wealth tax

Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.'

Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet.

|

Ever since Joe Biden entered the White House, he's had a Joe Manchin problem. Most accounts of Biden's presidency cast this as a problem with Manchin's unwillingness to go along with Biden's agenda. Democrats hold exactly 50 seats in the Senate, and thus need every Democratic senator to pass a party-line vote; Manchin, the Senate's most centrist Democrat, has consistently resisted. 

But the problem is not only that Manchin is withholding his vote. It's that Manchin keeps bluntly and accurately describing the problems with Biden's policy proposals. To twist the Twitter-cliche, Joe Manchin keeps saying out loud the part that Joe Biden would rather keep quiet. 

Take, for example, Biden's recently proposed wealth tax, dubbed the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, which taxes realized and unrealized gains on households worth at least $100 million. Under this scheme, non-cash holdings could be taxed based on an assessed change in value. So a home or property that increased in value but was not sold could generate a federal tax obligation, even though the owner saw no money from the increase. 

The administration has rather dubiously described the tax as "a prepayment of tax obligations these households will owe when they later realize their gains." This is a stretch at best, an intentional abuse of language for political reasons at worst. 

But when asked about the tax yesterday, Manchin engaged in no such obfuscation. "You can't tax something that's not earned. Earned income is what we're based on," he told The Hill

You can't tax something that's not earned.

One could quibble with the phrase "can't." A government could certainly try, as many countries have—although almost all have ditched their wealth taxes, partly because they turn out to be quite difficult to administer. 

But Manchin's underlying point is quite clear. The Biden administration is proposing taxing a kind of income that is not, in any real sense, income. The proposal treats money that has not been earned, but might hypothetically be earned at some future point, as money that an individual already possesses. It's an attempt to tax money that people haven't made yet, and might not make at all. 

Manchin has made admirably direct statements like this all throughout Biden's presidency, frustrating the Biden agenda in the process. In a lengthy statement last September, he laid out his opposition to Biden's spending bill, dubbed Build Back Better, which, among other things, expanded health care programs without addressing looming gaps in Medicare's financing.

"Spending trillions more on new and expanded government programs," Manchin said, "when we can't even pay for the essential social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, is the definition of fiscal insanity." In the same statement, he said he opposed overspending in the wake of the trillions in deficit-financed pandemic aid, and warned that Democrats were foolish to believe that trillions of dollars worth of additional federal spending would not further increase inflation. 

Months later, Manchin once again blasted the Build Back Better plan, which had contorted in an attempt to please both Manchin and progressive Democrats. The headline price tag had been reduced, but in large part by artificially shortening the funding lengths for the various programs, even programs Democrats hoped would remain permanent. 

Once again, Manchin was not only opposed, but cleareyed about the bill's various structural ruses. "What I see are shell games," he said. "Budget gimmicks," that hid the true cost of the plan. 

These were the sorts of inconvenient notions that Biden (and Democrats in Congress) didn't want to acknowledge. Manchin just…said them.  

So it was no surprise that by the end of last year, Manchin had effectively killed Build Back Better, or at least put to rest the idea that he'd support anything like the versions that had been floated.

He was also blunt in a way that defeated the White House's shifty messaging. 

Throughout the year, the Biden administration repeatedly sought to maintain the pretense that the spending bill was nearly a done deal, and that Manchin was on board with the general idea, even if some specifics still needed to be negotiated. Biden even gave an address premised on the idea that the spending bill was a fait accompli.

"After months of tough and thoughtful negotiations," Biden said in October, Democrats had reached agreement on a "historic economic framework." They obviously hadn't, yet nearly two months later, Biden was still insisting that the West Virginia senator was more or less on board, saying "Senator Manchin has reiterated his support for Build Back Better funding at the level of the framework plan I announced in December."

Once again, Manchin responded bluntly and directly. "I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't," he said just before Christmas. "This is a 'no' on this legislation."

This is a no on this legislation. 

There is, perhaps, some wiggle room in this statement, which leaves open the possibility that Manchin will eventually support something called Build Back Better, or something that includes some scattered elements from the Build Back Better framework. 

But it was clear in a way that Biden was not. Once again, Manchin had shed light on Biden's attempts at verbal misdirection, revealing how Biden's plans rest on messaging designed to obfuscate rather than clarify. Manchin's penchant for transparency is a problem for Biden, but a boon to the public.

NEXT: He Disarmed a Gun-Wielding Menace in a San Jose Taqueria. Then the Cops Shot Him.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax. To be applied to those with net worth of $100 million or more. Those people are not billionaires and most likely will never be.

    Can’t these people be honest about anything? Isn’t there a federal law related to truth in labeling?

    1. "the federal income tax will be a flat 1% and never increase"

      1. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

        1. Two weeks....

          1. Inflation is transitory.

            1. We're from the government and we are here to help.

              1. I easily make $22,000-$28,000 each month just by doing a simple home business. bhj. This job is online and can be done very easily part-time or full-time, although no specific experience is required for this job. Anyone can join this work now and start earning like me. Follow the link.
                .
                >>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

              2. "Mission accomplished."

