Bribed Joe Thinks He Can Tax Home Appreciation Even If You Don't Sell Your House

What point? I read the SCOTUS ruling and the article, along with your whimsical comments. The Supreme Court RULED in favor of the government and rejected the plantiff's defense. The act in question was about the repatriation tax, under the JCJA that was signed by Trump, not Joe Biden.

The question before the court was as follows: Does the 16th Amendment authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states?

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in that decision. Furthermore, this has to do with Controlled Foreign Corporations, not homes or any other such things that you tried to link to. Thus, it is as follows: The Mandatory Repatriation Tax — which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income — does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority.

 

When it comes to capital gains tax on your main home, no we don't. There is that $250/500k exclusion under IRC 121, if you meet the rules and there is no business or rental use of that home. Property taxes are a state/local issue, not federal. But this case and the article has nothing to do with home values or anything of that nature. This is why the author and the OP creater are totally wrong on all counts.

 

Has nothing to do with the left. It has to do with the JCJA, specifically the mandatory repatriation tax, that was passed in 2017 by a GOP House and Senate, and signed by Trump. This is the same act that lowered corporate income tax rates, got rid of state and local tax deductions, and a whole bunch of other things.

 

How old are you? Were you in the workforce in the 1970s? If so, you are qualified to comment. If not, then you need to some research.

 

But in a very real way, consumers are also to blame, for going along with this new paradigm of "don't own anything... just make the minimum payment on things buy and when a newer 'thing' comes out, ditch the 'old' one and continue making payments on the 'new' one. Everything becomes the equivalent of being a 'subscription' where you pay for things every month, but never actually OWN anything!

 

But do you also remember that it was back in the 1970's that all this REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION (a.k.a., "affirmative action" crap) got started? The whole un-American concept of just hiring people on the basis of color began with a vengeance -- and I remember well that 'preference' -- especially in any kind of Federal, State, and Local jobs and careers -- was given to minorities.

This was also when the unconstitutional concept of setting-aside government contracts exclusively for minority-owned companies came about. These lucrative contracts were offered ONLY to minorities, and bids would not even be accepted if offered by companies that weren't officially "minority-owned". Oh, and this method of setting-aside many contracts persists to this day!

 

https://www.oeod.uci.edu/policies/aa_history.php

Beginning in 1965 by LBJ.

 

Agreed

 

I am not familiar with the OP court case, except to the extent that the OP mentioned taxation of unrealized gains, and I was not responding to the court case, rather I was responding to the person referring to unrealized capital gains and implying he already pays his property tax increases due to property value increasing. That same person to whom I was responding was referring to unrealized gains not relative to the court case as well. If the OP was in error in regards to saying that court case is about unrealized gains, that does not invalidate the larger discussion about unrealized gains because that is something that Biden has specifically proposed.

As far as the court case itself, I know nothing about it and in truth am not all that interested in it. I am interested in arguing against the notion of capital gains taxes on unrealized gains and am shocked that many on the left support such an action.

 

You do know that AOC, Wyden and others have been salivating over the idea of a wealth tax for years right? I can't think of a better way to slam the lid on individual prosperity and economic growth and in the end personal freedom.

 

That's what happens when you lease a car. On top of that some of them requiring a signing fee that is worth more than what my first three cars cost me combined

 

Which isn't a capital gains tax, is it.... Do you want to pay the unrealized income tax as well?

 

Quick reality check: How many of us knows what a DEFICIT is? A "deficit" occurs when you spend more money (or commit to spend it) than you bring in.

So, we need more things to be taxed in this country? Taxed, and in greater varieties, and at higher rates, in order to equalize what we spend with what we bring in? Is this fundamentally correct...?

Then is it not also true that if we SPENT LESS, we would not to need to go on big 'taxation binges' which only have the effect of threatening the value of the American Dollar and propel inflation even more.

Look around you... can you find at least a dozen LARGE things that we should cut spending on, or, not spend anything at all? Hint: re-read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

don't disagree

 

exactly, and gonna get worse, things like heated seats now cost more to install as an option, so they want to install it in every car, then have a service fee if you choose to enable it.... which means extra weight and complexity, for something you can't use, same with Anti-lock breaks and other features

the fact that these items are now cheaper to install then not, means they should be cheaper, not a monthly service fee

and as we saw with 3g, what if 4g goes away, your car no longer connects to the internet to enable these options

 

Yet 30 percent of the cost of everything you buy can be traced back to government rules and regulations and compliance paper work one set of bureaucrats feeding the other. The attempt to replace common courtesy and decency with ever more burdensome and costly government rules and regulations is increasingly and obviously a failure.

 

Had you bothered to pay attention you would already know the conversation in which I am engaged has nothing to do with the legal case first presented and you'd also know had you been paying attention that the argument presented in the OP was more in the vein of the slippery slope than just the case itself.

 

huh?

 

@Alwayssa

You diversions aside, nothing you posted grapples with the point made: Moore v. United States: Joe Biden Thinks He Can Tax Gains in the Value of Your House When You Have Not Yet Sold It: The Biden Solicitor General’s office and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson think that cases under the Taxation Clause or the 16th amendment are political questions.

 

We have a wealth tax, called the estate tax, first proposed in 1789, then Abraham Lincoln put into play, along with an income tax until 1870s, then was ruled unconstitutional, until the 16th amendment was passed and the income tax, along with the estate tax was back in play. Bush Jr had a one year moratorium on the estate tax, but the trick was you did not get the stepped-up basis, which would hurt a lot of middle class families when a loved one passed away and they had or wanted to sell the family home. Thus, the estate tax is not really about left or right, is it.

 

Its Moore v United States, and you can find it here. The author of the article and the OP somehow made this about capital gains, not reading what the damn case is about or even how the Supreme Court ruled. I think posters need to read the case before resonding, not going off what someone says which was totally incorrect to begin with while trying to make this somehow Biden. Biden has nothing to do with this since the tax was imposed when Trump was president. The author of the articel committed perjury, as well as the OP, IMO.

 

However they are no longer willing to wait for you to die to takes from that which they have not already taken through a confiscatory tax policy. It takes a lot of money to fund a government that things it should make all the worlds decisions.

 

It would be very easy for politicians to craft tax laws that favored the poor and middle class and rising rich over the entrenched super-rich - if there was any incentive for doing so.

 

Dictators tax home appreciation even if we don't sell our house.

https://gosar.house.gov

 

WTF? There is nothing of that sort of thing in the tax code. You are taxed on income. You can claim certain deductions and credits against that income. There are certain tax shelters one can use to delay that income being taxed, and a whole host of other legal methods to either reduce or eliminate any tax on realized income. However, again, the case was about something specific, called the repatriation tax on income earned overseas through a controlled foreign corporation. That was put in place in the Trump Administration.

Other alternatives are as follows:

• The national retail sales tax at 30%, which would be the biggest tax increase and everything you use or buy will have that tax added to the price.
• Or you can have a tarriff system which again will raise domestic prices to the point to compete with imports now being taxed at whatever for those companies to maximize their economic profits for their shareholders. Congrats on inflation there
• Flat or regressive taxation which would hurt lower-income families and to some extent middle-income families with higher prices now that demand is more for said products and services. Meanwhile, the government will have the mother of all deficits in each of the scenarios I just laid out for you.