The Supreme Court will probably rule that the wealthy are exempt from taxes.
You don’t think Harlan Crow did all that stuff for free, now do you?
“could” affect “possible” wealth tax?
Like, what the fuck. Is it not written on the wall for you all already? Middle class does not exist. If you have less than $500k in income and less than $1.5M in the bank, you are poor.
As fuck
Next to these cartoon evil villain scrooge mcducks.
We need a maximum level of wealth at which your assets just freeze and no one lets you have any more stuff. Or something. Or guillotines. Idk. Id prefer the former, but we’ll see how this whole “free market” experiment ends up soon enough.
If you have less than $500k in income and less than $1.5M in the bank, you are poor.
As fuck
If you live in NYC, this may be true! But not for the overwhelming majority of this country, or the world for that matter.
Source? Me. I have far less than $1.5m in assets, not just cash in the bank, and I make far, far less than $500k/year. I do fine. Own my own home, even.
Yes.
You are 100% poor as fuck next to to the likes of anyone in the .1%
You are not middle class (there is no middle class). You are down here with me making 90k and 6 figures in the bank, and the McDonald’s worker making 20k with no savings.
We are all far more alike than we are anything like them.
If your house gets aced by a natural disaster and insurance doesn’t pay out, you lose income and health insurance and break a leg, and then get cancer.
How’s your finances? You still good?
Likely not.
They are.
Brb, investing in guillotine futures.
So the argument is that taxing earning, that are never passed onto the owner of the company, from a foreign business, doing business in a foreign country, owned by a citizen of the USA by the government of the USA is unconstitutional under USA law. The argument is that if the owner never receives the profits then it’s only an asset and shouldn’t be taxed, until the owner of the company receives the profits. Some previous parallels come in with respect to stock and private asset holdings where the value of the asset could increase substantially but no tax would be paid on the asset until it is sold. In some ways this makes sense, your assets are not spendable and their value could change even more before sale. But it puts those without assets at a disadvantage. If I had 1 million in assets I could easily take out a loan for my living expenses and then wait to pay it back when the income tax id face on the sale of my assets is more favorable.
My house isn’t spendable or even easily liquidated, yet my property tax keeps going up. Not arguing, just throwing that into perspective.
I wonder about financial regulations that say assets that haven’t been taxed can’t be used for asset valuation for loans, etc?
And if you have an asset valued for those purposes then possibly taxed on some ratio of that valuation.
An oversimplification I’m sure but I suspect it’s been considered or is a bad idea and am curious to hear it.
I have no idea how all that works, probably why I’m not a billionaire, but it’s always been my understanding that if you have enough assets you can apply for loans not backed the traditional banks. A recent USA billionaire president was famous for taking a 0% interest private loan to start his business. Again I’m not any kind of tax/money expert so I could be wrong.
Some groups allied with the Moores argue that the challenged provision is similar to a wealth tax, which would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans, but their assets, like stock holdings, that now only get taxed when they are sold.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said a court ruling for the Moores could stymie legislation like the Billionaires Income Tax he introduced last week. “The Moore case could make it impossible to close those loopholes,” Wyden said.
