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

It's not a Sherlock Holmes mystery, @Bluesguy -- all that needs to be done is for the U. S. Tax Code to have all those "loopholes, shelters, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and "carried interest" stripped OUT of it, and then, like magic, we'd have FAIR taxation of personal income in this country.

Until we do that one small thing ( ), we'll NEVER have fair taxation in the United States.... And you can bet everything you own that neither Republican "fat cats" or Democrat "limousine liberals" will ever allow that to happen!

 

Property taxes are state/local taxes and has nothing to do with the premise of the op. Not the same thing.

 

There is a FY 2024 budget proposal by Biden. Part of that proposal is how to increase tax revenue. A subpart of that is for the AMT, alternative minimum tax, for people who have assets and income of $100 or more. Part of that is the unrealized gains. The unrealized gains will be used to calculate that $100 million AMT requirement. It is not clear yet on whether a property, or certain properties, in that FY budget will be subject to being a preference item to AMT similar to ISO, incentive stock options. The details are not there yet. This was in IRC 55 and 56 when the AMT was allowed. BTW, so were tax deductions of state and local taxes added back in as AMTTI for the purpose of the AMT.

As for the FY 2025 budget, we are more than a year away for that to pass. And it was ironically part of the FY 2024 proposal that did not pass with a compromise between the WH and the GOP.

However, it does not negate why the OP and the article used the Moore decision for this. It has nothing to do with the proposal, literally.

A complete summary of the proposed tax revenues is here by a tax law firm.

 

By your logic, so are broad-based tax cuts a result of bribes. Broad based tax cuts usually will favor one group over the other while obfuscating who really gets the true benefit of the tax cut.

But if we eliminate all lobbying, aka bribes, we might have a more honest discussion on a lot of issues ranging from budget to gun control to women's healthcare, etc. But we are the most open bribed country on this planet yet think we are not a country that accepts bribes.

 

Bribery laws are not just about a person "giving the money" but receiving it too. So, every lobbyist and every politician, along with eveyone who contributed or sent money to the campaign, PAC, SuperPAC, etc, would be a criminal. That would mean about 50% to 60% of the population.

 

Unrealized uearnings and unrealized gains in the US Tax code is a aphormism. That is they are unrealized because they are not taxed until a taxable event occurs. For instance, Money earned in an IRA is unrealized earnings. It becomes taxable the moment you withdraw the money. Incentive Stock Options is another example. You have a discount in which you purchase the stock through your employer. So, on that date, if you pruchase stock at $15 per share, but valued at $20 per share, then you have unrealized gain of $5. But you can make the election to have the unrealized gain become realized. It then becomes ordinary income, subject to income tax, but not SS and medicare tax. It also becomes the new basis for the stock when and if you sell that stock in the future. These have been on the books for a long time.

So, the unrealized gain that is proposed in the FY 2025 budget is used to calculate AMT, alternative minimum tax for individuals or MFJ filers of $100 million or more. It is not clear if some of those properties will be a tax preferred item under the AMT for tax puroposes. It may be something used to get an AMT requirement, but no one is for sure.

 

there is no such thing as "fair taxation." In every tax system, there are winners and losers. For the National Retail Sales tax, retirees, low-income, and lower-middle-income taxpayers will be the most hurt as an example. So, it that fair?

 

This is a long winded way for you to confirm my position that Biden has in fact suggested taxing unrealized gains while disproving your claim that he has suggested no such thing.

Its looks as if we are now in agreement. Of course he suggested as much, which is why we are even having this discussion in the first place.

 

Serious enforcement of felony bribery laws would primarily impact politicians and the very elite donor class that provides most of their funding.

"As a result of disparities in resources, a small, wealthy, and homogenous donor class makes large contributions that fund the bulk of American politics. Even in the aftermath of recent campaign reforms, the donor class effectively determines which candidates possess the resources to run viable campaigns. This reality undermines the democratic value of widespread participation."

THE DONOR CLASS: CAMPAIGN FINANCE, DEMOCRACY, AND PARTICIPATION, Spencer Overton† (emphasis mine)
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=penn_law_review

 

Politics in America has always relied on some form of bribery. It was at least a bit more democratic when pols just paid voters directly for their votes.

“ Robert Dinkin, author of “Campaigning in America: A History of Election Practices,” notes that “if a candidate ignored the custom of treating, he often found himself in great difficulty.”

And that’s exactly what happened to none other than George Washington, our cherry tree-hating, momentous river-crossing, … Except it wasn’t the presidential election. It was back in 1755, when a 24-year-old Washington was running for the House of Burgesses (essentially the Virginia state legislature). He knew of the practice of treating and adamantly objected, having already complained to the governor that local Commonwealth bars rendered his soldiers “incessantly drunk and unfit for service.”

