this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
530 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4467 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What do you disagree with specifically? It only affects people with over $100M in wealth.

Do you think the tax goes too far, and if so, why are you protecting the wealth of the 1%?

Or do you think the tax doesn't go far enough, and if so, wouldn't opposition it just mean not passing a tax at all, which would be worse?

Or do you know nothing about her proposal and thought it was going to affect your paltry investment income?

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Just from my small brain viewpoint, the owner hasn't sold the house or anything, so they shouldn't be taxed, and rent income is already taxed, so if they're using it to rent, this might trickle down to increase rent costs. Although, on the other hand. This only affects the ultra rich, so maybe they have it coming to them.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

This only affects the ultra rich, so maybe they have it coming to them.

Don't be reductive. Anyone who owns $100M worth of investments, be they stocks, bonds, or real estate holdings, needs to pay more in taxes.

This is targeting 1%ers hoarding capital, not your rental properties. We'll come after landlords' underserved income later as we further tackle the housing affordability crisis.

[–] flying_gel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

To expand your analogy to the house on how the rich used their unrealised gains.

You buy a house and it appreciates in value. You bowwow money against the capital gains and use that to live on. Your house price goes up further, generating more capital gains that you can now bowwow against to pay back your previous loan.

edit: also since you're so filthy rich the banks give you really low interest rates, way less than tax would have been.