              3. Did you send back your stimulus checks?

                1. Keep in mind, this tax is for those worth over 100 million. This is 0.03% of American households or 3 out of every 10,000 households. How does the world's richest man, who pays taxes on only his salary of $81,000 (one year he got a refund) buy a 500 million dollar yacht, 30,000 acres in Texas, a 165 million mansion in Beverly Hills, a sprawling estate in Seattle, 85 million worth of penthouses in NY? How does he do that on $81,000?
                  Well, he leverage his 200 billion in 'unearned income" to live like a person making 100 million a year. So these unsold assets are not just useless trophies but have incredible value in allowing billionaires to pay virtually no taxes or a very low amount like 3% while using the untaxed assets to buy space ships, half a billion yachts, and dozens of mansions, not to mention their private jets. Without their unearned incomes, they could not do this: they would be driving a Honda and living in a 3 br in the suburbs, borrowing money to sent their kids to college.
                  But the very rich use this untapped wealth to live like Kings...and so it is hypocritical to claim they, and we are talking of households with 100 million in wealth, the very few, who use their salaries to avoid taxes and then use their assets (stocks, properties they buy with asset leverage, etc) to live lives of obscene wealth. No, Joe Manchin is looking out for the rich, who have tripled their incomes and wealth in the past 3 years while wages (for all jobs, including part time and gig) have fallen 30%, requiring households to maintain their standard of living to send more family members out to work and to go trillions into debt in aggregate.

                  1. "Who cares if it is a stupid and unjust idea that will have terrible perverse outcomes? It is being used to punish people I envy and hate, so that makes it alright." - ruffsoft

                    1. "Perverse outcomes" Hyperbolic much?

                  2. What part of "a wealth tx has not worked anywhere else" do you not get? The wealthy will move away, or at least their money. The government will put the spending programs in place and when the revenue stream does not meet the plan, the government will shift the taxes onto the middle class. Look at France and what the middle class pays there. Biden is a liar and always has been a liar.

                  3. Salary plus realized net capital gains plus dividends plus interest are taxed. That rich man in Seattle pays little on his salary but plenty on his other sources of income.

                    In my world I would prefer to get rid of all income taxes as they are a form of slavery. Taxes would only be paid on purchases and the Fed government would fund itself though those and tariffs alone.

                    And let's go back to real money rather than the thievery of fiat currency. That's the biggest, baddest, most horrible tax anyone can pay.

                  4. A number of those billionaires have already moved hundreds of millions of dollars into tax-exempt charitable trusts, which they control.

                    One thing tax-the-rich people overlook is that the rich have money to spend on accountants and lawyers who do nothing but figure out how to legally (usually) avoid taxes (not evade taxes). Their income and assets can be like a waterbed, push down here, and that goes up.

                    They'll keep doing that, and keep minimizing the taxes they owe.

                    I'd predict that if something like this proposal passes, you'd find that these folks would set themselves up with options rather than actual shares. By not taking material possessesion of the shares (the company still technically owns them), their net worth is drastically lowered.

            2. We’re drawing a red line if Syria uses chemical weapons.

              1. Syria never used chemical weapon, but we did and tried to make Syria look like they did.

                The same story is playing out in Ukraine. Won't be long before some chemical attack is reported and the same crisis actors are brought in to make it look like Russia used Novochok like was supposedly used on the Skripal's in GB. (did you know that Skripal worked for Christopher Steele? Strange coincidence!)

                1. WOW. You have quite the imagination. Can you tell me where to hire these mysterious "crisis actors" that keep sneaking around?

              2. That is NOT a lie.

            3. The laptop is Russian disinformation.

            4. inflation is because of Putin

              1. “I obviously meant he can’t remain in a position where he has power to influence his neighbors, not that he should be removed from power!”

              2. Inflation is because Manchin didn’t pass build back better. Spending 3.5 trillion will “FIX” inflation

                1. Most secure and honest election ever.

                  1. I am making easily every month $ 22000 to $ 28000 just by doing simple work from home. This job is online and very easy to do part-time or Full-time even no special experience required for this task. (qwe09) Anyone can now participate in this job and start earning just like me by just following link…..

                    >>>>>>>>>> http://CurrentJobs64.Cf

                  2. Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO.

                    1. Osama Bin Laden did 9-11.

                    2. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

                    3. The North Vietnamese attacked in Gulf of Tonkin.

                    4. Vince Foster committed suicide.

                    5. Children are being molested in a compound in Waco.

                    6. We owe it to ourselves.

      2. Court law that goes back to taxes on stock derided profits and set up the entire reason Billionaires are able to avoid taxes by not taking an income and investing their equity in business. Until they actually draw monies out, they cannot be taxed, but they can get all the benefits from business as owners and or controllers. To allow this tax law to go forward would absolutely collapse the tax system. It would cause the minimum of a huge tax law quagmire that would be in the courts for decades or more.

      3. This isn't income tax, it's a property tax. It probably isn't legal, but it makes some sense, in the same way your property taxes on your house makes sense. But probably very hard to enforce and wouldn't pass a constitutional amendment process, either.

    2. Put forward by the same crew that labeled the "dont say gay" bill

    3. The income tax was originally sold as a couple percent on the income of the super wealthy.

      1. The 16th Amendment is only one sentence long. It gives the federal government the authority to tax incomes. Not held assets.
        It is quite specific.

        1. Yet seemingly simple phrases like "Shall make no law" or "Shall not be infringed" are interpreted to mean the literal opposite of what the words say.

        2. This would be an tax on income, not assets. It’s stupid and unworkable, but still an income tax.

          1. How is it income if you haven't cashed it in? Is my 403 b income?

          2. Unsold assets are not income.

            1. They are to economically illiterate democrats.

          3. In the next two weeks my herd should start calving, I don't usually sell until January, because it's generally a little better market (although this year I may not be able to keep them this long due to drought) should I have to pay taxes on them when they hit the ground or until I sell them? They would technically be considered unrealized income until the day I sell them. They aren't income until I sell them though.

            1. You should definitely pay your obligations in advance. Forget about the fact that there's a good chance they don't all live until January, think about the children and the poor crackhead sons of politicians.

          4. I don't see why we should stop there. We can tax income from future generations, too. We're just taxing income anyway. That it just happens to be from the distant future is irrelevant.

            1. So you mean like we could borrow extravagant sums of money, run up a huge debt, and let future generations figure out how to pay it off after we've all dropped dead? Dude that is brilliant.