So Washington says no to bumbo, and loses the election. Hard. As in his opponent gets 271 votes and he gets a mere 40. Fast-forward three years, and Washington runs again. Not only has he changed his mind about treating, Washington goes out of his way to serve 144 gallons of alcohol (rum, punch, hard cider, and beer), or roughly half a gallon per vote of the whopping 331 votes that won him the election, according to historian Daniel Okrent. In fact, Washington had done such a 180, he was actually concerned he hadn’t served enough booze.”


Washington wasn’t the only important statesman, and eventual president, who initially refused to engage in treating. According to Dinkin, when James Madison tried to campaign in 1777 “without ’the corrupting influence of spiritous liquors, and other treats,’ he lost to a less principled opponent.” By the time he was elected president in 1808, we have to assume he’d learned his lesson.”
VINEPAIR, Open Bar: America’s History of Buying Votes With Booze, By EMILY BELL, August 31, 2016.
https://vinepair.com/articles/history-voting-alcohol-america/

 

It is not longwinded, it is just that people on this forum are not understanding the tax code or how it will apply. But what I stated is far more accurate than what the OP stated by about 10 million miles.

If the OP wanted to discuss the tax proposals, the OP should have provided a link of said tax proposals, not the Moore Case, which has nothing to do with Biden's tax proposals.

 

In the old days, a 50 cent piece would have bought votes, given either by the politician directly or one of his "friends." It is the main reason why David Crocket lost his election in 1834 in Tennessee. But the Supreme Court, with Citizens United ruling, the about of lobbying, aka bribes, has gone through the roof, and both major parties do it.

 

We weren't even talking about the OP at the time.

You said that Biden hadn't suggested taxing unrealized gains and that is was only a figment of the RW media imagination. As I showed, he most certainly did.

 

You just had a conservative Supreme Court narrow the corruption charges of public officials, which he was taking a bribe of some sort. This was the case from Nevada.


https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/snyder-v-us-supreme-court-opinion-recap-we-love-bribes-so-much/

 

Yeah we were.

 

You responded to me. I had just quoted you saying..."Second, Biden has not made any such suggestion or claim on this. Not at all. The only place where I see this "idea or claim": of unrealized gains on homes to be taxed is from RW media who are using fear and complete ignorance to make a point."

That was the extent of what was being discussed. You were mistaken and that has been proven.





Now you are trying to pretend as if we were discussing the OP. At that in the conversation point, we most certainly were not discussing the OP. We had already discussed precisely what you are saying now and I already addressed that by saying...

"It (the link in the OP) is not about the court case.

The linked article refers to Bidens desire to pass legislation to tax unrealized gains, and the only mention of the court case is that the Biden appointed Justice said in her opinion on that case that "all questions concerning the Tax Clause of Article I, Section 8 or the scope of the 16th Amendment are political questions that are not reviewable by the federal courts." That statement is literally the extent that this discussion has any relevance to said court case.

The link then goes on to discuss how this jibes with Bidens stated desire to tax unrealized gains. It says not one other thing about this court case. The only person that I see discussing the court case is you, and you keep acting as if any other subject is therefore wrong."

 

Only because the DP administration was resisting equal opportunity bribery for its RP partners in crime. Can't have that!

“Obama had reserved some of the harshest words of his presidency for the Citizens United ruling, saying that he couldn't “Think of anything more devastating to the public interest." So he had steadfastly refused to encourage supporters to form an “outside” super PAC that could except unlimited contributions on his behalf. …”
“Soon after, Obama bowed to the new economic reality and reversed himself. His campaign began encouraging supporters to give to the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA. It wasn't the first time Obama had been rendered a hypocrite in order to raise funds. In 2008, after championing campaign-finance reform in the Senate, he broke his own pledge to accept public financing as a presidential candidate.”"

DARK MONEY, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Jane Mayer , Anchor Books, Penguin Random House LLC, New York 2017. P. 395. (emphasis mine)

 

You'll have to be a lot more specific or do you propose a simple flat tax same rate across the board.

 

Replacing the current tax monstrosity with a simple flat tax would be an agreeable solution for a lot of us, but you know something like that wouldn't stand the proverbial 'snowball's chance in hell' of ever happening....

No, what could possibly be more achievable would be what I mentioned before -- to just get the hell rid of all these tax loopholes, tax shelters, and all the rest of the completely unfair crap that allows the 'big-rich' to escape anything close to being 'fair' taxation of personal income. We could keep the 'tax-brackets' and all the rest of the template -- just get rid of all the unfair rigmarole that the 'big-rich' take advantage of which no one else can....

 

To an 'unaffiliated Independent' voter (and TAXPAYER) like me, it's not complicated at all -- everybody should pay an income tax, and, even with 'brackets', the tax should be a simple percentage -- without any conditions, exceptions, or tax 'advantages' for anybody. Perhaps a 'flat-tax' would be the best of all.

But don't worry! As I've said over and over, it will NEVER happen... meanwhile, those Republican 'fat-cats', AND, those Democrat 'limousine-liberals' just laugh all the way to the bank. .

 

yep, some bear false witness and Felon Trump and the MAGAs run with it... Sad!....

 

You have not presented a legal case in this entire thread buddy