SCOTUS to take up wealth tax case. Bernie & Pocahontas dream tax at stake.

[BabyBoomer50s]

A Wealth-Tax Watershed for the Supreme Court​

The Justices will hear Moore v. U.S., which asks if ‘income’ under the law can be an unrealized gain.​

The Supreme Court is set to finish another consequential term this week, and on Monday the Justices teed up for next term what could be a landmark tax case. In agreeing to hear Moore v. U.S., the Court will consider the legality of a form of wealth tax that is the long-time dream of the political left.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/suprem...lth-tax-patrick-bumatay-ninth-circuit-83610ed

 

[Chobham]

I hope they put a nail in that coffin ASAP.

 

[schism666]

who is pocahontus?

 

[Bray123]

Many countries have a system where the richer you are, the more you contribute in taxes.

The US has an experimental system whereby the poorer people pay the taxes and the richest people buy golf courses and private islands then with the left-overs they run their own space program.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Many countries have a system where the richer you are, the more you contribute in taxes.

The US has an experimental system whereby the poorer people pay the taxes and the richest people buy golf courses and private islands then with the left-overs they run their own space program.

The case that SCOTUS will be taking up pertains to taxing unrealized capital gains. The court is likely to deem it unconstitutional.

 

[Chobham]

The case that SCOTUS will be taking up pertains to taxing unrealized capital gains. The court is likely to deem it unconstitutional.

You have the patience of Job. the post you responded to was posted by either a juvenile, a moron, or a congenital liar.

 

[Lazaran]

You have the patience of Job. the post you responded to was posted by either a juvenile, a moron, or a congenital liar.

^
Projection at its absolute finest. (worst?)

 

[Bray123]

You have the patience of Job. the post you responded to was posted by either a juvenile, a moron, or a congenital liar.

I'm upset that you think I might be juvenile.

 

[Comshaw]

A Wealth-Tax Watershed for the Supreme Court​

The Justices will hear Moore v. U.S., which asks if ‘income’ under the law can be an unrealized gain.​

The Supreme Court is set to finish another consequential term this week, and on Monday the Justices teed up for next term what could be a landmark tax case. In agreeing to hear Moore v. U.S., the Court will consider the legality of a form of wealth tax that is the long-time dream of the political left.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/suprem...lth-tax-patrick-bumatay-ninth-circuit-83610ed

After doing a little research I tend to agree that SCOTUS should and most likely will strike down the taxation of unrealized gains. Why should any "gains" that aren't directed to me (which would be income btw) be taxed? Any argument for doing so would also be an argument for taxing retirement accounts while profits are accumulating rather than when they are withdrawn. Nope. Shouldn't happen.

All that said why in the fuck do you insist on posting a link to an article that can only be read if one signs up or buys it? That's bullshit in its own right.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

You have the patience of Job. the post you responded to was posted by either a juvenile, a moron, or a congenital liar.

This from a person who, when getting his ass kicked in an argument, would rather verbally piss in someone's boot than admit wrong. Damn Ish, I had no idea you had such a dry sense of humor!

Comshaw

 

[ll74]

After doing a little research I tend to agree that SCOTUS should and most likely will strike down the taxation of unrealized gains. Why should any "gains" that aren't directed to me (which would be income btw) be taxed? Any argument for doing so would also be an argument for taxing retirement accounts while profits are accumulating rather than when they are withdrawn. Nope. Shouldn't happen.

All that said why in the fuck do you insist on posting a link to an article that can only be read if one signs up or buys it? That's bullshit in its own right.

Comshaw

The argument is that people tend to use unrealized gains to hide income.

I think it's also a flimsy argument.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

After doing a little research I tend to agree that SCOTUS should and most likely will strike down the taxation of unrealized gains. Why should any "gains" that aren't directed to me (which would be income btw) be taxed? Any argument for doing so would also be an argument for taxing retirement accounts while profits are accumulating rather than when they are withdrawn. Nope. Shouldn't happen.

All that said why in the fuck do you insist on posting a link to an article that can only be read if one signs up or buys it? That's bullshit in its own right.

