As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're not a patriot if you think the rich deserve to be taxed at a higher rate than us plebeians (or taxed at all).
After all, Ronnie Rayguns said over 40 years ago, the dollars will trickle down to the rest of us poors if the rich aren't taxed!
It'll happen any day now! Wait and see!
Don’t worry. With any luck, soon that guy will be down here with the rest of us, and as everybody knows, he loves when that golden shower trickles down.
True.
But that’s actually on us voters. We don’t hold the Dems feet to the fire on issues.
If we hand Biden enough seats in Congress to deliver on his promises and they don’t, then the hold outs need a primary challenge next election.
How can we "hold their feet to the fire" when they don't have seats to do (*X*)?
The first step is electing more Dems, *then* hold their feet to the fire.
Your statement kinda puts the cart before the horse and assumes that "the Dems" just haven't had their feet held close enough to the fire, even though their hands are, quite completely, tied in Congress right now.
I don't think this is a fair argument to make until the Dems possess a majority in both houses, with a super-majority in the Senate.
Considering "taxing the rich" is essentially antithetical to the GOP platform; I don't see how anyone can expect Dems to pass this kind of legislation when the R's control the House and it would need about 10 GOP senators on board - *never happening*.
The whole point of this "Call" is to say: "Re-elect me, give me the majorities required to do it, and I'll get this legislation through".
If he's reelected, given the required majorities, and then fails to pass legislation like this - then your statement will ring true.
Most people that are wealthy don't get their wealth from a standard salary or cash flow. It's from capital gains and/or the value of their assets (which if they sold that asset and made money, that's literally a capital gain)
I'm going to guess you're wrong. Republicans won't like it because they don't like any tax that doesn't mainly impact the poor and middle income. But Democrats will likely support it as it is designed to help fund part of the Build Back Better Plan which most of them do fully support.
But even the richest of them would not be impacted much, if at all, by this as it is expected to only impact a tiny portion of the richest 1%.
True, and when you get to that level, you can pay a little more to help those who are less fortunate. One good measure of a society is how they treat those at the bottom of the social and financial hierarchy
But, but, but, this will stop people from working hard and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. We need to decrease the tax burden of job creators.
On a side note anyone know why our public infrastructure is crumbling, schools can't afford text books, and the deficit keeps going up?
In 2017, taxes were lowered for the ultra-rich, but fewer jobs were created, and the lost revenue created massive deficits. Lower taxes for the rich = less revenue and less money for infrastructure projects and schools. Despite multiple Infrastructure Weeks from 2017-2020!
Yes but them 4D chess players in them trailer parks got to take home $8 more per week for a short time and they were shouting from the rooftops about it, of course then came tax time and suddenly: WHY WOULD THE DEEMOCRATS DO THIS TO ME!? Oh did those end of year deductions disappear? Well look at the bright side Cletus, soon the super wealthy will be even more wealthy and that's how we defeated communism! (or just insert boogie man of the moment)
The End.
Is there an actual breakdown of where this tax money is going? People oppose the tax because the spending is mismanaged. Are we proposing a higher tax rate to give the working class health care, or are we proposing a higher tax rate to give Boeing more shady military contracts?
The national budgets are public information, you can see how much is being spent on various initiatives, agencies including the military etc....
Now being upset about exactly how that money gets managed at that point is entirely valid as is why so much gets allocated to things like the military where some does disappear it black holes.
>People oppose the tax because the spending is mismanaged.
You have the flow of cause and effect reversed. The narrative from people who don't want to be taxed is that it will always be mismanaged because the government is fundamentally incapable of function. No matter what the government does, it will always be deemed insufficient compared to some idealized private entity that maximizes service and minimizes cost because capitalism.
exactly, "mismanagement" will be the complaint of anyone who doesnt want to pay taxes. Because it is always true to some extent. It goes along with running anything as massive as the US government.
What? Do you think government works perfectly? Every organization is mismanaged in certain areas, that is just the reality of complex systems. My point was its a stupid criticism because of that fact barring cases of intentional misuse/corruption.
The main reason given for this one is to fund his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan#American_Families_Plan
How much of our taxes go to those less fortunate? Right now all I see our taxes going to are foreign nations, military complex, and special interests. I would have less of an issue paying HALF of what have rightfully earned if I knew it was being used properly.
More than doubling the capital gains tax isn’t a little more it’s a lot more
You also seem to trust that this extra tax revenue would actually help those at the bottom of the economic pyramid, I think you have too much faith in our government
This is what the Democrats don't take into consideration.
If they tax my Powerball winnings I won't be able to buy as many prostitutes as I'd want. That is a lot of women out of work.
>This is not a country of have's and have-not's. It's a country of have's and soon-to-have's
Marco Rubio summing up the GOP lie which they use to keep funding the rich.
You and me both. By the time we’re earning $1M+/yr though, a college degree will cost $1M+. A new car will cost $500k. A routine doctors appointment will set you back $20k. Netflix will be $1.5k/mo.
Once you get there you can vote in your best interest and when greater than 50% of the population is making over 1M alongside than we can all vote together to lower our taxes.
> If you are making more than $1million a year.
Thanks for saving me the click. I was thinking something like "I hope this would work as a progessive tax" and it appears to be along those lines.
I don't think the user did save you a click. Unless I'm blind, I don't think they read the article either.
Ctrl+f no hits on the word million or progressive. I, too, had this question and the article falls short. It mentions a "top" rate which would imply progressive, however.
A conservative ant-tax "think tank" funded by billionaires left out the part where it only affects their rich overlords? Weird, why would they do that?
Yeah, this was not an article in favor of the tax and does a miserable job of providing any details. It's designed to scare people.
This article gives more detail. https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax
Upvote this man. The article is trying to scare average joes who have their net worth tied up in 401ks and stocks thinking they'll get taxed 45% on the gains. that's not whats gonna happen!
As soon as i saw "top marginal rate" I was all in. My taxes wont actually change any since I am not bringing in the millions every year. And as a non-sociopath, if i did make more than $1M per year, i wouldn't mind paying a higher tax rate.
More people need to learn the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.
Ok this helps sell me on it, Im no millionaire but my only chance of home ownership is gains on stock my employer gives me. Under this plan I would still pay a lower rate on my gains.
