Harris leaked a couple more economic policies. They of course suck. My question is why? All she has to do is say Trump is evil. Who is advising her to release these policies? She needs to fire her campaign manager.
Harris Tax Polices
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Harris leaked a couple more economic policies. They of course suck. My question is why? All she has to do is say Trump is evil. Who is advising her to release these policies? She needs to fire her campaign manager.
Politicians can't help be morons. I wonder what corporations will do when you raise their taxes? Lower prices to shrink margins of course!! Wall Street loves shrinking margins. ***That's sarcasm for you Harris lovers.
And what will millions do if you increase cap gains taxes or tax unrealized gains. You guessed it. People won't sell immediately to pay 20%. No way. And it won't tank the market. Instead, they will wait and pay more as their patriotic duty.
Morons. Morons. Morons.
Her policies literally do not matter. She’s going to win because she’s not Trump.
The MAGA chodes SEVERELY underestimated how reviled Trump is.
The MAGA chodes SEVERELY underestimated how reviled Trump is.
Biden/Harris/walz. Less than one year in the private sector
It’s halftime and we’re tied with the Russian commies. We’re not going down. We’re going to kick their asses in November. I’m already the Dream Team’s financial advisor. I can take on the role of being a motivational speaker as well.
I’ve got some work and fun travels starting tomorrow and will be Mia for a bit. You keep the dream team sharp. @DANC do not. Let. The mods. BREATHE!!!!!!! They’re picking on you. @stollcpa has the receipts. Rely on @Joe_Hoopsier to be the team’s motor. Hoops hooky and the rest will provide support. Keep an eye out for DDT. Be nice to get him back. If doc whyisiucursed bans himself again help him.
It’s halftime and we’re tied with the Russian commies. We’re not going down. We’re going to kick their asses in November. I’m already the Dream Team’s financial advisor. I can take on the role of being a motivational speaker as well.
You guys know what to do
Have fun and make money. Ms Harris can’t hammer you with taxes this year.
Each one of those states deserves it.
Last edited:
And when we fight - we win!!!
Coach, we’ll fight, fight, fight! (sound familiar?)
Could be worse - we could have you as attorney.
Nice try on soliciting free advice. I’m not falling for it. You have to show up to Auburn.
I'm not quite as close as I used to be, but I'm familiar enough with Auburn to have worried about a pregnancy test taken there.
If it was positive, I was planning on trying with "His!" and seeing where that got me.
We got this, coach!
You suckers better lay back! Coach is gone and we gotta rain fire!! Make America great baby!!!
As for the prospect of a tax on unrealized capital gains, I doubt this court would recognize unrealized gains as "...incomes, from whatever source derived" per the 16th amendment -- which means that such a tax would be a "direct tax" subject to apportionment, which means it would be wholly unworkable.
So, I'm fairly confident that, even if such a tax were to somehow get through Congress and become law, it's not something we'll see enacted -- not at the federal level, anyway (assuming the Roberts court sustains, more or less as it is, throughout a potential Harris presidency).
That said, some of the commentary on the idea I've seen beckons a thought. A defense I've seen is that the tax would only apply to people with a net worth more than $100M. Given that we're in the thick of election season, it should come as no surprise that policies would be defended on their political merits. What these defenders are saying is "Almost nobody has to worry about this affecting them. And if you do have to worry about it affecting you, you can easily afford it. So don't be afraid of this and don't let it discourage you from voting for Harris."
It's just another reminder of how differently many people (mostly on the left, but not entirely...especially in the age of right-wing populism) look at policy than I do.
I don't look at tax proposals and think "Oh bugger, is this going to result in a big tax hike for me? No? Good...well, then I'm not going to concern myself with it. Those rich pricks have trillions parked in unrealized gains...they can afford it." I look at these sorts of things and think "What kinds of ramifications would this portend for us economically? What kind of unintended consequences might result from it? Would the added tax revenues be worth those negative secondary effects?"
I agree with this. A majority of the country really hates Trump and is embarrassed by the thought of him being president again. Having him exit stage left of the political landscape is one of the most powerful single issue voting issues in Harris’ favor.
That said, I do think there are Democratic policies that are pretty popular with voters.
Great timing, OG!
QED....
I'm sure you're right that things like price controls, rent controls, taxes on unrealized gains, etc. will be popular with voters. But I think we have a serious problem in this country with policies that sound good to many people, but are actually terrible ideas.
A recent historical example: Lowering the financial barriers to home ownership is bound to sound good to a lot of people. What kind of hard-hearted person wants it to be more difficult for anybody to achieve the American dream of owning a home? Are these people just "I've got mine, peasant" snobs?
Put into practice, this noble vision led directly to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Yes, there were other dominoes to fall. And many people who have looked at what happened there focused on this or that domino somewhere down the chain: uncollateralized derivatives as hedges against default in MBS, removing the statutory barrier between investment and commercial banking (leading to conflicted interests in financial behemoths), TBTF, etc. etc.
But there's no mortgage-backed security consisting of mortgages that were never originated to begin with. And, in turn, there's no reason to construct exotic hedge instruments that don't properly account for counterparty risk against MBS' that were never bundled, because the mortgages weren't there to bundle....because the prospective borrowers wouldn't have qualified against the barriers that had previously existed.
