Baby boomers complaining about paying capital gains tax......

[HRMSU]

People who have income in the $150,000 - $600,000 range have the heaviest burden when it comes to federal income taxes. Folks in that range who live in places with high state/local taxes and people who live in high cost of living locations. $150,000 is where the credits and exemptions start to phaseout, and $600,000 is where the top rates cap out. The higher in excess of $600,000 taxable income goes, the lower the effective rate is.

Vote for me and I will -
1. Increase the income levels where phaseouts start, and lower the marginal rates for people making below $600,000.
2. Pay for that by raising marginal rates and eliminating preferred rates on dividends and capital gains for people above that.
3. Significantly increase the amount and number of people that can put into an IRA and get a deduction for - regardless of income level or participation in an employer plan. I think the fact that what can be deducted on home interest far exceeds what you can get into an IRA is ****** up.

There are a lot of people in this range.....not enough but a lot. The Super rich and very rich trick these people with look over there crap and if they tax me then they'll come after you next.

Besides a lot of the very rich/super rich have amazing tax teams and take advantage of all the loopholes....heck they lobby for the loopholes. They are sitting in the catbird seat though because I don't know anybody in that $150k-$600k range pounding the table for more taxes.

Something has to give or the pitch forks are coming out....heck it's one of the main reasons the youth are enamored by socialism....greedy capitalist are easy targets just ask Hollywood and the academics.

 

[GloryDawg]

Be VERY careful before you take out a reverse mortgage. There's a lot of pitfalls and scams out there. Generally, not a good idea.

I agree. Everyone needs to research it before doing it to make sure it's for you. From all the meetings I had I like it and if I do one it will be with my current mortgage company.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Boomers are not moving out of their big homes. Here’s why

After 33 years and four children, Baby Boomers Marta and Octavian Dragos say they feel trapped in what was once their dream home in El Cerrito, California.

finance.yahoo.com

Are you kidding me? Buy a house for 100K in the 90s, sell it for 2M and complaining about paying 450K in taxes? Even with realtor fees and all that, that's a 9% investment over 30 years. And now you want more, just because you want to take advantage of big numbers?

The entitlement has reached a new level. I'm supposed to feel sorry for them for having to stay where they are?

17 you ignorant goat
Your idiocy is unparalleled
They bought that house never imagining it will be treated as a casino jackpot, which is bullshizz.

If I paid off something I live in and paid taxes on every 17in year I owned it, only to find out it’s worth has somehow outpaced inflation and now I gotta cough up a cock-ton of cash in taxes to sell it and downsize, I’m staying in that mother17er til I die and donate it to charity just to say 17 you tea-party-style to the colonial tax kings .

Goat just mad cuz he stuck living in mommy’s basement. 17 you. Hard.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

These folks are retired most likely, why do they need to stay where they are? And if their house is worth 2M, that's what, 20K in taxes? That's breaking you?

Probably because the house is too big for them and they want to downsize.

The problem with that in California is that the downsized house costs significantly more than their house that they’re paying low taxes on thanks to Prop 13.

#heardthislecturemanytimes
#CalifornianStepfather

 

[stateu1]

So a residential 1031 exchange. Huh maybe so.

View attachment 520498

This is how it was 30-40 years ago

 

[stateu1]

Wait til they tax UNREALIZED capital gains which has been discussed.

 

[jdbulldog]

There's a simple workaround:

They should get a reverse mortgage and take the payments and put them into a tax swapped Roth IRA and use an early retirement provision to make payments to themselves in a blind trust through a Delaware LLC and then use those payments to fund a new 1031 exchange to purchase a new property (or properties) in a portfolio loan that is held by another trust through an additional Nevada LLC.

Easy peasy.

I did that and it worked for me.

 

[Podgy]

We can't afford anything because we have restricted development and driven up the cost of housing well beyond inflation. We have restricted the supply for medical care while subsidizing the cost and driven up the prices well beyond inflation. We have screwed up education with government control and increased the cost of education generally and for higher education well beyond the rate of inflation.

Most things are getting cheaper or staying with inflation.

Certainly lots of other things have been going on, but those are significant factors. Us "giv[ing] it all to the rich" is not even a thing. Lots of stupid and counterproductive policies work in their favor (because that's who have good lobbyists). But outside the restrictions on housing, those are pretty insignificant factors.

The AMA is essentially the best labor union although it's not union. It just functions like one. The US limits the supply of docs, they make more than docs anywhere else although med school tuition is outrageous, and Americans have long waits from some specialists similar to Europeans. It's not easy being an MD, I know a bunch and they're all decent people, but they have a system that allows them to make a lot of money. Some are pretty overworked, though.

 

[Podgy]

The rich don't really get screwed by the capital gains tax. Certainly some, but they have ways to limit the damage. The capital gains tax screws the trying to get rich directly, and screws the middle class and poor through reduction in capital formation.

The carried interest loophole should be abolished but most people don't know what it is and those super wealthy who benefit lobby Congress to keep it.

 

[Podgy]

Social Security is only collected on the first $160,000 earned last year.
Millions make more than that.