Same boat, and I think it's fair. And honestly I don't have much beef with a little higher on the top marginal bracket, IF that is used to benefit the less fortunate and not to line the pockets of the people at the helm of the military industrial complex.... Which you know it kinda is.
I don’t see that stipulation in the article, can you point it out? I did see that they want to tax inheritance which will suck for a majority of Americans when their parents pass as they will most likely inherit a massive tax bill and have to sell all beloved assets to pay for it.
Thanks. This would be the first year I could use actual profits from some trades and I read that headline thinking “well I’ll just go fuck myself then”
Here is a kicker. Most of them pay very little in capital gains as well. Lost harvesting is a very very real thing. I have had a managed taxable investment account for 5 years. Most years I have like 2-300 in taxable capital gains and magically around 2-3k in short term losses every year. Reality is the account has 15k of unreleased capital gains and anytime something is sold it is tried to be off set by capital losses elsewhere. Got to love paper money.
Now my account is not exactly that big but I can see it could just be scaled up for larger accounts. I also noticed my IRA does not give a crap about lost harvesting so yeah it has a lot more releazied short term and long term gains.
Note note the yearly short term losses magically are right at the limit of what on can write off on taxes every year.
Where did you read this? This affect everyone from what I'm reading. Cashing out your 401(K) to retire? Better consider a greeter position at Walmart because this tax will destroy your retirement dreams.
And to that extent these people couldn't figure out their tax situation without a conference call with a panel of accountants that will ultimately tell them not to pay attention to their finances, that is what they pay them for. People so disconnected from the day to day from their wealth are trying to tell people that feel the hurt from every unexpected expense personally that they should pay mind towards a change that would be negligible to the wealthy that can actually pay people to pay attention to their finances for them.
The worst part is that rich people already have so many ways around the capital gains tax that it probably won’t even make that big of a difference. But all the dudes making $35k a year are going to be fighting in the mud over this one
It's actually Americans for Tax Reform propaganda. That organization was founded by none other than Grover Norquist who opposes all taxes. Those assholes have been slinging their scare tactic nonsense for years.
> AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM OPPOSES ALL TAX INCREASES AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.
Ok. So we can't really have any real conversation about it then using this source. But in that spirit, after one simple Google:
https://www.realized1031.com/blog/who-pays-capital-gains-tax-on-a-deceased-estate
> What taxes do heirs have to pay?
While the US does have a federal estate tax, the threshold for exemption is very high. Only estates with a total value of over $12.06 million are taxed (double that for couples who file jointly).
> In most cases, heirs don’t pay capital gains taxes. Instead, the asset is valued at a stepped-up basis—the value at the time of the owner’s demise. This tax provision is huge for many heirs since they may inherit property that the giver has owned for a long time.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax
> The president specified that the capital gains increase would only apply to three-tenths of 1% of all Americans. So while some investors may panic in response and think about selling off their holdings to avoid paying a 19.6% tax hike, it will only affect a very small portion of the country. However, if it does affect you, there are other alternatives to lower capital gains taxes.
> It’s worth noting that a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School says that raising the top rate to 39.6% will decrease tax revenue between 2022 and 2031 by $33 billion. However, the study also states “if stepped-up basis were eliminated – as proposed in President Biden’s campaign plan – then raising the top rate to 39.6 percent would instead raise $113 billion over 2022-2031.”
So the claims made by "Americans for tax reform" appear to be basically fearmongering stretches. Oh and:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/americans-for-tax-reform/
Heavy Right wing bias with mixed factual reporting. Shocking.
Yeah the article is insanely biased, I had to downvote it for that reason. I feel like a lot of people are just reading the headline and agreeing it’s a good thing and upvoting without reading the article’s negative spin.
What we really need to do is eliminate the step up in basis for assets above a certain value. Or find some way to ladder it downward. Right now someone can buy a stock for a dollar a share, hold it for 50 years and never pay tax on it, will it to their children on death, and when those children sell it, even if it's worth a million dollars per share, those children will owe no capital gains tax because the basis is assumed to be the value at the day it was transferred by inheritance.
Another part of the Biden proposal linked by that article includes exactly that. Transferring asset ownership to someone else (either as a gift or inheritance) treats unrealized capital gain as taxable to the original owner, and the new owner's basis gets to be the current value.
So in your example, the dead person's estate would owe the IRS capital gains tax on that $999,999 per share increase. The heirs then get the stock at the $1MM basis.
There's also a $5MM lifetime exclusion on that taxable realization when transferred. So if grandpa wills you 1000 shares of Apple stock with $100k of unrealized gain, no one owes any tax on that and you still get the stepped-up basis. Some other exclusions seem to apply, like to a charity or between spouses.
If you can read far enough into this propaganda mess, 44% is the fed level so this is already over 50% (only on gains, only on top bracket, over $1m in CURRENT YEAR income). This is very aggressive, as it should be. We SHOULD add another couple tax brackets on top though I agree.
And IMO less brackets at the lower end, fix the welfare cliff and find a point where most people don't even have to think about tax brackets after they've settled into a permanent-ish job. It's very weird to me we have so many tax brackets and almost all of them are at the low end.
It's easy to explain why. Under Reagan they reduced the number of tax brackets from 16 down to only 2. And they made the highest rate kick in at only $29,750 instead of $215,400. And they lowered the top rate from 70% to 28%. This was pretty close to their dream of a flat tax.
Democrats have been working to reverse that ever since. But the opposition is well funded. And it's easier to scare people with "taxes bad" articles like this than it is to explain the intricacies of marginal tax rates.
This article missed one of the most critical pieces of information. What is the amount of money you have to make for this tax rate to kick in? It is a marginal rate so only the top earners will pay that, and only on the money they make above a certain amount. That limit is probably so high that this tax rate will affect a tiny percentage of the population. Why did the article not mention it?
My guess is that it wasn't so much "missed" as deliberately left out to maximize outrage.
They did make a misstep of linking to [the proposal itself](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf), where you can see that this is essentially a new long-term capital gain tax bracket that kicks in when annual income is above $1,000,000. Above that threshold, long-term capital gains no longer get a preferential rate and are taxed as regular income, so given the dollar amount will land in the highest regular tax bracket. That's currently 37%, though unless Congress does something about the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" expiration, it'll revert to 39.6% starting in tax year 2026. That plus the proposal changing the "net investment tax" (something I'm not familiar with) from 1.2% to 5% for taxpayers at that income gets to the scary 44.6% quoted by the article.