          5. So if I hold 100,000,000 shares of MSFT and the market price is $100/share this year but $200/share next year, I would owe tax on $100/share?

            And the following year the price is $100/share do I get a income loss and refund?

            And can I sell those 100,000,000 shares for $200 without actually collapsing the price of the stock back towards $100 share or even lower?

            And what of real estate? Who determines the value? Do I need an appraisal every year to be able to pay my tax?

            If I own the company and I am considered the "billionaire" with $100,000,000 net worth, why wouldn't I just up and leave? And there are many many people with a 100M net worth, and they live modest lives, runs successful businesses. I know at least 3 or 4 personally.

            They would simply give the govt a middle finger and move. A beach in Costa Rica is as nice as one in FL.

            1. o if I hold 100,000,000 shares of MSFT and the market price is $100/share this year but $200/share next year, I would owe tax on $100/share?

              Yes.

              And the following year the price is $100/share do I get a income loss and refund?

              Pull the other one. No way.

              And can I sell those 100,000,000 shares for $200 without actually collapsing the price of the stock back towards $100 share or even lower?

              Not our problem, so long as we get paid the taxes we say you owe us.

              And what of real estate? Who determines the value? Do I need an appraisal every year to be able to pay my tax?

              Actually, we'll do that for you and send you the bill. Good luck appealing any valuation we do, too.

        3. The 16th Amendment is only one sentence long. It gives the federal government the authority to tax incomes. Not held assets.
          It is quite specific.

          The days of the federal gov being limited by what the constitution says are long gone.

          1. Democrats will not stop spending until they have bankrupted the country and forced our demise.

        4. The 16th amendment says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." I don't see where that precludes all other taxes. If I give you permission to borrow my car, I'm not simultaneously forbidding you from taking the bus or Uber instead.

          1. You miss the point.

            The 16th Amendment was necessary because the Constitution did not otherwise give Congress the authority to tax income.

            The 16th Amendment doesn't forbid taxing wealth, but unless the Constitution gives Congress that authority, it cannot do so.

            1. Everyone has forgotten this fact about the constitution. It's over.

            2. Florida has a wealth tax. Many states do and have done for decades.

              Businesses are taxed on assets, as well.

              1. Florida has neither income nor capital gains taxes, so no it doesn't have a wealth tax. It also doesn't have inheritance taxes, a fairly small corporate tax, and caps property tax increases.

              2. Businesses are taxed on physical assets, and there are ways to defer that. Additionally, you can count asset devaluation against your physical assets, for example, I can write off the devaluation of my cows and farm equipment each year.

                1. You are engaging a 10YO.

              3. Florida is one of only seven states that have no personal income tax. The state tax on intangible assets, such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, was repealed in 2007, so this type of property is no longer taxed, either.

        5. People used to argue that a paycheck wasn't "income" either, but no one in D.C. cared.

      2. You asked a very good question the other day: do these people with $100 million get credit for unrealized _losses_?

        1. That would be a necessary component of the law.

          1. At least if it is going to be fair at all.

          2. that's not how tax on gambling income works.

            You win, you pay taxes.
            You lose, too bad.

        2. They’ll limit claiming losses to $3,000 like they do with capital gains, making it practically useless.

        3. That is in the law. There's a 5 year averaging window. Also, you don't have to pay this wealth tax if you're already paying taxes at or above what your wealth tax would be. It's just a minimum tax based on assets.

          1. You already pay a minimum value on assets when you liquidate them. Basing it on a five year average is just stupid. So, you pay this tax annually, based on the five year average, and then you pay taxes again when you actually liquidate them? It's as bad as inheritance taxes. And likely will be as easy for the wealthy to defeat as inheritance taxes are. It will end up costing far more to enforce than it brings in. It's just an asinine idea, and that's why almost every country that has tried it has abandoned it.

            1. It’s a bullshit tax. That ‘Shawn Dude’ is for it constitutes proof.

        4. No. They will not. Stop thinking about this in terms of what most people consider "fair".

    4. It's also not an income tax.

    5. Especially when we're all about a decade away from being multimillionaires thanks to Biden.

      1. Yeah, 1 billion in the name, 100 million in actuality, easy enough to drop to 10 million once the precedent is set.

        Then dial inflation up to 11 and anyone with a job has 10 million.

    6. Those people are not billionaires and most likely will never be.

      Especially if this tax passes.

    7. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky

      1. Glad to hear you wisely restrained yourself Fats because people that piss off the Clintons often have tragic accidents.

      2. "I didn't inhale."
        Bill Clinton
        "I did not swallow!"
        Monica Lewinsky

    8. Yes he is absolutely right there should not be any tax. If wealth is 0x0

    9. Just be glad they didnt call it the "Patriot" Act. lol

  2. "Democrats hold exactly 50 seats in the Senate,"
    Just for the record; democrats hold 48 seats in the senate.

    1. Quick! Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico!

      1. Statehood for Ukraine! C’mon, would anyone really be that shocked if Biden started rambling about granting Ukraine statehood?

        1. I think both Putin and Zaleski would be a little put off by that.

          1. It's OK, Biden doesn't speak for the administration.

            1. ^+10

            2. That’s the whole ‘interagency protocol’ shit?

        2. Let’s just make every nation in the world a state to streamline immigration.

        3. Newt Gingrich offered to turn the Moon into a state during the 2012 presidential race. It was the most impressive piece of pandering I ever witnessed.

    2. hey, they said "exactly" not "literally".

  3. This is why I don't like any of these "wealth" taxes. People think they are income taxes for the rich, but the rich already pay their fair share of income taxes. What they don't realize is that the ultra-wealthy don't have income is the same way. They don't have a wage or a salary. They aren't selling their multi-million dollar home every year for a profit. None of that. Their wealth is tied up in investments and assets.

