They don't seem all that confident either:

https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52249

A disadvantage of the option is that raising tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends would influence investment decisions by increasing the tax burden on investment income. By lowering the after-tax return on investments, the increased tax rates would reduce the incentive to invest in businesses. Another disadvantage is that the option would exacerbate an existing bias that favors debt-financed investment by businesses over equity-financed investment. That bias is greatest for investors in firms that pay the corporate income tax because corporate profits are taxed once under the corporate income tax and a second time when those profits are paid out as dividends or reinvested and taxed later as capital gains on the sale of corporate stock. In contrast, profits of unincorporated businesses, rents, and interest are taxed only once. That difference distorts investment decisions by discouraging investment funded through new issues of corporate stock and encouraging, instead, either borrowing to fund corporate investments or the formation and expansion of noncorporate businesses. The bias against equity funding of corporate investments would not expand if the option exempted dividends and capital gains on corporate stock—limiting the tax increase to capital gains on those assets that are not taxed under both the corporate and the individual income taxes. That modification, however, would also reduce the revenue gains from the option.

Another argument against implementing the option is related to the fact that taxation of capital gains encourages people to defer the sale of their capital assets, sometimes even leading them to never sell some of the assets during their lifetime. In the former case, the taxation of capital gains is postponed; in the latter case, it is avoided altogether because if an individual sells an inherited asset, the capital gain is the difference between the sale price and the fair-market value as of the date of the previous owner’s death. By raising tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends, this option could further encourage people to hold on to their investments only for tax reasons, which could reduce economic efficiency by preventing some of those assets from being put to more productive uses.

The important thing about capital gains taxes is that rich people don’t really need to pay them. Bezos, for example, can just never pay capital gains tax and just borrow money if he needs it. Mark-to-market taxation is more progressive than just raising the rate.

Also an illegal wealth tax. Unrealized gains are not income. Remember, it took a constitutional amendment to levy the income tax.

But whatever.

We're abolishing the Senate in the other thread.

So shouldn't be hard for another constitutional amendment.

Lol, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I will stick to my day job, which is being an experienced tax attorney.

OK cool story. Let's instead start by setting the cost basis for inherited assets at zero.

Let's compromise with just removing the step-up basis.

The person inheriting it literally paid zero for it.

Why don't we remember that the US was founded on not having family dynasties and tax the **** out of people when they die to encourage them to give away their money so the government doesn't?

Maybe because they'll just give the money to their family before they die?

Yeah no way to do anything about that.

This is again giving up the game before it starts. The purpose of having a low capital gains tax rate is to make sure more money goes to wealthy people. Like I’m sure if you asked most republicans and assorted centrists, they’d agree with your description, but I’ve always wondered whether you guys actually believe your bs or not.

More money isn’t going to them. Since they already have the wealth - albeit in unrealized form - less is taken away. So if you want to say wealthy people want to preserve their wealth, okay. But that’s not exactly newsworthy or why we have a lower capital gains rate. Like I said, it’s to encourage investment. Even the government knows that:

Remember, it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and yet in 2018 all sorts of substances are federally banned.

Constitutional jurisprudence has evolved in the past hundred years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Nobody is worse off after the raise in wage though, even counting that they no longer get those shares. Also, how in the heck are they cashing the shares in tax-free? That must be a British thing, I don’t see how they could avoid tax in the US in that manner.

Usually I just go to wikipedia, but I edit the article first so that it supports my preconceived viewpoint.

So we should lower the capital gains rate to 0 so we can collect infinity taxes?

Did you seriously do that? Regardless of the minimum wage kerfluffle putting half of your net worth into any one company is a terrible idea.

I don’t disagree with the second half of your statement but the first half isn’t really accurate. The 18th amendment banned all alcohol everywhere. Prior to the 18th amendment it was perfectly constitutional for localities to ban alcohol. That remained true after the passage of the 21st.

I’m not sure why you’d try to dispute the claim of it being about making sure wealthy people get more money by posting an image that shows that it’s about wealthy people getting more money. Also implying something comes from the government when it actually comes from Forbes is pretty bad.

Yeah, especially when you are talking about something like long term indexing which is potentially the lowest risk strategy and requires no hard work or skill. But again I’m not really sure how any of this impacts Bezos haters. He’s gonna best case run it up to a trillion then give it all to charity. Better than taxing it and has unaffected by capitsogains rates anyway.

But for cap gains I think the main argument was that they should be taxed lower because they are often bought with already taxed earned income. Granted that’s not really a great argument to begin with and creates a ton of loopholes for executives and finance workers.

Actually don't hate this. My major quibble would be that this is a "start" since it seems pretty sufficient to me. I don't believe that wealth should just accrue to the government on someone's death.

Again, they're not getting more money; they're keeping more.

It's a Forbes article about a government program.

Why do you get to start from the premise that rich people getting rich is something that just sort of happens naturally, and the society established to let them earn, keep, and protect their wealth is some sort of parasite that is holding them back?

I’m not starting from there. I figure Bezos would have a tough time prospering were he the only person on earth or without the societal benefits you mentioned. But I also believe a lot of people would struggle to merely survive let alone prosper without the Bezoses. You can call that parasitic; I see it as mutually beneficial and at the end of the day it’s probably a wash, with society benefiting in toto just as much from Bezos as he’s benefited from society.

That's a bold claim.