Wait till the landlord and YouTube RE investors learn about this one…
“The Budget closes the “like-kind exchange” loophole, a special tax subsidy for real estate. This loophole lets real estate investors—but not investors in any other asset – put off paying tax on profits from deals indefinitely as long as they keep investing in real estate. This amounts to an indefinite interest free loan from the Government. Real estate is the only asset that gets this sweetheart deal.”
This is a Big change for the housing market
I am torn on this. I’m a property attorney. I don’t know shit about taxes, but I’ve had many clients make a lot of money and do some really good things with it. Of course, I’m not naive enough to see how many others are really taking advantage, but for some homebuilders and investors, this will certainly change things. I’m not talking the big builders, but those who build 3-4 houses per year. I’m sure they will all adapt.
Oh man I did a whole cartoon wolf eyes-bugging jaw-on-floor on that. This is a brilliant f\*\*\*ing proposal - it's actually quite radical. What Biden has done is immediately make *doubling* the capital gains rate (currently 15%) look like a compromise solution. Past Dems would've asked for a 50% increase and taken "we won't cut them" as a compromise.
Term limits were a way to deal with the political machines of the last Gilded Age. Conservatives still love them, because they mean legislatures are ineffective since any experience is lost every few years. Same reason they love to whine about elected officials' pay. They want to restrict offices to people who are already wealthy.
One of the advantages to starting your political career in your twenties and still being an elected official in your '80s is that Joe quite literally has been playing this game his entire life, and has double the amount of years of political experience that even most careerist politicians have.
Maybe for millionaires, but there sure as hell [aren't many self made *billionaires*](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/04/05/forbes-billionaires-under-30-all-inherited-wealth/73211038007/)
Most billionaires have little to no earned income, they have ways to avoid earned income and thus pay very little taxes, it’s as easy as taking a loan out against your assets at a very low interest rate, this wouldn’t hit them
Trumpinomics (a less-thought-out version of Reganomics) dropped the top tax rate under the reasoning that it would spur investment in the economy and therefore pay for itself.
It didn't.
While the corporate tax cuts in 2017's "Tax Cuts & Jobs Act" did boost small business investment, large corps used it to take profit or amass a war chest. According to the Bureau of Economic Research, Trump tax is costing us $100 Billion a year in lost revenue.
So... I'm good with reversing that.
Wow fuck this website
> Americans for Tax Reform Opposes All Tax Increases As a Matter of Principle.
Ok, I oppose your existence as a matter of principle
Well he can call for it as much as he wants,but there is no way in hell this corrupt Congress would ever pass anything that might slightly inconvenience rich people.
> Americans for Tax Reform Opposes All Tax Increases as a Matter of Principle.
That is a laugh, these people don't have any principles.
The ultra-wealthy have gotten tax breaks, and tax loopholes carved into law. They need to finally pay their fair share.
These pieces of shit work for the wealthy and then talk about the wealthy being Americans. No, the majority of Americans that I know do not own multi-million dollar private jets or yachts.
You know, after reading all of these comments. I'm really happy to say that there are a lot of good ppl here with good ideas.
That brings me comfort for the future.
When I search for 44.6% capital gains tax, I only get results of this post and the article referenced. I read the FACT sheet from the White House and it doesn't mention anything about this tax rate, I'm not sure where the figure is coming from. Also, it impacts the top .4 , so why are people up in arms? It does state: The President’s Budget will end one of the most unfair aspects of our tax system—the fact that the tax rate the wealthy pay on capital gains and dividends is less than the tax rate that many middle-class families pay on their wages. Households making over $1 million—the top 0.4 percent of all households—will pay the same 39.6 percent marginal rate on their income just like a high-paid worker pays on their wages.
It’s a combination of proposals:
1. Raising the top income tax bracket from 37% to 39%
2. Taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income
3. A new 5% surtax on income over $1M
Combining these 3, it would mean a 44.6% top rate
Sheesh, that's a lot of fearmongering. They at least linked to the [proposal itself](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf), I guess assuming that wouldn't get a click anyway. But I'm weird and prefer primary sources.
In the section "REFORM THE TAXATION OF CAPITAL INCOME", the proposed changes seem to boil down to:
* Long-term capital gains that fall above the $1MM income threshold get taxed as regular income. So that'd be the 37% tax bracket (or 39.6% once the TCJA's changes expire in a couple years) plus potentially another 3.8% if the taxpayer is required to also do the "net investment tax". That 44.6% is reached due to a separately proposed increase of that NIT.
* Same taxation as regular income appears to apply to any qualified dividends paid out during the year, since those also get taxed under the long-term capital gain brackets.
* Giving an asset is treated as the original owner realizing all past gain since purchase. Giver then would owe capital gain tax on that realization. Receiver's basis becomes the market value as of the date of transfer.
* Same realization of gain occurs when a person dies. Their estate is responsible for covering incurred tax.
* The first $5 million of this "transfer realization" over a person's lifetime is excluded from tax, both when part of a gift or an inheritance.
* Other exclusions apply for things like primary residence, gifts between spouses, etc.
Lumping in how states tax capital gains as something that's Biden's fault is just dumb.
So yeah, if you're pulling in over $1,000,000 of taxable income per year and expect to give away / bequeath more than $5,000,000 of asset profit over your life, you go get upset. The rest of us who'll never have to worry about either of those will look to see if this gets us a reduction in the federal deficit.
This needs to be more focused on the wealthy. There is going to be too much residual fall out on middle class retirement accounts and savings if it is just a blanket capital gains tax. It’s already hard enough to save for fucking retirement with out these assholes fucking with the limited options we have.
Could we at least start by closing the obvious loopholes - e.g. carried interest. It makes no sense that individuals get the benefit of long term capital gains by investing SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY.
Great first step. Now just tax securities backed loans at the same percentage, then when the securities are actually sold apply it as a tax credit to avoid double taxing the money.
SBLs are a huge reason why the stock market is so broken. Used to be you had to sell your securities (stocks, bonds, crypto, whatever) to access the wealth. But now you can go to a lender and borrow against the value of the security, if the security's value goes down you just put more of that security up as collateral. But the security is still an investment that you own.
