No. A billionaire would pay 27.6% in taxes. 20% in regular income tax, 3.8% Obamacare surtax, and 3.8% NIIT surtax.Still looking for an explanation. If the capital gain is due to inflation, say 20% over the last three years, the billionaire needs to pay 20% of that in taxes?
Yes, they do, and then they spread a bunch of complete nonsense propaganda about higher incomes not paying taxes.
So, on a million dollars of passive income, there's $76,000 of "inflation tax" on an investment that didn't really gain any value at all? Now, why would the government do such a thing? (Rhetorical question.) Do you s'pose the trillions of dollars they spent in the last few years has anything to do with it?
Whoa! So now you think a "low level employee" is making half a million dollars per year???
Regardless of your personal tax situation, it has little bearing on the rest of the 330M people in the US.
Lower than the billionaire. I was speaking of the $100K-$500K, but the point still stands. People who obtain their income from passive investments pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes, generally speaking.If you have to resort to calling $500K “middle class”, well, I think that your argument has fallen apart in shreds. [Single-income top 1% cutoff was $403K for 2023.]
Your original statement was:
Now we just need to fix the capital gains mess that allows billionaires to pay a lower percent in taxes than their low level employees.
So, now you want to call a $500K executive, lawyer or doctor a “low level employee”?
No, but the tax code is the same for all of us. You might do well to study it a bit before posting again, as your statements here have made it clear that you don't have a solid grasp of how it works.
1) $500K is a top 1% income. You called it "lower level employee". Pure nonsense, and it exposed the emotional, counter-factual basis of your argument
Right.
Just to clarify, you are saying that people making $500k/year are middle class, even though they make more than 99% of the rest of the country?
I don't think it applies here. I relish this conversation in the hope it educates more people than just me. Politicians should do a better job of explaining economics — in the way of Milton Friedman.
I see. In other words, if they had a ten-room house, after the government takes away 27.6% of the gain they'd only be able to replace the house with, say, a smaller 7-room house and half bath right next door that was built at the same time and by the same builder?
That feels a lot like it deserves “The canard about
Precisely.
Think about it for a moment.
I think I see what you did there, so getting back to Assisted Living which I am currently in the process of securing for a good friend, how do you apply your version of @StraightnLevel's canard?
I don’t disagree with a single word you said AND I still am not sure the statement that “…the motivation for them to build businesses diminish…” is substantiated. My observation is that people tend to optimize their assets within their environment. Change the environment and they’ll change their strategy - but I’m not sure they’ll change their motivation, at least not that simply or quickly and at least not for the highly motivated people who tend to populate the tier we’re talking about here.
Wait a minute. StraightnLevel is offering sound thought here backed up with real world data. The other you cite is merely pushing propaganda talking points with no basis in reality.
Spin Zone material is Spin Zone material, whether it aligns with one’s philosophy or not. I have locked many a threads not because I want to - I actually enjoy political, religious and other hotly contested topics - but they aren’t permitted on this site. Let’s just keep the conversation civil.
It was just a warning not to go too far.
What if it wasn't a primary residence, but a vacation home they rent out. Would it have been a reasonable example then?
No, but I’m also not a heavy handed moderator that strikes when the opportunity presents. Just keep it cool and let the show roll on. I consider it a warning to all.
Then any and all expenses from maintaining, advertising, accounting, financing, taxes and every other expense associated with the property, as well as any depreciation, accelerated or otherwise, would have been deducted from income during the course of ownership, which presents a whole host of tax advantages. So my bet would be that the tax paid on the cap gains wouldn't be quite as burdensome as it may appear on the surface.