Comshaw

Sorry. I try to link to free articles whenever possible. The news that SCOTUS will take this case hasn’t been widely covered. If I’d seen it on one of the free outlets, I would have linked to it. Some people here do subscribe to national news outlets like WSJ, NYT, etc. At any rate, the headline and paragraph pretty much summarized the news.

 

[Chobham]

I'm upset that you think I might be juvenile.

Then that leaves one of the other two choices.

Facts are your friend.

Who pays the taxes?

 

[Lazaran]

After doing a little research I tend to agree that SCOTUS should and most likely will strike down the taxation of unrealized gains. Why should any "gains" that aren't directed to me (which would be income btw) be taxed? Any argument for doing so would also be an argument for taxing retirement accounts while profits are accumulating rather than when they are withdrawn. Nope. Shouldn't happen.

All that said why in the fuck do you insist on posting a link to an article that can only be read if one signs up or buys it? That's bullshit in its own right.

Comshaw

•
I agree that the tax on unrealized capital gains is not the best answer. I am left to wonder though, how the Ultra-wealthy, who have consistently used their capital / power to increasingly concentrate the total wealth of the nation into their own hands, CAN be held to account

Any ideas???.

 

[Comshaw]

•
I agree that the tax on unrealized capital gains is not the best answer. I am left to wonder though, how the Ultra-wealthy, who have consistently used their capital / power to increasingly concentrate the total wealth of the nation into their own hands, CAN be held to account

Any ideas???.

Nope. I ain't that smart. Someone up the pay grade is gunna have to come up with an answer to that. However, it seems to me that at some point a payout has to be made to the investor. I'm sure there are other nefarious and advantageous (at least to those with enough money) tax loop holds to cover that too. Those should be addressed directly rather than in a roundabout way though.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

I'm upset that you think I might be juvenile.

If the shoe fits...

 

[HisArpy]

After doing a little research I tend to agree that SCOTUS should and most likely will strike down the taxation of unrealized gains. Why should any "gains" that aren't directed to me (which would be income btw) be taxed? Any argument for doing so would also be an argument for taxing retirement accounts while profits are accumulating rather than when they are withdrawn. Nope. Shouldn't happen.

All that said why in the fuck do you insist on posting a link to an article that can only be read if one signs up or buys it? That's bullshit in its own right.

Comshaw

I think the issue here is the definition of "income."

It's defined as "an accession to wealth." There is no requirement in that defintion that the "wealth" be realized.

There are real problems with our tax code. It's possible under the code to be "rich" while having no taxable income. Under Moore it would also be possible to be poor and taxed like you're "rich."

This happens because people with an agenda twist meanings until they get blood out of the turnip. Of course the turnip isn't really bleeding, it just looks that way if you ignore the slight of hand going on.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Snippits from yesterday’s hearing published in WSJ today give a sense of what the plaintiff’s (Moores) and the defendant (Biden Administratio) are arguing, as well as the question at least on justice (Alito) is asking…..

as the Moores’ attorney Andrew Grossman asked, what’s to stop the government from taxing shareholders of ExxonMobil on all of the company’s reinvested earnings going back many years, even during years they didn’t own shares?

Or as Justice Samuel Alito asked: “What about the appreciation of holdings in securities by millions and millions of Americans, holdings in mutual funds over a period of time without selling the shares in those mutual funds?” Ms. Prelogar replied: “I think if Congress actually enacted a tax like that, and it never has, that we would likely defend it as an income tax.”

 

[schism666]

boomer thought it was smart to bump a thread where he displays misogyny and racism. lol.

 

[Lazaran]

boomer thought it was smart to bump a thread where he displays misogyny and racism. lol.

At least BabyBoobs didn’t use an innocent child as a political football in this thread like the sick POS did in another thread…

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[schism666]

At least BabyBoobs didn’t use an innocent child as a political football in this thread like the sick POS did in another thread…

JFC

SAD!!!

the one where he didn't even know the gender of the football? what a shitass.

 

[Lazaran]

the one where he didn't even know the gender of the football? what a shitass.

That’s the one.

And yeah, total shitass.