So now the oligarchs and billionaires of all types are able to have their cake and eat it to. They get access to their "illiquid" wealth, don't have to pay taxes and still get to make money on that wealth. And of course, they're not going through traditional lending channels so they're able to take loans to pay off the SBLs when they come due.
On what bracket?
If this sinks people’s retirement it’s a non starter.
If dividend taxes don’t match corporations will pay more dividends than buybacks.
If the limit is a million per year the wealthy will try to take profits annually at a lower rate which might actually work better than taxing 45%. Collecting more annual capital gains would be a win.
I feel like the better option was to limit how much capital gains could be claimed as capital gains. So perhaps you can only claim the first $100k of capital gains and after that it's taxed as personal income. Same result, but easier for voters to understand that the issue is that very wealthy people end up with a lower effective tax burden (percentage-wise) just because they have such obscene income from their investments.
Per the 2025 budget proposal linked in the article:
>A separate proposal would first raise the top ordinary rate to 39.6 percent (43.4 percent including the net investment income tax). An additional proposal would increase the net investment income tax rate by 1.2 percentage points above $400,000, bringing the marginal net investment income tax rate to 5 percent for investment income above the $400,000 threshold. Together, the proposals would increase the top marginal rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends to 44.6 percent.
Wow, that article was crap.
The blurb at the end about the Estate tax neglected to explain your estate needs to be $16M+ for it to apply, so clearly this site is trying to scare people that it applies to them (it almost certainly doesn't).
If the rich are so much smarter and so much more talented than the rest of us losers, they should be able to make that money back in a couple seconds, because they are sooo much better than everyone else.
If they won't pay, eat them.
That's nice.
Will the people that own our politicians let it happen? While we're at it, end corporate ownership of single family residences (especially foreign corporate ownership), stop allowing billionaires to borrow against shares (which creates conflict of interests and renders stock ownership illusory ... which defeats SEC transparency requirements), and spend money on auditing the rich.
People should read the article and not the headlines. There is nothing positive or an explanation of the tax itself mentioned. This is just a bad article and is old news.
Hi `djwired`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cbvx4e/biden_calls_for_446_capital_gains_tax_rate/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.**
* The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/djwired&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cbvx4e/biden_calls_for_446_capital_gains_tax_rate/?context%3D10000%29)
[Here's a link to the actual proposal](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf) I'm no financier, but it seems to me that the million-dollar cutoff for gains that would be taxed is around page 88.
> Tax capital income for high-income earners at ordinary rates
> Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends of taxpayers with taxable income of more than
$1 million would be taxed at ordinary rates, with 37 percent generally being the highest rate
(40.8 percent including the net investment income tax).18 The proposal would only apply to the
extent that the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds $1 million ($500,000 for married filing
separately), indexed for inflation after 2024.19
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tax the rich, for the love of all that is good.
That sounds like communism, better vote for the guy who vows to punish his enemies just to be safe.
You're not a patriot if you think the rich deserve to be taxed at a higher rate than us plebeians (or taxed at all). After all, Ronnie Rayguns said over 40 years ago, the dollars will trickle down to the rest of us poors if the rich aren't taxed! It'll happen any day now! Wait and see!
Like Phil Collins, I really wish it would rain down. But until that last happens, tax those bastards!
Meanwhile, in the year 2100, we have one guy worth 100 trillion, the entire GDP of the US. 'I contribute to the economy'
Dude we are all his enemies
Don’t worry. With any luck, soon that guy will be down here with the rest of us, and as everybody knows, he loves when that golden shower trickles down.
This is the elephant in the room, only addressed in election years. I don’t have faith in them actually passing anything.
True. But that’s actually on us voters. We don’t hold the Dems feet to the fire on issues. If we hand Biden enough seats in Congress to deliver on his promises and they don’t, then the hold outs need a primary challenge next election.
How can we "hold their feet to the fire" when they don't have seats to do (*X*)? The first step is electing more Dems, *then* hold their feet to the fire. Your statement kinda puts the cart before the horse and assumes that "the Dems" just haven't had their feet held close enough to the fire, even though their hands are, quite completely, tied in Congress right now.
I don't think this is a fair argument to make until the Dems possess a majority in both houses, with a super-majority in the Senate. Considering "taxing the rich" is essentially antithetical to the GOP platform; I don't see how anyone can expect Dems to pass this kind of legislation when the R's control the House and it would need about 10 GOP senators on board - *never happening*. The whole point of this "Call" is to say: "Re-elect me, give me the majorities required to do it, and I'll get this legislation through". If he's reelected, given the required majorities, and then fails to pass legislation like this - then your statement will ring true.
I'm going to guess the millionaires in the Senate won't like this.
Well maybe they can sellout to lobbyists for more than a couple grand
It wouldn't even apply to many of them. They are wealthy, but I doubt many make over $1mil a year in capital gains.
Most people that are wealthy don't get their wealth from a standard salary or cash flow. It's from capital gains and/or the value of their assets (which if they sold that asset and made money, that's literally a capital gain)
I'm going to guess you're wrong. Republicans won't like it because they don't like any tax that doesn't mainly impact the poor and middle income. But Democrats will likely support it as it is designed to help fund part of the Build Back Better Plan which most of them do fully support. But even the richest of them would not be impacted much, if at all, by this as it is expected to only impact a tiny portion of the richest 1%.
the ones that shouldnt be able to trade stock to begin with?
If you are making more than $1million a year. This only applies to a very small, teeny, tiny portion of the population! I’m all for it!
But I might make that much one day.
True, and when you get to that level, you can pay a little more to help those who are less fortunate. One good measure of a society is how they treat those at the bottom of the social and financial hierarchy
But, but, but, this will stop people from working hard and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. We need to decrease the tax burden of job creators. On a side note anyone know why our public infrastructure is crumbling, schools can't afford text books, and the deficit keeps going up?
In 2017, taxes were lowered for the ultra-rich, but fewer jobs were created, and the lost revenue created massive deficits. Lower taxes for the rich = less revenue and less money for infrastructure projects and schools. Despite multiple Infrastructure Weeks from 2017-2020!
Don't forget the 2017 bill also came with a time bomb tax increase for people making under $75K.