    And you can't double tax, so no fair taxing the same valuable asset every year. That's against the law in so many ways.

    1. Not to mention that asset values fluctuate. What happens if the value of an asset goes up in year 1 and you “prepay your future tax liability” but the value drops in year 2? Does the government prepay your future refund? I doubt it.

      1. Don’t you know the rich only get richer?

        1. I mean, there was a book that said the return on capital is always positive. A book! If it was in a book it has to be true.

          1. If it's negative, that's not a return - it's a loss.

        2. And that they only got that way by taking things away from the proletariat?

        3. "Don’t you know the rich only get richer?"

          The ones who get richer, do. The ones who get poorer don't, but the government is smart enough to know who will make money and who will lose it. However, with this kind of prescience it should just invest in the market and eliminate all taxes.

    2. And you can't double tax

      One word: Dividends

    3. They're not proposing to tax the whole value every year (I hope), they're proposing to tax the unrealized capital gains if the (stock or housing) market goes up.

      Which leaves open the question what happens to unrealized capital losses when the market is down? Do we still get to claim a generous 3 thousand dollars per year for that?

      1. Which leaves open the question what happens to unrealized capital losses when the market is down? Do we still get to claim a generous 3 thousand dollars per year for that?

        Which leads me (further) to believe this is a stunt. Refunds would abjectly destroy the economy in a manner that couldn't be undone without saying "No refunds." The fact that it's an open question is like an "I can neither confirm nor deny." answer to the question "Would you destroy the economy and maybe Western Civilization?" They want to project a "Yes." to people who want that answer without giving a yes to the people whom they know would unequivocally behead them for it. They don't want to be beheaded, they just want to project.

        Of course, I could be wrong and they could be so stupid as to start paying (more) people to lose (more) money on investments.

    4. The rich do not pay their fair share. Musk pays nothing to nearly nothing. Most of the mega-wealthy are able to live with near zero income. It's a tax loophole that only the very wealthy can take advantage of.

      They may not be selling that multi-million dollar house every year for a profit, but they bought that house with income, right? But likely didn't pay tax on that income. That's because they can take loans from banks with a promise to repay after they die. It's a loophole. Let's close it and have them pay their fair share.

      1. You.
        Are.
        Fujll
        Of.
        Shit.
        Doood.

      2. Define "fair share" is specific concrete terms that could be applied to everyone. Give us a number that each and every person should pay that would be fair. 15%? 30%?

        As far as I can tell, people who complain about other people not paying a "fair share" mean simply "They should pay more and I should pay less." Or better, "I should pay nothing." Or even better, "I should get paid." (refundable credits).

      3. And your master, Biden, helped right that tax code.

    5. They already double and even triple tax wealth.

      The death tax, inheritance tax, estate tax. Apparently there is even a "double" death tax being proposed now too.

  4. Anyone ask KBJ about 16th amendment?

    1. She wouldn't be able to answer, she's not an accountant.

      1. I’m surprised no one has done a Dr. McCoy “dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer” bit yet.

  5. Billionaire Minimum Income Tax

    Should have called it "Don't say Billion" bill.

    1. this guy gets it

  6. "You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned."

    Tell that to the property tax assessor.

    Hell, plenty of states tax your vehicle.

    1. I've known a few people who had to sell the family home upon inheriting it because the property taxes were more than a thousand dollars a month, and it was a choice between selling the place or finding new income to pay rent to the town.

      1. Cite?

        Your statement makes no sense unless they chose to let the house sit unused by them or by the market through rentals.

        1. This is real. Consider: the average home in San Francisco is worth about $1.5M right now. If grandma Myrna bought the house in 1980 for $150K and her taxes are $150/mo, she's able to live there until she dies. You inherit and the home and it is retaxed to about $1500/mo in taxes. Depending on one's income and willingness to become a landlord, that could force a sale.

          OTOH, you'd now have $1.5M (minus taxes and fees) in your pocket to buy something decent in another, more affordable city.

          1. Betting the imbecilic doood figured that word salad had a point.
            Hint, asshole doood: It doesn't.

    2. The best part about property taxes is that if you don't pay them they can take the property. It effectively eliminates the concept of private ownership and turns all real estate into a rental. I always get a laugh out of people who claim that land is the only real investment since "god isn't making any more of it". Maybe god isn't making any more, but Uncle Sam isn't letting you really own any more of it either.

      1. Well, state and local governments.

    3. States have that power; the federal government does not.

    4. Of course, Sen. Manchin was talking about Federal income tax…

    5. Well yeah, but the property tax isn't an income tax.

      But the feds can't do anything but an income tax or a direct capitation tax.

      The States can do property taxes or a billionaires tax or anything they want, state constitution permitting.

      1. "the feds can't do anything but an income tax or a direct capitation tax" Good thing there's no federal tax on gasoline, or a clause in the Constitution saying "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" to contradict your confident assertion.

    6. Exactly.

  7. West Virginia property tax payers would like a word with Manchin

    1. That's the thing, though--this isn't even a tax on an assessed property value, which is how property taxes work. It's a tax on income that hasn't even taken place yet and may never happen. County taxes are at least targeted to specific mill levies, so you know exactly where that money is being allocated because you get a statement on it every single year. This is just blatant extortion, and I'm not even sympathetic to these assholes.

      This is even dumber than Warren's "wealth tax," which wants to basically apply the county property tax to all forms of assessed "wealth." And it would be a double-dip, because these people are already required to pay a capital gains tax when they sell that property.

      1. It's completely indistinguishable from a federal property tax: the king tells you how much your house is worth and asks you to pay a fee of his choosing based on the value of the property he comes up with. You're joking yourself if you think this won't be applied to the vast majority of homeowners in due time.

