for some seniors who have accumulated a moderate amount of wealth through savings and have been paying income taxes all this time, and now live on the investments - that might be a bit unfair to them, but I don't think egregiously so.

Disagree with a wealth tax. The issue is tax free wealth transfers because of stepped-up basis, long term capital (LTC) tax rates that are below income tax rates, and estate tax exemptions.

Stepped-up basis: Dad has 6M that grows to 12M. Dad dies and son inherits all 12M tax free (estate tax exclusion is 13M). Future long term gains are not taxed at the 6M amount but the new stepped-up basis of 12M. So 6M was earned tax free and 12M transferred tax free. This is how generational wealth compounds tax free.

LTC: The LTC rates for 2024 joint married are 0% at 0-94K, 15% at 94k-584k, and 20% >584k. The income tax rates are 22% at 94-201k, 24% at 201-384k, 32% at 384-487k, 35% at 487-731k, and 37% >731k. So, people pay 20% less tax for LTC of 500k than for income. That's saving 100k in taxes/yr and really easy to do with a 10M portfolio. I would limit the LTC discount to 5% of income tax rates over 94k. So the new rates would 17%, 19%, 27%, 30% and 32% instead of a flat 15% or 20%.

Estate taxes: The exclusion rates are too high at 13.6M. This needs to go back to 5M like in 2011. If you can't win "America: The Game" with a 5M head start, then I don't know what to tell you.

The solution: End stepped-up basis, raise LTC rates, lower estate tax exemptions.

 

[Sendai]

Like I thought, you got nothing, so you be picking cherries again. Nothing in the Constitution nor the 16th Amendment explicitly forbids taxing wealth. Even the case you cited has this little tidbit that you left out:

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through saleor conversion of capital"​

Getting a cash advance loan against capital is definitely a gain derived from the capital, so taxing those loans as income is allowed by the very case you cited.

It’s the Supreme Court’s definition of income. I’d say that’s pretty solid. Certainly backs up the need for an amendment to tax wealth. Without it verifies what I said that a wealth tax is unconstitutional.

 

[Sendai]

I still don’t like the idea of a wealth tax, and I think it will be bad politically. I think being paid by being given stock options is a loophole that should be closed. That is different than paying a tax for existing wealth. I think the motive for some is to reduce people’s wealth, and I think that is unAmerican. If the goal is to assure that everyone pays taxes, and that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income and new wealth from securities, then I totally support it, and that would be popular, but the goal of reducing wealth is not going to be popular, and is fraught with problems.

Being paid by stock options isn’t a loophole. Stock options when exercised are taxable income. Same with stock grants.

 

[Nebaghead]

Being paid by stock options isn’t a loophole. Stock options when exercised are taxable income. Same with stock grants.

Did you see the part where they take loans out against their stock holdings which isn’t taxed and they don’t sell unless necessary.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s the Supreme Court’s definition of income.

The Supreme Court did not say exactly what you say they said.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

A wealth tax doesn't discourage wealth any more than an income tax discourages income. The main goal is to ensure that the burden of paying for the system falls to the people benefiting the most from that system.

 

[Sendai]

Like I thought, you got nothing, so you be picking cherries again. Nothing in the Constitution nor the 16th Amendment explicitly forbids taxing wealth. Even the case you cited has this little tidbit that you left out:

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through saleor conversion of capital"​

Getting a cash advance loan against capital is definitely a gain derived from the capital, so taxing those loans as income is allowed by the very case you cited.

I’m good with taxing the loans as a conversion of capital.

 

[Sendai]

Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit, in itself, of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.

The Supreme Court did not say exactly what you say they said.

Yeah they did.