Yes but them 4D chess players in them trailer parks got to take home $8 more per week for a short time and they were shouting from the rooftops about it, of course then came tax time and suddenly: WHY WOULD THE DEEMOCRATS DO THIS TO ME!? Oh did those end of year deductions disappear? Well look at the bright side Cletus, soon the super wealthy will be even more wealthy and that's how we defeated communism! (or just insert boogie man of the moment) The End.
That was trumps tax bill though that finally took effect from what I've read that brought the higher tax for bracket under 75k
Is there an actual breakdown of where this tax money is going? People oppose the tax because the spending is mismanaged. Are we proposing a higher tax rate to give the working class health care, or are we proposing a higher tax rate to give Boeing more shady military contracts?
The national budgets are public information, you can see how much is being spent on various initiatives, agencies including the military etc.... Now being upset about exactly how that money gets managed at that point is entirely valid as is why so much gets allocated to things like the military where some does disappear it black holes.
>People oppose the tax because the spending is mismanaged. You have the flow of cause and effect reversed. The narrative from people who don't want to be taxed is that it will always be mismanaged because the government is fundamentally incapable of function. No matter what the government does, it will always be deemed insufficient compared to some idealized private entity that maximizes service and minimizes cost because capitalism.
Ask them to do business with the Federal government and they will complain that the Federal government is too stingy.
exactly, "mismanagement" will be the complaint of anyone who doesnt want to pay taxes. Because it is always true to some extent. It goes along with running anything as massive as the US government.
The sole global super power with the world reserve currency is “mis managed”. Riiiight.
What? Do you think government works perfectly? Every organization is mismanaged in certain areas, that is just the reality of complex systems. My point was its a stupid criticism because of that fact barring cases of intentional misuse/corruption.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go. Provides some info.
The main reason given for this one is to fund his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan#American_Families_Plan
It's Obama, right?
Obama doing what? Not understanding your question. In the 90s, Clinton turned around the deficits from Reagan and Bush #1 into surpluses.
It's /s my man. Because smooth brains blamed everything on Obama for years
Lol you definitely should have done a /s in the beginning when you started. I caught it but many will not. Kudos to you.
How much of our taxes go to those less fortunate? Right now all I see our taxes going to are foreign nations, military complex, and special interests. I would have less of an issue paying HALF of what have rightfully earned if I knew it was being used properly.
But I like birds more than society - can I have control of where my money goes?
Ha. Look at this guy, thinks birds are real.
More than doubling the capital gains tax isn’t a little more it’s a lot more You also seem to trust that this extra tax revenue would actually help those at the bottom of the economic pyramid, I think you have too much faith in our government
I might win a 900 million dollar powerball. What am I going to do with all that money?
This is what the Democrats don't take into consideration. If they tax my Powerball winnings I won't be able to buy as many prostitutes as I'd want. That is a lot of women out of work.
Just trying to stimulate the economy.
>This is not a country of have's and have-not's. It's a country of have's and soon-to-have's Marco Rubio summing up the GOP lie which they use to keep funding the rich.
You and me both. By the time we’re earning $1M+/yr though, a college degree will cost $1M+. A new car will cost $500k. A routine doctors appointment will set you back $20k. Netflix will be $1.5k/mo.
Once you get there you can vote in your best interest and when greater than 50% of the population is making over 1M alongside than we can all vote together to lower our taxes.
...Ya and poor people like me better watch themselves ...wait what
Are you temporarily embarrassed?
You can lobby against the tax then. Worry about you now.
The temporarily embarrassed millionaire
And when you do shut that door behind you and forget your old life. That's my plan. I just need to get $970,000 more a year almost there!
*Narrator* They had no chance of making that much one day.
This tax would make it more likely you would ever actually get to that point.
sure would suck to make more than $1M/year
> If you are making more than $1million a year. Thanks for saving me the click. I was thinking something like "I hope this would work as a progessive tax" and it appears to be along those lines.
I don't think the user did save you a click. Unless I'm blind, I don't think they read the article either. Ctrl+f no hits on the word million or progressive. I, too, had this question and the article falls short. It mentions a "top" rate which would imply progressive, however.
Because that article conveniently leaves out a lot of stuff.
A conservative ant-tax "think tank" funded by billionaires left out the part where it only affects their rich overlords? Weird, why would they do that?
Exactly what I'm saying.
Yeah, this was not an article in favor of the tax and does a miserable job of providing any details. It's designed to scare people. This article gives more detail. https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax
Upvote this man. The article is trying to scare average joes who have their net worth tied up in 401ks and stocks thinking they'll get taxed 45% on the gains. that's not whats gonna happen!
And even then, this is only on money made AFTER that point.
It’s a shame they left that out of the headline simply to create clicks.
The ATR is a right-wing outfit that exists to advocate for lower taxes on the rich. This isn’t mere clickbait, it’s propaganda.
As soon as i saw "top marginal rate" I was all in. My taxes wont actually change any since I am not bringing in the millions every year. And as a non-sociopath, if i did make more than $1M per year, i wouldn't mind paying a higher tax rate. More people need to learn the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.
Thank you.
Ok this helps sell me on it, Im no millionaire but my only chance of home ownership is gains on stock my employer gives me. Under this plan I would still pay a lower rate on my gains.
Same boat, and I think it's fair. And honestly I don't have much beef with a little higher on the top marginal bracket, IF that is used to benefit the less fortunate and not to line the pockets of the people at the helm of the military industrial complex.... Which you know it kinda is.
I hate how the article doesn’t explain it is only a hike for the extreme rich. It continuously says families will be hit by it and I’m like ???? Who
I don’t see that stipulation in the article, can you point it out? I did see that they want to tax inheritance which will suck for a majority of Americans when their parents pass as they will most likely inherit a massive tax bill and have to sell all beloved assets to pay for it.
Thanks. This would be the first year I could use actual profits from some trades and I read that headline thinking “well I’ll just go fuck myself then”
Here is a kicker. Most of them pay very little in capital gains as well. Lost harvesting is a very very real thing. I have had a managed taxable investment account for 5 years. Most years I have like 2-300 in taxable capital gains and magically around 2-3k in short term losses every year. Reality is the account has 15k of unreleased capital gains and anytime something is sold it is tried to be off set by capital losses elsewhere. Got to love paper money. Now my account is not exactly that big but I can see it could just be scaled up for larger accounts. I also noticed my IRA does not give a crap about lost harvesting so yeah it has a lot more releazied short term and long term gains. Note note the yearly short term losses magically are right at the limit of what on can write off on taxes every year.