      2. The proposals I've heard say the new tax will be taken into account when capital gains must be paid on sale, though I've heard nothing about a refund when assets lose value.

      3. The proposals I've heard say the new tax will be taken into account when capital gains must be paid on sale, though I've heard nothing about a refund when assets lose value.

      4. In our area you have a right to challenge your Property Assessment. The problem with that is that as soon as you try there are lawyers there to automatically challenge you. I could understand if the lawyers represented the County, but, they don't. They are retained by the Teacher's Union. The Union believes that the property tax money is theirs, well the School District's, so that the District can fund the teacher's pay increase and pension plan.

        1. It think that would be kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. Challenge their assessment and they can just turn around and say "You're right. We undervalued your property. Now you owe us a shitload of money."

          1. In my experience, challenging the assessment actually tends to lower the evaluated price. My parents had to do that with the property we owned when I was in school. They tried to value it for what the value around Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls was, not what property in southern Kootenai county, on the reservation, was worth. It knocked a huge amount off their property tax bill. In the county I live in now, they tried evaluating land with workable petroleum deposits and those without the same. Most without challenged and got huge reductions in their property values.

            1. In my experience property values don't get evaluated often, so when someone creates a dispute the result is a reevaluation and higher taxes.

              1. Depends on the location. In NH I think they reassess property value every 10 years at most. Some places only reassess when a property changes hands.

                1. NH is an odd duck with the lack of other taxes.

            2. There's an entire industry in Crook County, IL made up of property tax assessment-challenging law firms. It sounds like jimc5499 might have the misfortune to live in the Chicago area, based on his comments about the Teachers' Union believing all taxes belong to them, and are to be used solely for the enrichment of their members (sure, most teachers' unions are like that, but the CTU is really next-level bad). The irony is that the king of one of the biggest property tax firms also happens to be the (formerly) most powerful alderman, who is now under federal indictment for racketeering and shaking down...wait for it...real estate developers.

            3. Bonner County discounts property tax if you do not take timber for profit. Not sure if Kootenai does this.

              1. I'm not sure they do anymore. Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls would like to forget their rural roots.

                1. Hayden lake should also be added to that list. I remember when it was woods between CDA and Hayden Lake.

                  1. And when it was mostly farmland between CDA and Post Falls.

      5. Assets are property of the owner, whether physical assets..a house, vehicle, gold bars - -or buildings in the metaverse , a business, stocks in a company, cash in bank accounts or live stock. All property, in the monarchy of the near future, subject to property taxes. Call it whatever you want, but this administration isn’t shy about the property is theft narrative.

      6. Perhaps this should be called "The Tax Lawyer and Accountant Employment Bill".

      7. It wouldn't be a double dip. The law marks the amount as a minimum you must pay. If you sell enough assets, including stocks, in any given year to accrue the same tax bill, the minimum tax is avoided.

        1. So they are exempted from Capital Gains taxes? I doubt that.

        2. You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          Dood.

        3. Sure it does. We believe you.

  8. Under this scheme, non-cash holdings could be taxed based on an assessed change in value.

    “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”

    *And* the people who assess change in value of non-cash holdings. 8-(

  9. All this talk about "assets" is confusing. If you have an understanding of finance like Bernie and AOC (and gaslighted by Liz Warren), you know that billionaires have treasure rooms filled with gold coins. Taxing that wealth will put that money to work for real people!

    1. All billionaires are like Scrooge McDuck. They have silos of money that they swim in every day.

    2. Mine is kept in a pool for pleasant evening swims.

      1. I had a tux made out of hundred dollar bills.

  10. If I actually believed they would take the wealth of actual billionaires and people like Zuckerberg and Bezos would suddenly be just ordinary rich people, I can't say I would be against this. Fuck those guys. Sadly, it would never work that way. What starts as a billionaire tax always ends up with the billionaires doing better and the government taking your 401K.

    1. Envy of others success will get you nowhere.

      1. I am not envious of their success. I don't begrudge their success at all. What I am angry about is their desire to ensure no one else successful. They have spent the last 20 years trying to inflict socialism on everyone but them. So, yeah, I have no problem with inflicting some actual socialism on them. If I thought it could actually happen, I would support it in a heartbeat. It would be a wonderful teaching moment for the country at large.

        1. ^ Dumbest post of the day right here, folks.

          1. I have to disagree with you. I don't agree with his statement about supporting it, but if you look at where the wealthiest people donate too, politically, and the programs they try to force everyone to accept, he isn't very far off his assessment. What he describes fits Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg etc to a tee. It would be rather poetic justice if they had this inflicted on them after so many years of them crying they ain't paying their fair share. It would be ruinous to the economy, so I don't support it, but there would be a little bit of schadenfreude involved too.

            1. >>so I don't support it

              I'd pay PPV$ to watch Mackenzie Bezos punch Jeff in the face

              1. Can we add Melinda and Bill to the docket as well?

                1. I think Melinda could kick Bill's ass.

          2. Why is it a dumb post?

            You think they don't push socialism? Or that they don't deserve to have it inflicted on them?

            Both claims seem true enough to me.

            1. Inflicting this on them would have disastrous consequences for the economy.
              Perhaps the most insane thing about a tax on assets like that is that if billionaires had to liquidate some significant portion of their assets to pay taxes, those assets would very quickly be a worth a lot less. Being worth a $billion doesn't mean that you have a billion dollars you could give someone.

              1. Rich on paper can easily become poor on paper.

      2. Envy of others success will get you nowhere.

        I'm not envious of American oligarchs like Zuckerberg, Gates, and Bezos. I am angry at how they are destroying the country and corrupting our government.

