When Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (who once brandished solid progressive credentials but now takes most of her money from pharmaceutical companies) refused to consider undoing the Trump tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy, that left Democrats with only 49 out of the 50 votes needed to pay for the Build Back Better plan by using new taxes on those making over $400,000 and raising the corporate income tax rate.
Taxing unrealized gains is difficult, especially with market fluctuations. Reinstate estate tax on larger estates. No carryover basis to heirs of large estates....the estate is stepped up to fair market value and taxed before it passes to inheritors. Also, bring back more levels to the capital tax so that it gets progressively larger the bigger the sale. Maybe also limit the amount and carryover period of capital losses. But to make any of that work, the IRS needs funding to hire skilled agents and enforcement power to go after those who just don't pay.
If the issue is that people essentially borrow against projected money like stocks and use that as income, couldn't the tax be worked into those kind of loan processes? So people who get their income that way pay income tax but just on what they use as income in that tax year? It doesn't seem like it could work to try to make people pay on projected funds that could go up or down year to year but if people are used to doing that kind of borrowing, they could get used to adding 20% when they do. Or something? Why does it always seem like they're trying to overcomplicate things?
This is a really hopeful perspective and mostly spot on, but don't we need to pick up 3 Senate seats: two to counter Machine & Sinema and a third to give us the majority?
Taxing unrealized gains is difficult, especially with market fluctuations. Reinstate estate tax on larger estates. No carryover basis to heirs of large estates....the estate is stepped up to fair market value and taxed before it passes to inheritors. Also, bring back more levels to the capital tax so that it gets progressively larger the bigger the sale. Maybe also limit the amount and carryover period of capital losses. But to make any of that work, the IRS needs funding to hire skilled agents and enforcement power to go after those who just don't pay.
If the issue is that people essentially borrow against projected money like stocks and use that as income, couldn't the tax be worked into those kind of loan processes? So people who get their income that way pay income tax but just on what they use as income in that tax year? It doesn't seem like it could work to try to make people pay on projected funds that could go up or down year to year but if people are used to doing that kind of borrowing, they could get used to adding 20% when they do. Or something? Why does it always seem like they're trying to overcomplicate things?
This is a really hopeful perspective and mostly spot on, but don't we need to pick up 3 Senate seats: two to counter Machine & Sinema and a third to give us the majority?