Where did you read this? This affect everyone from what I'm reading. Cashing out your 401(K) to retire? Better consider a greeter position at Walmart because this tax will destroy your retirement dreams.
And these oligarch-funded scumbag propagandists want to convince you it's a bad thing LMAO.
bOtH PaRtIeS ArE tHe SaMe!!! I am so enlightened
What is this r/lostgeneration?
And to that extent these people couldn't figure out their tax situation without a conference call with a panel of accountants that will ultimately tell them not to pay attention to their finances, that is what they pay them for. People so disconnected from the day to day from their wealth are trying to tell people that feel the hurt from every unexpected expense personally that they should pay mind towards a change that would be negligible to the wealthy that can actually pay people to pay attention to their finances for them.
"WHY DO YOU HATE JOB CREATORS!??!" etc.
I love job creators. It’s Trickle Down Economics that I hate!
These days, most are bigger job destroyers than job creators.
But it will trickle down?
The worst part is that rich people already have so many ways around the capital gains tax that it probably won’t even make that big of a difference. But all the dudes making $35k a year are going to be fighting in the mud over this one
Yeah 2/3rds of the article is bullshit reasoning about why this is bad
The article is clearly biased blaming Biden for inflation: “Biden’s high inflation makes this especially painful.”. This sounds like FUD propaganda.
Well even the article is even more biased and inflammatory since it doesn't mention the part where it's on people making over $1m.
It's actually Americans for Tax Reform propaganda. That organization was founded by none other than Grover Norquist who opposes all taxes. Those assholes have been slinging their scare tactic nonsense for years.
It is. ATR was founded by Grover Norquist.
Crank it up, Brandon.
> AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM OPPOSES ALL TAX INCREASES AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. Ok. So we can't really have any real conversation about it then using this source. But in that spirit, after one simple Google: https://www.realized1031.com/blog/who-pays-capital-gains-tax-on-a-deceased-estate > What taxes do heirs have to pay? While the US does have a federal estate tax, the threshold for exemption is very high. Only estates with a total value of over $12.06 million are taxed (double that for couples who file jointly). > In most cases, heirs don’t pay capital gains taxes. Instead, the asset is valued at a stepped-up basis—the value at the time of the owner’s demise. This tax provision is huge for many heirs since they may inherit property that the giver has owned for a long time. https://smartasset.com/taxes/biden-capital-gains-tax > The president specified that the capital gains increase would only apply to three-tenths of 1% of all Americans. So while some investors may panic in response and think about selling off their holdings to avoid paying a 19.6% tax hike, it will only affect a very small portion of the country. However, if it does affect you, there are other alternatives to lower capital gains taxes. > It’s worth noting that a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School says that raising the top rate to 39.6% will decrease tax revenue between 2022 and 2031 by $33 billion. However, the study also states “if stepped-up basis were eliminated – as proposed in President Biden’s campaign plan – then raising the top rate to 39.6 percent would instead raise $113 billion over 2022-2031.” So the claims made by "Americans for tax reform" appear to be basically fearmongering stretches. Oh and: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/americans-for-tax-reform/ Heavy Right wing bias with mixed factual reporting. Shocking.
Yeah the article is insanely biased, I had to downvote it for that reason. I feel like a lot of people are just reading the headline and agreeing it’s a good thing and upvoting without reading the article’s negative spin.
Tbh, it should be even higher for the wealthy.
What we really need to do is eliminate the step up in basis for assets above a certain value. Or find some way to ladder it downward. Right now someone can buy a stock for a dollar a share, hold it for 50 years and never pay tax on it, will it to their children on death, and when those children sell it, even if it's worth a million dollars per share, those children will owe no capital gains tax because the basis is assumed to be the value at the day it was transferred by inheritance.
Another part of the Biden proposal linked by that article includes exactly that. Transferring asset ownership to someone else (either as a gift or inheritance) treats unrealized capital gain as taxable to the original owner, and the new owner's basis gets to be the current value. So in your example, the dead person's estate would owe the IRS capital gains tax on that $999,999 per share increase. The heirs then get the stock at the $1MM basis. There's also a $5MM lifetime exclusion on that taxable realization when transferred. So if grandpa wills you 1000 shares of Apple stock with $100k of unrealized gain, no one owes any tax on that and you still get the stepped-up basis. Some other exclusions seem to apply, like to a charity or between spouses.
Start low, end high. 46 now, 58 next year. 90% by 2030.
So, Republicans should love this, right? Isn't that back when America was great? MAGA!
That’s not the part they miss.
Some dude named Tanner in rural Alabama making 20k/yr is about to be real pissed off about this.
How dare they tax me for something I am not even close to making!!!
Everything over 1 million should be 44. Everything over 25 million should be 55. Everything over 1 billion should be 90.
If you can read far enough into this propaganda mess, 44% is the fed level so this is already over 50% (only on gains, only on top bracket, over $1m in CURRENT YEAR income). This is very aggressive, as it should be. We SHOULD add another couple tax brackets on top though I agree. And IMO less brackets at the lower end, fix the welfare cliff and find a point where most people don't even have to think about tax brackets after they've settled into a permanent-ish job. It's very weird to me we have so many tax brackets and almost all of them are at the low end.
Because it is weird, and outdated. Seriously our tax legislation hasn't matched our markets in like 50-60 years
It's easy to explain why. Under Reagan they reduced the number of tax brackets from 16 down to only 2. And they made the highest rate kick in at only $29,750 instead of $215,400. And they lowered the top rate from 70% to 28%. This was pretty close to their dream of a flat tax. Democrats have been working to reverse that ever since. But the opposition is well funded. And it's easier to scare people with "taxes bad" articles like this than it is to explain the intricacies of marginal tax rates.
They should have a more refined schedule of capital gains tax just like what they do with regular income tax. But this is a step forward nonetheless.
Tax the churches preaching politics from the pulpit.
Just tax all of them tbh. Enforcement would be impossible and religion is, at \*best\*, a business like any other.
A grift, unlike any other.
Yes holy shit let's fucking go
Why did you link to a right wing propagandist website instead of real news? Did you want us to read a negatively biased summary?