        1. Exactly. I give zero shits how much money they’ve got. I’m more concerned about the, using it to fuck the rest of us over.

    2. Of course, because if they tax the assets (IE stock holdings) of billionaires like Bezos and Zuckerberg they will have to sell massive amounts of that stock to pay the bill (along with all the other wealthy people hit with these taxes) causing the stock price to fall considerably, which of course causes your 401k to fall as well

      1. "BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!"

      2. Of course, because if they tax the assets (IE stock holdings) of billionaires like Bezos and Zuckerberg they will have to sell massive amounts of that stock to pay the bill (along with all the other wealthy people hit with these taxes) causing the stock price to fall considerably, which of course causes your 401k to fall as well

        That's what's likely going to happen.

        But the only reason these stocks are as high as they are is because we're in a government-created stock market bubble in the first place.

      3. Progressives aren't really all that into obvious and predictable direct consequences of their policies, unless it's something they think they can wrongfully blame on their political enemies.

      4. They aren't taking incomes so they won't need to sell stocks to pay the tax. Theoretically, they could just pay the tax the way they pay for everything else--by getting a loan from a bank for the amount. Loans aren't taxed.

        1. So to pay taxes, take out a loan that you pay interest on? That is by far the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard.

        2. "Theoretically, they could just pay the tax the way they pay for everything else--by getting a loan from a bank for the amount. Loans aren't taxed."

          Loans are repaid with interest, assholic dooood.

    3. The pigfucker that runs Blackrock could stand to contribute a few dozen significant digits to the federal government's operating funds. And then snort lines of habanero laced strychnine powder until his breathing problem solves itself.

      1. These fuckers promote every form of Marxist woke bullshit secure in the knowledge that the Democrats can be bought off and the Republicans will always save them from actual Marxist and socialist policies regarding their wealth. It is getting to a point where I am about ready to say fuck the consequences, let the Marxists have their way on wealth and watch these assholes burn.

  11. Biden's recently proposed wealth tax, dubbed the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, which taxes realized and unrealized gains on households worth at least $100 million...

    Hey, what's an order of magnitude between friends?

  12. Well, I just paid AMT on unrealized gains from the exercise of incentive stock options. So I just paid taxes on gains that I haven't (and can't) liquidate. It was really annoying. I imagine it would also be equally annoying for these "billionaires". But at least we know they CAN do it.

    1. Even Democrats from California were against that law. Plenty of California Dem engineers had big AMT unrealized gains to pay taxes on and never even saw the income if their startup didn't make it.

    2. Exercising an option is not an unrealized gain. You were given options to buy stock below market price. When you exercise the options, it is as though your employer was handing you the difference between the market price and the strike price. But it should be moot. Always sell your options when you exercise them. You are already very invested in the success of your company. If you want to own stock, buy other companies’ stock.

  13. Will they be giving me a (refundable) tax credit on unrealized losses? My 401k took a pretty big hit due to all the covid shutdowns

    1. Flip a coin. Heads they win, tails you lose.

  14. You will own nothing and be happy.

  15. re-peel the 16th.

    1. Do we have to put the peel back on first, before we peel it again?

    2. defund the IRS

      1. Criminalize Marxism, and end the democrat party.

  16. Don't you people know how this works? Billionaires keep all of their wealth beneath their mansions (Manchins?), in a giant gold hoard guarded by dragons.

    This bill would have no impact on the economy.

    1. What happens when a Hobbit with a magic ring and a group of dwarves sneak in?

      1. That's just the Senate Finance Committee.

        1. Or the premise for select fetish porn. Or it can be both.

  17. Sure, it has been difficult for Brandon to get things done with Manchin opposing him. Think how much harder to would have been if Brandon didn't have two Georgia senators in his corner?

  18. Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.'

    States and the federal government obviously do this all the time.

    I hope what that word salad translates into is something like: "I believe the US federal government lacks the constitutional power to tax unearned income."

    That's a nice belief, but you can be sure that SCOTUS will help out the Democrats to find some kind of justification.

    1. No justification required. It happens all the time already.

      1. Justification required, imbecilic doood.

      2. If this passes, it will go before SCOTUS. And while this may come as a surprise to you, justifying their decisions is a normal part of SCOTUS operations. It may just be for show and propaganda (like in the USSR), but they still do it.

  19. Paying taxes is patriotic, paying more taxes is more patriotic.

    1. When the mega-wealthy pay zero taxes? That's the problem. All the benefits of living in our system without having to contribute.

      1. The mega rich don't pay zero taxes. The pay a shit load more taxes than you or I pay.

      2. "When the mega-wealthy pay zero taxes? That's the problem...."

        No, asshole, your stupidity and envy are the problems, dooood.

      3. When the mega-wealthy pay zero taxes?

        The mega-wealthy are taxed like everybody else, on both income and capital gains.

        That's the problem.

        No, the actual problem is that the US has a generous European-style social welfare system without a European-style tax system, in addition to a massive military.

        In a European-style tax system, the middle class is heavily taxed (say, tax rates of 50% above $50000 in income), while top marginal taxes, property taxes, and capital gains taxes are generally lower than in the US.

  20. _ The administration has rather dubiously described the tax as "a prepayment of tax obligations these households will owe when they later realize their gains." _

    So it's Minority Report for taxes.

  21. If I sell something for $5000 that I had bought for $10,000 a few years prior, can I use that $5000 loss to offset the payroll tax I owe on my salary? Can I choose when to be paid my salary so that it is timed with such losses in order to reduce my tax burden?