Those lending standards that people with noble intentions reduced in the interest of expanding home ownership are a textbook example of Chesterton's Fence.
Equitable outcomes? Nothing is more dangerous to the health of the country. Nothing.
Biden/walz/Harris over 100 years of employment. Less than one in the private sector. These are political social workers. Scary shit
The first two are great. The unrealized gains one is just populist speak. It will never happen. Like mexico paying for a wall.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Great point. When you think about it corporate taxes are just a hidden tax for the consumer. We end up paying more and there are no loopholes for us.
Well...it's all populist speak.
The general idea of populism -- of either the left-wing or the right-wing variety -- is that government is the protector of the little guy from the ravages of the big guy. So the big guy is the target of my policies...but they'll directly benefit you, little guy. That's populism.
She's not proposing a 44.6% capital gains tax on everybody. She's proposing it on the big guy.
True, but the best future protection against this happening again would have been to let the firms that screwed up their risk assessment suffer from that screw up, right?
If the Govt--we, the taxpayers--are going to act as a backstop against insolvency and loss for those Big Banks, capping downside risk, why can't we ask them to cap their upside on loan %(here, to help the middle class because the upper class don't need it and the lower class probably can't afford that home anyway) or via increased default rates for the lower classes? Have better monitoring of those risky assets and the % of them being carried to avoid the same thing happening again.
Everyone knew Mexico wasn't paying for the wall. But there are plenty on the left that want, and are going to try at some point, to tax unrealized gains.
Re the constitutionality, if it's a Dem sweep, look for a real attempt to pack the courts.
Wouldn't a tax proposal that only affects one man, Joe Biden, violate the equal protection clause?
This is true. But, really, it's not the primary drawback of a higher corporate income tax.
The primary drawback is we're in a competitive global economy and increasingly fluid nature of trade and capital make for a bigger landscape for capital investment. It wasn't a cosmic accident that US-based multinationals were parking trillions of dollars of foreign-earnings offshore rather than repatriating them and subjecting them to the US corporate tax (minus a credit for foreign income taxes paid). They could avoid the second tax bite by leaving the funds overseas. And guess what they frequently chose to do.
We also have had a number of US corps engaging in foreign inversions -- where they'd officially relocate their HQ domicile to friendlier tax environs (Ireland has been common) and turn the US operations into a subsidiary.
Notably, in 2021 the most of the OECD countries agreed to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% -- the idea being to reduce tax competition between member states. The current difference between our rate and the GMCT is 6%. This proposal would take that to 13%.
Last edited:
Trump is fvcked. The fact that people are sick and tired of his tired old shtick is the main reason, but he's fvcked on most of the issues as well:
1) The economy. Real GDP growth has surpassed (in some cases far surpassed) all other G7 nations and most of the developed world since the pandemic. Inflation is back under control and interest rates will be coming down next month which will spur home-buying, car-buying and other purchases that involve lending.
2) Violent crime (defined as murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery). It is approaching a 50 year low.
3) The border. There are fewer illegal monthly border crossings now than there were at the end of Trump's presidency. One of the most conservative senators drafted an impactful border security bill that had broad bipartisan support until, well, you know what happened. When Trump brings up the border a minute into next month's debate, Harris will be ready with something along the lines of: "We had a bipartisan border security bill ready to go. You killed it. I'll sign it."
4) Prices. This is all Trump should talk about from now until Election Day. But he's too stupid and undisciplined to stay on message. He'll keep questioning Harris' blackness and claiming that images of the crowds at her rallies are AI-generated. Idiot.
Craze, the important part of your post from my viewpoint is to remind us it is Congress which pases tax laws.
Presidents can propose tax laws, but Congress has the final authority.
This is, as usual, a great and thoughtful post/commentary. It's nice to have you and a few others here to balance out all the crap certain other posters sling against the wall.
I know you like to throw that boogeyman around, and you might even find a clip of someone actually saying those words, but in reality, no policy is going to be introduced, much less passed that will ensure 'equitable outcomes' for every US citizen.
This is just an ignorant argument made by people who apparently slept thru US History. It was 1900 before the first primary was ever held, and that was only a single state. Not a single candidate elected POTUS prior to then ever received a single vote prior to the general election. So for example when Lincoln was elected in 1860 he, like Harris, had never received a single vote for POTUS prior to his election as POTUS. Does that make him and every pre-1900 POTUS illegitimate in your mind?
Something else that will blow your mind, not every state has primaries. Some states have state conventions where just like at the RNC/DNC delegates, not voters choose the candidate they want to support. Just like Harris, Hubert Humphrey was the sitting VP in 1968, had never gotten a single vote for POTUS and was chosen at the DNC.
If you're going to whine about Dem choices, at least make it based on some level of accuracy and facts...
Of course there will. Ensure is impossible. But progressive redistribution policies etc are aimed at such. It’s a philosophy that is incredibly damning from two political social workers with zero understanding of how shit works. Look at crazed post re Corp taxes, competition and inversion. You think the teaching pride of Chadon st contemplated same?