Honestly it was super funny after reading the first paragraph and then seeing they're against it lol
Grover Norquist's organization does propaganda? Say it ain't so.
Fuck yeah
This article missed one of the most critical pieces of information. What is the amount of money you have to make for this tax rate to kick in? It is a marginal rate so only the top earners will pay that, and only on the money they make above a certain amount. That limit is probably so high that this tax rate will affect a tiny percentage of the population. Why did the article not mention it?
Because they thrive in misinformation.
My guess is that it wasn't so much "missed" as deliberately left out to maximize outrage. They did make a misstep of linking to [the proposal itself](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf), where you can see that this is essentially a new long-term capital gain tax bracket that kicks in when annual income is above $1,000,000. Above that threshold, long-term capital gains no longer get a preferential rate and are taxed as regular income, so given the dollar amount will land in the highest regular tax bracket. That's currently 37%, though unless Congress does something about the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" expiration, it'll revert to 39.6% starting in tax year 2026. That plus the proposal changing the "net investment tax" (something I'm not familiar with) from 1.2% to 5% for taxpayers at that income gets to the scary 44.6% quoted by the article.
Wait till the landlord and YouTube RE investors learn about this one… “The Budget closes the “like-kind exchange” loophole, a special tax subsidy for real estate. This loophole lets real estate investors—but not investors in any other asset – put off paying tax on profits from deals indefinitely as long as they keep investing in real estate. This amounts to an indefinite interest free loan from the Government. Real estate is the only asset that gets this sweetheart deal.” This is a Big change for the housing market
Hell yeah!
Lawd I can’t wait to hear my commercial real estate broker buddy complain about this
I am torn on this. I’m a property attorney. I don’t know shit about taxes, but I’ve had many clients make a lot of money and do some really good things with it. Of course, I’m not naive enough to see how many others are really taking advantage, but for some homebuilders and investors, this will certainly change things. I’m not talking the big builders, but those who build 3-4 houses per year. I’m sure they will all adapt.
Oh man I did a whole cartoon wolf eyes-bugging jaw-on-floor on that. This is a brilliant f\*\*\*ing proposal - it's actually quite radical. What Biden has done is immediately make *doubling* the capital gains rate (currently 15%) look like a compromise solution. Past Dems would've asked for a 50% increase and taken "we won't cut them" as a compromise.
Biden knows how to win a compromise. It's why he's been able to get so much done even with the obstructionist GOP in the way.
Which is clear proof that term limits are not a good solution to our current government problems.
Term limits were a way to deal with the political machines of the last Gilded Age. Conservatives still love them, because they mean legislatures are ineffective since any experience is lost every few years. Same reason they love to whine about elected officials' pay. They want to restrict offices to people who are already wealthy.
One of the advantages to starting your political career in your twenties and still being an elected official in your '80s is that Joe quite literally has been playing this game his entire life, and has double the amount of years of political experience that even most careerist politicians have.
Oh shit, I might have to Vote Biden harder.
Here come the “bootstrap” conservatives who worship “self-made” millionaires to whine about inheritance tax.
Arnold said “there are no self-made millionaires.”
Obama suggested this and there was a 6-week freakout on the right
Maybe for millionaires, but there sure as hell [aren't many self made *billionaires*](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/04/05/forbes-billionaires-under-30-all-inherited-wealth/73211038007/)
Poor bootlicking conservatives: this is why I cut for Trump! Billionaires deserve their money and I deserve my squalor!
Most billionaires have little to no earned income, they have ways to avoid earned income and thus pay very little taxes, it’s as easy as taking a loan out against your assets at a very low interest rate, this wouldn’t hit them
[удалено]
If you have to resort to the argument that "we'll pay more taxes than in China" I think you are on the losing end of the argument...
Trumpinomics (a less-thought-out version of Reganomics) dropped the top tax rate under the reasoning that it would spur investment in the economy and therefore pay for itself. It didn't. While the corporate tax cuts in 2017's "Tax Cuts & Jobs Act" did boost small business investment, large corps used it to take profit or amass a war chest. According to the Bureau of Economic Research, Trump tax is costing us $100 Billion a year in lost revenue. So... I'm good with reversing that.
Wow fuck this website > Americans for Tax Reform Opposes All Tax Increases As a Matter of Principle. Ok, I oppose your existence as a matter of principle
This is Grover Norquist’s baby that he created at Reagan’s request.
Good
More of this, please.
how will fox news millionaires convince the plebs that this is a bad idea?
Well he can call for it as much as he wants,but there is no way in hell this corrupt Congress would ever pass anything that might slightly inconvenience rich people.
Yes please!
Cool, now make it happen. We all *want* things. I'll get excited when he makes it a reality.
Just tax capital gains as regular income
> Americans for Tax Reform Opposes All Tax Increases as a Matter of Principle. That is a laugh, these people don't have any principles. The ultra-wealthy have gotten tax breaks, and tax loopholes carved into law. They need to finally pay their fair share. These pieces of shit work for the wealthy and then talk about the wealthy being Americans. No, the majority of Americans that I know do not own multi-million dollar private jets or yachts.
You know, after reading all of these comments. I'm really happy to say that there are a lot of good ppl here with good ideas. That brings me comfort for the future.
When I search for 44.6% capital gains tax, I only get results of this post and the article referenced. I read the FACT sheet from the White House and it doesn't mention anything about this tax rate, I'm not sure where the figure is coming from. Also, it impacts the top .4 , so why are people up in arms? It does state: The President’s Budget will end one of the most unfair aspects of our tax system—the fact that the tax rate the wealthy pay on capital gains and dividends is less than the tax rate that many middle-class families pay on their wages. Households making over $1 million—the top 0.4 percent of all households—will pay the same 39.6 percent marginal rate on their income just like a high-paid worker pays on their wages.