    One of the many ways that people can reduce or avoid taxes on capital gains is simply by when they choose to realize those gains. And, of course, the capital gains tax rate is substantially less than for other income for the wealthy. There is also another way that people with unrealized capital gains can benefit from that is to fuel consumption with loans secured by those assets. If you can take out a loan at a negligible interest rate to fuel consumption because it is secured by an investment, why not do that? The investment will sit there continuing to appreciate at a much higher rate than the interest on the loan. You can then time when to cash out to minimize the tax you owe in order to pay back the loan.

    Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.

    - "The Rich Boy", F. Scott Fitzgerald

    They are certainly taxed different.

    1. This particular piece of slimy lefty shit is just fine with murder as a preventative measure:

      "JasonT20
      February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
      “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

      Yep, if someone might, in the future, do something shithead here doesn't like, well it's just fine to murder them.

    2. BTW, citing a work of fiction to support your stupidity is quite revealing.
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

  22. The GOP, if it wasn't stupid, shouldn't utter a word about this bill. I would also make sure enough senators and reps were absent the day of the voting, leaving enough for a quorum and see if the dems pass it. The billionaires paid good money to get this government elected and they're entitled to get it back good and hard.

  23. Wouldn't a wealth tax be a kind of property tax?

  24. Two points:

    "on households worth at least $100 million"

    1- I note it says households not individuals so presumably filing separately doesn't save you since they look at everyone in the household so the car of child who works at Micky D's is included in the household assets of his family if they're wealthy.

    2- There's nothing prohibiting them from change it to $100 thousand or $6.25 in Bitcoin. I suspect that they may really want to cash in on the crypto-currency market with its wild price swings and their desire to paint it as both cash and an investment. That way if the price goes up, it's cash & therefore income to be taxed at that rate but if it goes down, it'll be an investment and you can write off $3,000 per year or something equally stupid.

    1. This law is designed to close a loophole that isn't available to people who don't have the ability to call up a bank at any hour and request an instant personal loan substantial enough to fund an extravigant lifestyle for a year with a payment plan that doesn't start until their death.

      1. There is no fucking loophole. Anyone can request a personal loan, its usually just limited by your collateral. Fuck, are you in 8th grade? Because your understanding of economics is equivalent to my 8th graders. In fact I am signing a personal loan tomorrow, based almost exclusively on my predicted income from my ranch this year, on calves not even born yet.

        1. How are democrats so economically and financially illiterate? It’s painful to read his ignorant, smug, arrogant shit.

      2. This law is designed to convince jackasses like you to swallow the horseshit, doooood.

      3. Never heard of home-equity loans?

      4. So by your "accounting" things like reverse mortgages are tax loopholes. I'm guessing by your accounting skills that you also think double entry bookkeeping is based on slavery and not because it actually has worked well for millennia.

        I'm also guessing that the self given label of 'dude' that you're a Californican who surfs better than you can do math. Probably true even if you don't surf.

      5. This law is designed to close a loophole that isn't available to people who don't have the ability to call up a bank at any hour and request an instant personal loan

        That only works because interest on loans is lower than taxes (even lower than inflation). And that's because year after year, idiots like you have voted in politicians who give Americans massive government handouts without paying for them.

        The way to close that "loophole" is not with even more idiotic fiscal and tax policy, it is to raise interest rates to normal level and tax the middle class for the government services the middle class receives.

  25. There is a child-like charm to the way some Democrats believe they can dodge the Constitution using simple word-games.
    “Mommy, I want to tax the bad rich people.”
    “Sorry, little Democrat, wealth taxes are unconstitutional.”
    “What about income taxes? Daddy said those were constitutional.”
    “Yes, they are, but wealth taxes are not.”
    “What if we say it is an income tax?
    “Sorry, baby. Still unconstitutional.”
    “What if it wasn’t?”

    1. There is a child-like charm to the way some Democrats believe they can dodge the Constitution using simple word-games.

      They can dodge it all they want. I've seen them doing it all my life. Make me change my mind about their power. They have to paint themselves as virtuous though before they do anything unconstitutional, so they have to play the word games.

    2. There is a child-like charm to the way some Democrats believe they can dodge the Constitution using simple word-games.

      I don't see anything "charming" or "child-like" about it: they have successfully done this for more than a hundred years and in the process transformed the US from a federation of free and largely independent states into a progressive, nationalistic, authoritarian state.

  26. Two things...

    An increase in an asset's value IS money "earned" because a person can borrow against it. In other words, the value is REAL. Is it OK to borrow money against the property, which is income, and that income be tax free?

    Also, property taxes go up on homes that have not sold. So apparently, there is good legal basis for taxing unrealized gains.

    1. Yes, but not by the federal government. States have a lot more leeway. The feds can only do what is specifically authorized by the constitution.

  27. What’s earned shouldn’t be taxed either…

    1. Are you proposing that everyone pays the government directly for services rendered instead? Or that there be no government at all?

      Maybe you don't mean some kind of anarcho-capitalist fantasy land, but rather you don't want there to be any taxes on income or wealth, but rather only consumption taxes.

      1. Are you proposing that everyone pays the government directly for services rendered instead?

        User fees are good. There are plenty of other ways of raising taxes: sales taxes, import duties, etc.

        If you want economic success, you should tax unproductive activities (consumer spending, etc.) and not tax productive activities (labor, investments, etc.).

  28. I think by now we have to accept that the modern bureaucratic state can do whatever it pleases.

    Of course any new taxes are just going to harm the interests of productive Americans no matter who's paying. Any new tax revenue these days goes straight into the hands of the unproductive and then spent directly on consumables, which then manifests as inflation. The same thing would happen if the super-wealthy voluntarily threw their money onto the street. They don't want to do that for some reason, probably because those of them that didn't go along with it would have a competitive advantage.

  29. The scary thing is that all of the Democrats but one or two would be all right with this theft. Actually shocking that so many of our politicians see nothing wrong with this. I wonder how many members of Congress have actually read the Constitution?

