biden pushing for new capital gains tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wish this would apply only to non-primary residences. What we really need is to control is Air BnBs and corporate investing in residential homes.

+1,000

If only our policy makers listened to reasonable suggestions like this instead of the TikTok-induced megaphones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bad policy created by Washington DC is what is creating social ills in the first place.

+1

[Anonymous]

Taxation without representation!!!!

[Anonymous]

Another reason to not vote for him. So someone has a once in a lifetime windfall and that’s the rate. Absurd. Also, the dems will keep it at $1 and with inflation, this will impact a lot of people over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s just considering proposing that for people making over a $1 million the capital gains tax rate is the same as a the ordinary income rate.

It’s a way to avoid all the ridiculous games like the carried interest loophole that lets hedge fund managers making $50 million pay tax at a lower rate than w-2 employees making $200k.

But it should be higher, make it 1.5 mil or 1.75. These low numbers hurt the average millionaire man the most. A property owner that has two or three rentals will get totally screwed. This really hits hard for families trying to build generational wealth.

FTFY

How utterly cruel, they want to hurt the average man with 3-4 properties earning over $1M/year! Poor guy, how are his great great great grandchildren going to survive?

No not per year, it’s likely just once, when they liquidated the asset. It’s not salary. So everything they worked for, and paid off is basically useless. If you have a mortgage that you’ve paid off then go to sell and pay almost 50% in tax then it doesn’t make sense numbers wise. The interest paid on the mortgage and the tax on gains plus the income from the rents make this a losing endeavor. Why not just pass a law saying CEO’s have to be compensated in salary and cash bonuses and limit the stock they can get? Why go for a cash grab disguised as sticking it to the man. Be smarter.

This is me. Bought a house in 04 for $575k which was an obscene amount of money to me. The house was in a bad area and was more than I felt comfortable paying but, I took a chance. Lived in the house for 7 years, during that time I got married so household income doubled and savings increased. In 2011 with two kids entering school needed a house in better school district. Mortgage rates were low so rolled outstanding balance into new mortgage and set up an LLC and rented the house out for a decent amount and hoped to hold it as our retirement investment (sell and use proceeds for retirement) Today, the house is worth just over 1 million dollars. While we are not poor we most certainly are not thought of as the target audience for this new tax. If we sell the house for $1 million then $440,000. We would walk away with $560,000, this is less than we bought the house for 20 years ago. This is complete craziness.

You would not be affected. Your capital gains on the house are not the $1M you are selling for. Your cost basis is $575K. Selling for $1M, your capitol gains are $425K. The proposed change in capitol gains will not affect you at all. You would be taxed at the same rate before and after the proposed change. The top bracket that is being affected current starts around $518K for single filers and around $582K for MFJ filers.

You would be taxed at 0% for the first $92K and then at 15% for the rest (essentially $50K). And as a rental, you can also deduct costs that you made the improve the property during the period that you rented as long as they were not cosmetic (e.g. paint and carpeting do not count). So, you will be clearing much more than you think.

The new proposal makes zero change to your situation.

This is why people should be given a basic aptitude test before being permitted to vote on an issue. You hear text the rich making over $1million dollars and you think yes, that is great. If you don’t understand then stay out of the conversation and educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish this would apply only to non-primary residences. What we really need is to control is Air BnBs and corporate investing in residential homes.

+1,000

If only our policy makers listened to reasonable suggestions like this instead of the TikTok-induced megaphones.

Not Air B n B but corporate investment in real estate is a very bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wish this would apply only to non-primary residences. What we really need is to control is Air BnBs and corporate investing in residential homes.

+1,000

If only our policy makers listened to reasonable suggestions like this instead of the TikTok-induced megaphones.

Not Air B n B but corporate investment in real estate is a very bad thing.