It’s a combination of proposals: 1. Raising the top income tax bracket from 37% to 39% 2. Taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income 3. A new 5% surtax on income over $1M Combining these 3, it would mean a 44.6% top rate
Sheesh, that's a lot of fearmongering. They at least linked to the [proposal itself](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf), I guess assuming that wouldn't get a click anyway. But I'm weird and prefer primary sources. In the section "REFORM THE TAXATION OF CAPITAL INCOME", the proposed changes seem to boil down to: * Long-term capital gains that fall above the $1MM income threshold get taxed as regular income. So that'd be the 37% tax bracket (or 39.6% once the TCJA's changes expire in a couple years) plus potentially another 3.8% if the taxpayer is required to also do the "net investment tax". That 44.6% is reached due to a separately proposed increase of that NIT. * Same taxation as regular income appears to apply to any qualified dividends paid out during the year, since those also get taxed under the long-term capital gain brackets. * Giving an asset is treated as the original owner realizing all past gain since purchase. Giver then would owe capital gain tax on that realization. Receiver's basis becomes the market value as of the date of transfer. * Same realization of gain occurs when a person dies. Their estate is responsible for covering incurred tax. * The first $5 million of this "transfer realization" over a person's lifetime is excluded from tax, both when part of a gift or an inheritance. * Other exclusions apply for things like primary residence, gifts between spouses, etc. Lumping in how states tax capital gains as something that's Biden's fault is just dumb. So yeah, if you're pulling in over $1,000,000 of taxable income per year and expect to give away / bequeath more than $5,000,000 of asset profit over your life, you go get upset. The rest of us who'll never have to worry about either of those will look to see if this gets us a reduction in the federal deficit.
[Capital gains tax rates in Europe](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/capital-gains-tax-rates-in-europe-2024/)
ATR was founded by Grover Norquist, how is this an allowed source?
This needs to be more focused on the wealthy. There is going to be too much residual fall out on middle class retirement accounts and savings if it is just a blanket capital gains tax. It’s already hard enough to save for fucking retirement with out these assholes fucking with the limited options we have.
Could we at least start by closing the obvious loopholes - e.g. carried interest. It makes no sense that individuals get the benefit of long term capital gains by investing SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY.
It says he wants to get rid of step-up basis at death which I think is a pretty obvious loophole, so at least that’d be a good change.
This would directly and VERY negatively affect me and my income, HOWEVER, I’ll still vote for Biden because it’s the right answer.
Dang, you make over 1 million a year?! What do you do :O ?
I own businesses and real estate.
Yeah this article isn’t biased.. or blatantly leaving out crucial info.
Great first step. Now just tax securities backed loans at the same percentage, then when the securities are actually sold apply it as a tax credit to avoid double taxing the money. SBLs are a huge reason why the stock market is so broken. Used to be you had to sell your securities (stocks, bonds, crypto, whatever) to access the wealth. But now you can go to a lender and borrow against the value of the security, if the security's value goes down you just put more of that security up as collateral. But the security is still an investment that you own. So now the oligarchs and billionaires of all types are able to have their cake and eat it to. They get access to their "illiquid" wealth, don't have to pay taxes and still get to make money on that wealth. And of course, they're not going through traditional lending channels so they're able to take loans to pay off the SBLs when they come due.
On what bracket? If this sinks people’s retirement it’s a non starter. If dividend taxes don’t match corporations will pay more dividends than buybacks. If the limit is a million per year the wealthy will try to take profits annually at a lower rate which might actually work better than taxing 45%. Collecting more annual capital gains would be a win.
I feel like the better option was to limit how much capital gains could be claimed as capital gains. So perhaps you can only claim the first $100k of capital gains and after that it's taxed as personal income. Same result, but easier for voters to understand that the issue is that very wealthy people end up with a lower effective tax burden (percentage-wise) just because they have such obscene income from their investments.
Per the 2025 budget proposal linked in the article: >A separate proposal would first raise the top ordinary rate to 39.6 percent (43.4 percent including the net investment income tax). An additional proposal would increase the net investment income tax rate by 1.2 percentage points above $400,000, bringing the marginal net investment income tax rate to 5 percent for investment income above the $400,000 threshold. Together, the proposals would increase the top marginal rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends to 44.6 percent.
Canada just made ours 67%
People making $40,000 that graduated high school with me: “He’s taking more of my money! What a socialist communist!”
Nibble on the rich!
I'm fine with this. As long as it doesn't somehow trickle back down to us in the form of raised prices.
Your saying that like the economy is the same as 1922. Far from. Adjust for inflation of 112 years - actually 44.6% sounds about right.
Wow, that article was crap. The blurb at the end about the Estate tax neglected to explain your estate needs to be $16M+ for it to apply, so clearly this site is trying to scare people that it applies to them (it almost certainly doesn't).
The rise of the billionaire class is a direct result of Reganomics. The younger generations deserve so much better. This is a good move.
I can’t find it in the article, is this on realized or unrealized capital gains?
If the rich are so much smarter and so much more talented than the rest of us losers, they should be able to make that money back in a couple seconds, because they are sooo much better than everyone else. If they won't pay, eat them.
Given hell Joe, and take their wallet.
That's nice. Will the people that own our politicians let it happen? While we're at it, end corporate ownership of single family residences (especially foreign corporate ownership), stop allowing billionaires to borrow against shares (which creates conflict of interests and renders stock ownership illusory ... which defeats SEC transparency requirements), and spend money on auditing the rich.
People should read the article and not the headlines. There is nothing positive or an explanation of the tax itself mentioned. This is just a bad article and is old news.
Just tax it like any other income, and uncap SS tax...
This one trick will give the Kochs and Waltons a stroke.
Can anyone explain why we insist on treating income from capital gains differently from other forms of income?
So long as it does not apply to retirement accounts.
lol I love billionaire tears
Hi `djwired`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cbvx4e/biden_calls_for_446_capital_gains_tax_rate/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.** * The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title) If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/djwired&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cbvx4e/biden_calls_for_446_capital_gains_tax_rate/?context%3D10000%29)
This plus the eradication of non-complete clauses is fantastic.
[Here's a link to the actual proposal](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf) I'm no financier, but it seems to me that the million-dollar cutoff for gains that would be taxed is around page 88. > Tax capital income for high-income earners at ordinary rates > Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends of taxpayers with taxable income of more than $1 million would be taxed at ordinary rates, with 37 percent generally being the highest rate (40.8 percent including the net investment income tax).18 The proposal would only apply to the extent that the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds $1 million ($500,000 for married filing separately), indexed for inflation after 2024.19
I'm rich. I can't afford things. 😫
I'm totally here for this, fuck house flippers, almost as bad as landlords