    1. What's especially shocking is how few of the tax-paying masses understand the ways rich people avoid paying taxes. I bet a larger percentage of Congresspersons have read the constitution *twice* than the number of average Americans who even pay attention to just how little the mega wealthy contribute to the society they thrive in.

      1. What is even more amazing is idiots like you who believe this shit. Look up what percentage of income taxes the wealthiest 5% pay compared to the other 95%. Here is a hint, it's over 50% and even higher when you look at capital gains taxes. You haven't said one informed thing yet.

        1. What is even more amazing is idiots like you who believe this shit. Look up what percentage of income taxes the wealthiest 5% pay compared to the other 95%. Here is a hint, it's over 50% and even higher when you look at capital gains taxes. You haven't said one informed thing yet.

          And what portion of all income do those 5% receive compared to the other 95%? How much has their income and wealth grown in recent decades compared to the median? It looks fairly well documented to me that effective tax rates start going down again once you pass a certain point of wealth and income. That is, after you go past people that are fairly well off due to being paid high salaries, but not super-rich, and start looking at people that are exceptionally wealthy members of the 'investment class', that is when you see all of the ways that they can reduce, delay, or avoid paying taxes while still maintaining an extravagant lifestyle.

          1. then you realize the investment class is getting richer faster because of the dumb ass government that has eliminated 'savings' as a place for people to put their money so its all got to be either spent on consumption or invested instead, to the benefit of the investor class.

            once again, .gov looking to solve a problem it created

      2. Over 50% of Americans end up getting all or even more than all the yearly income taxes rebated each year and it isn't the wealthiest 50% but the lower 50% of incomes.

        1. Don't forget to include payroll taxes that isn't applied to investment income at all when you look at how many people don't pay taxes to the federal government or get a refund beyond that due to the EIC and the like. I think you'll find that it is quite a bit less than 50% once you do.

      3. "What's especially shocking is how few of the tax-paying masses understand the ways rich people avoid paying taxes..."

        No nearly as shocking as your stupidity, but then 10YOs aren't expected to have much sense, dooooood,

      4. Simplify the tax code and have the government do less.

      5. Let me guess. You read an article, saw a segment on some fr left political program, or are just puking up Media Matters talking points. Because it’s clear from your comments that you don’t really understand any of this.

      6. What's especially shocking is how few of the tax-paying masses understand the ways rich people avoid paying taxes.

        No, what is especially shocking is how Americans like you believe that somehow they can get a European-style social welfare state and force someone else to pay for it. You are ignorant and greedy beyond belief, and it's destroying this country.

        And the irony of your ignorance is that what you propose actually makes the ultra-rich even richer. Sure, you may eventually raise their taxes somehow, but those taxes end up as government spending, and that government spending primarily flows into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.

  30. Is Shawn Dude fucking a sock for Elizabeth Warren, because he says the same stupid lies as she does.

    1. She does have some form of constituency. Apparently, fools like Shawn Dude are it.

  31. How will you assess the value of my private equity?

  32. How will you assess the value of my private equity?

    It will be very hard. You can well imagine that the enforcement will be extremely arbitrary, and you can imagine exemplary punishments for those found out. People with digital assets on digital trading platforms and in bank accounts will certainly be the easiest for governments to track. If that's how you invest, you will be a target. As I said before, even if the tax only applies to the super-wealthy, it will effectively be a tax on everyone because of the inflationary effect. Everyone who owns anything is going to pay except some smart people who will hold hard assets and shield them from the government gaze.

    I think that this tax will happen is now guaranteed. Income tax happened after progressives started talking about it. The public is being softened up for this. Soon after the tax is introduced their will be bracket creep. The government will start applying the tax to people with less and less wealth. Same thing happened with income tax. Originally it only applied to the very top income earners, but that wasn't enough for our overlords.

    1. It also give the democrats another government power to weaponize against us. Just imagine how Trump’s assets would be treated versus Bloomberg or Buffett.

      This turd needs to be flushed.

  33. I'm all for the tax on unrealized assets, as long as, should the asset LOSE value, that loss can be subtracted from that year's income.
    Every year, billionaires will be adding or subtracting the always fluctuating value(s) of their yachts, mansions, fine art, jewelry, ad nauseum. Values determined by whom? I suggest the Donald Trump method: overvalue when used as loan collateral; undervalue when taxed.

    1. I'm all for the tax on unrealized assets, as long as, should the asset LOSE value, that loss can be subtracted from that year's income.

      That's not good enough, since losses often exceed actual income.

      There is no good way of taxing capital gains or income: they always hurt the economy.

  34. Wish he'd just stopped at "You can't tax something"

  35. Dump All Dumb Democrats. Vote Democrats Off our backs and OUT of Our LIVES!

  36. There is no need to pretend Joe is making decisions, easier to say "the DNC believes...X". Catering to this group will be his undoing, but what is one in his position supposed to do? Make your own decisions from your addled mind?

  37. If you buy a stock and hold it you don’t have a gain until you sell it . That’s fair. If you start a company you shouldn’t have to pay taxes on the value of your shares until you sell it . That’s fair . But if your paid in stock instead of receiving a paycheck then you should pay tax as on the value of the shares as regular income like the rest of us . Then you can hold it as long as you like .

    1. But if your paid in stock instead of receiving a paycheck then you should pay tax as on the value of the shares as regular income like the rest of us.

      And that's how the tax system actually works. You pay income tax on the market value of the shares the moment they vest as regular income, and you pay that in the tax year they vest. You pay capital gains taxes on any increase in stock value afterwards.

  38. But we do tax wealth. What is the real estate tax but a wealth tax? And arguable it is this country's oldest tax. And it is a modestly successful tax. Most local governments rely upon it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.