Residential real estate that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that if your house is worth twice what you paid and put into it, the increased value is not something you did, but is largely due to government actions. People want to buy your house because there are great public schools, access to quality healthcare, wee-managed public infrastructure, transportation, public parks, zoning and environmental laws that keep out noisy, smelly, polluting, and hazardous industries, and so on.

No, it is not worth twice what someone paid for it, They bought it for 500k and sell it for 1M 20 years later. It is barely worth more than what what they paid for it after adjusting for inflation 500k inflation adjusted from 2004 is 825k adjusted for inflation, then they spent money on maintaining the house and paid property taxes that fund a significant portion of the services you are mentioning that is apparently "not something they did". If you want to tax people on home appreciation above the rate of inflation fine, but you are advocating a policy that will increase the burden on hard working middle class people that live in the same home for decades. This 250k/500k exclusion is not indexed to inflation and many (not rich) people are being taxed on money they need to have a financially secure retirement.

[Anonymous]

Capital gains are income. Why shouldn’t income from investments be taxed at the same rate as earned income from salary and wages? There is no good reason except that capitalists own every level of government and everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that if your house is worth twice what you paid and put into it, the increased value is not something you did, but is largely due to government actions. People want to buy your house because there are great public schools, access to quality healthcare, wee-managed public infrastructure, transportation, public parks, zoning and environmental laws that keep out noisy, smelly, polluting, and hazardous industries, and so on.

Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a wealth tax. We need it. Not only to fund the government, but to address the social ills of too much wealth inequality. And, don’t start with “I worked hard for my money. You’re going to kill initiative in this country.” The people who will be impacted by this are not working hard, period. And those who have initiative will work hard despite this tax. Taxes have been much higher in the past, and the world didn’t stop.

It hilarious that Dems salivate over wealth taxes while they simultaneously espouse the Nordics like Sweden as some kind of progressive wonderland.

Lol, did you know Sweden has no wealth taxes?

No one wants to work their entire life so the govt can confiscate everything. Sweden was mires for decades in low gdp growth, stagnant wages, and high unemployment until the 90s when moderates came in, slashed tons of taxes, and embraced capitalism much more. Sweden even has 0% inheritance tax, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden Calls for 44.6% Capital Gains Tax Rate, Highest Capital Gains Tax Since Its Creation in 1922 - ENJOY.

Higher taxes are INEVITABLE, as is forced purchase of treasuries. US has catastrophic debt level, particularly at the current interest rates.

UMC will be the first to bear the brunt. Middle class down the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden Calls for 44.6% Capital Gains Tax Rate, Highest Capital Gains Tax Since Its Creation in 1922 - ENJOY.

Higher taxes are INEVITABLE, as is forced purchase of treasuries. US has catastrophic debt level, particularly at the current interest rates.

UMC will be the first to bear the brunt. Middle class down the line.

Of course it's never a spending problem..it's always a tax problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden Calls for 44.6% Capital Gains Tax Rate, Highest Capital Gains Tax Since Its Creation in 1922 - ENJOY.

Higher taxes are INEVITABLE, as is forced purchase of treasuries. US has catastrophic debt level, particularly at the current interest rates.

UMC will be the first to bear the brunt. Middle class down the line.

Of course it's never a spending problem..it's always a tax problem.

There is no government program that is so unimportant that we can end it. We still have a helium reserve for our airship fleet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specific to home ownership, capital gains tax rate needs to take into account length of time home was owned in some way. Elderly can't downsize in retirement because the gains tax plus cost of selling is too prohibitive. People sitting in large homes they don't need and can't take care of because we make it too difficult for senior citizens to sell property.

There's already a $500,000 exclusion for capital gains taxes (for married couples) on housing. Granted, that was created in 1997 so probably should be indexed for inflation. But it's a fallacy to say people can't downsize because they might have to pay capital gains taxes. The real issue is they can't find the kind of housing stock they want to live in.

Not indexing for inflation is a feature, not a bug, for pols. The whole point is to continue capturing additional taxpayers over the years without having to pass new legislation that might hurt your reelection chances.