Capital Gains Tax Rate Set at 25% in House Democrats’ Plan

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/house-democrats-pitch-capital-gains-tax-of-25-for-high-earners

by vageli • 5 years ago

29 40 5 years ago

alanmessey3• 5 years ago

The new rate would apply to those in the top tax bracket for long-term capital gains, which in 2021 covers individual filers earning more than $445,850 and married joint filers earning more than $501,600, according to the Ways and Means Committee.

Would have been nice to have that in the title, because it seems more fear-mongering than necessary.

People who make that much and more use more infrastructure and benefit more from stock market gains, they should pay an accordingly fair amount of taxes.

ergocoder6• 5 years ago

People who make that much and more use more infrastructure

I doubt this is true for silicon valley engineers who earn more 500k.

I pay +100k in tax a year. I pay for my own healthcare on top of that. Yet public safety is rather low. Public school is bad. And etc. If anything, it doesn't feel I get much out of it.

Apart from that, any proposed tax plan almost always hurts the most the high-end salaried employees who already pay their fair share of tax (RSU is taxed immediately). Might as well just call it yet-another-silicon-valley-engineer tax.

Meanwhile the billionaires or hundred-millionaires will still be able to find a way to reduce their tax because they have enough capital to hire an army of tax accountants.

Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?

the-dude• 5 years ago

If anything, it doesn't feel I get much out of it.

You got to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years!

Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?

Targeting lower brackets brings in more revenue for less costs.

blacktriangle• 5 years ago

Dems shout while talking cash from the rich, look at the relationship Clinton had with Goldman Sachs.

It will keep working as long as Democrats voters are dumb enough to fall for their "we're for the working man!" schtick.

ericmcer• 5 years ago

I was really hoping it would target people with like ludicrous incomes, like 2m+ a year or something, going after 480k+ is grabbing high performing professionals as well, doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful small businesses, etc.

commandlinefan• 5 years ago

they never make law that targets this particular group.

I have a (cynical) theory about that: once some means of getting ahead trickles down to the likes of you and I, it's too prevalent and has to be pushed up the ladder a bit.

dghlsakjg3• 5 years ago

As an engineer living outside the States: Get a grip.

Its a marginal tax, so it won't even affect engineers making $500k, unless they cash in on a windfall.

What do you get for your taxes? You get to be living in the one place on earth where you CAN make that much money. Nothing is stopping you from moving elsewhere on this earth and renouncing your US citizenship. Then you can stop paying those taxes (and likely pay higher taxes).

You get access to a massive highway system funded by the feds, you get access to multiple international airports in the Bay Area, you get access to a collection of some of the smartest people in the world at some of the best institutions in the country that suck in an absurd amount of federal funding.

Let's not even get into the fact that Capital gains tax is at its lowest ever, and at one point capital gains for top earners was 40%, and income tax was even higher.

tullianus• 5 years ago

Public safety is mostly funded at local and state levels. Public school is half funded by local government and half funded by the state. TFA is about federal taxes.

alanmessey3• 5 years ago

Meanwhile the billionaires or hundred-millionaires will still be able to find a way to reduce their tax because they have enough capital to hire an army of tax accountants.
Dems shout about billionaires and hundred-millionaires for years. Yet they never make law that targets this particular group. What is up with that?

That's an excellent point. The IRS is chronically underfunded and the added funding for it was removed in the latest bill. They can afford to sneak around the tax code because of hired help and loopholes (like taking out loans rather than paying from money you 'own').

I do think focus is much too powerful on 'moderately wealthy' people.

Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-treasury-irs/irs-chie...

I know audits are random, but I really think if you make over a million or something, you should be automatically audited. But then...that would require funding the IRS adequately.

Edit: typo

plandis2• 5 years ago

Yet public safety is rather low. Public school is bad.

Those sound like complaints for the local government. The federal government doesn’t generally have control over local schools or state/local law enforcement.

I also think you’re grossly over estimating the number of Silicon Valley engineers making >$500k/yr and that it’s a stretch to call it a SV engineer tax.

GhettoChild• 5 years ago

Do you live in a state with an income tax? Why not move to a state with lower tax obligations and lower how much you spend on taxes that way.

vineyardmike2• 5 years ago

People who make that much and more use more infrastructure

I really don't know how you can say this without defense.

I assume that poor rural americans use the most tax-payer funded resources per capita. Building roads and infrastructure just to service a few people seems most infra usage per person. Those aren't rich working professionals.

Or maybe people in hurricane zones use the most infrastructure. All those dams/levies/bridges through swamp lands of Louisiana. Considering how often the get rebuilt (even if just once a decade).

Surely, over the next 100 years the americans in hot/low lying areas will use most infrastructure thanks to global warming and sea level rise.

alanmessey3• 5 years ago

First: we both know how to use search engines, so your assumption that poor rural Americans use the most...etc could also stand to be backed up with research. But fair point, here's some proof for you:

I don't have access to academic papers, but here's the one they're referencing: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 in this article: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/2118481...

1) The very rich use vastly more energy (much of it in travel, but also in the production of the stuff/properties/vehicles they buy) than the rest of us so that means they rely on the energy infrastructure more. Energy infrastructure uses all the logistics infrastructure (rails, roads, ocean, air, pipelines, etc).

2) Higher energy use means they have a much higher carbon footprint and are more responsible for detriments to poorer people because of climate change. Extremely rich people can afford to escape the effects of climate change and pollution, the poor cannot. So if they're responsible for more, they should be more responsible for cleaning up after themselves. This addresses your hurricane zones and sea level rise areas.

3) They travel more and a lot of public infrastructure goes into that (again: roads, air, FAA, airports...)

4) they buy more luxury goods which, again, get to them on public infrastructure (our ocean ports, roads, rail, planes, etc).

5) You'll notice in that paper mentioned in the vox article that healthcare is also used more by the top 10% than the bottom 10% (45% to 0.5%).

6) They rely more on the communications infrastructure (cell phone networks, the internet)

I could keep going, but I'll just end up repeating the paper.

I think you could argue the very wealthy don't rely much on public safety services because they can afford not to live in areas with higher crime rates and can hire their own private security. Possibly also schools.

peter303• 5 years ago

It would be 28.8% including the NIT for Obamcare. Plus state taxes to 12.3% in California.

Capital Gains Tax Rate Set at 25% in House Democrats’ Plan

Related Stories