The cap is $168k this year, but it should be 10x that, if there is going to be a cap. And payments shouldn't go higher than the current cap.
The biggest safety net for Americans has to continue to exist and the simple reality is that higher income earners need to pay more than their 'fair share' to ensure it stays solvent for decades to come.
Maybe some leave the country over it, but I doubt many that make less than $1.5mm per year are going to move to another country and take up new residence over that. Best of luck to them being as successful elsewhere when it comes to job earnings.

I agree. Look at the wealthy who stay in Cali cause Cali is nice. Well northern Cali is really nice. But, money will leave. Reagan's top tax rate was 50% for the first 6 years of his presidency.

 

[Perd Hapley]

These folks are retired most likely, why do they need to stay where they are? And if their house is worth 2M, that's what, 20K in taxes? That's breaking you?

Why do they need to stay where they are?

Because it would cost them a half a million dollars to leave. That’s the whole point. They have no choice but to stay exactly where they are, or pay a tax bill that no middle class folks could ever afford….retired or not. And they aren’t retired, btw.

 

[paindonthurt]

You are missing a lot. You don’t even have the facts. So….maybe YOU should 17 off, POS.

Cool story gramps.

 

[paindonthurt]

The SS tax stops at $168k.

So? He’s still correct.

 

[paindonthurt]

The tax codes favor owners not W2s. If you're wealth comes from business ownership and you have a great tax team you will pay much less as a % of income than a well to do couple who are W2s making executive money. W2s (and I'm one) are like the people plugged into the matrix****

This isn’t true either. Owners may pass less as a percentage of revenue but not income.

if I have a business that makes $200,000 profit I’m gonna pay more taxes than an employee who makes $200,000 in w2 wages. Unless you have it set up in some type of corporation.

No if you are a business owner you are likely running a lot of personal expenses through as business expenses and that helps for sure.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

This isn’t true either. Owners may pass less as a percentage of revenue but not income.

if I have a business that makes $200,000 profit I’m gonna pay more taxes than an employee who makes $200,000 in w2 wages. Unless you have it set up in some type of corporation.

No if you are a business owner you are likely running a lot of personal expenses through as business expenses and that helps for sure.

Yeah OKAY buddy

 

[Lettuce]

 

[paindonthurt]

It's all Reagan's fault that Clinton, Obama and Biden didn't raise the minimum wage to a level you think it should be. Stop being miserable. Life is good for most people.

And the people making minimum wage can blame themselves 99% of the time or more.

 

[paindonthurt]

Social Security is only collected on the first $160,000 earned last year.
Millions make more than that.

The cap is $168k this year, but it should be 10x that, if there is going to be a cap. And payments shouldn't go higher than the current cap.
The biggest safety net for Americans has to continue to exist and the simple reality is that higher income earners need to pay more than their 'fair share' to ensure it stays solvent for decades to come.
Maybe some leave the country over it, but I doubt many that make less than $1.5mm per year are going to move to another country and take up new residence over that. Best of luck to them being as successful elsewhere when it comes to job earnings.

Or we could eliminate social security as a retirement and let people be responsible for themselves

 

[paindonthurt]

There are a lot of people in this range.....not enough but a lot. The Super rich and very rich trick these people with look over there crap and if they tax me then they'll come after you next.

Besides a lot of the very rich/super rich have amazing tax teams and take advantage of all the loopholes....heck they lobby for the loopholes. They are sitting in the catbird seat though because I don't know anybody in that $150k-$600k range pounding the table for more taxes.

Something has to give or the pitch forks are coming out....heck it's one of the main reasons the youth are enamored by socialism....greedy capitalist are easy targets just ask Hollywood and the academics.

You know who wanted to eliminate those loop holes?

Orange man bad!!

 

[paindonthurt]

Wait til they tax UNREALIZED capital gains which has been discussed.

Boom boom says this isn’t true.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yeah OKAY buddy

I’m sorry you don’t know what you are talking about

 

[dog12]

just increase the primary home exclusion up to $1M ($500K single) due to inflation. It’s been $500K for a long time.

Mmmm-hmmm. This is the answer.

The wife and I may need that $1 MM exclusion in 4-5 years.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

What made America Great was the HuUUUUGE Middle class .. not trickle down **** for the rich

The Top 1% have more wealth than all the middle class put together.

The Top 1% actually have twice as much as the 2-20% combined. They have nearly 7 times as much as the 21-80% combined and nobody's doing the math on the bottom 20% at this point.

And you better believe that's the way the Almighty wants it.

You know what they say - if you divide up all the money in the U.S. evenly among everyone, in less than 3 years the same winners would get rich and the same losers would be poor that we got now.

What did the middle class really do for us other than get a lot of tax breaks, discounted medical care, cheaper college tuition, etc. Do you really believe they could contribute more than wealthy oligarchs?

 

[mstateglfr]

Or we could eliminate social security as a retirement and let people be responsible for themselves

Polls consistently show, for years now, this isn't something the majority of Democrats or Republicans want.

Your basic libertarian position is unrealistic and we as a society would suffer bigly if your basic view wee re implemented.

Basic gonna basic every time. The adults will keep talking right over you until you choose to come to the discussion with more than just 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps like I did! Ignore all the government benefits and infrastructure I relied on to pull myself up!'

 

[paindonthurt]

Polls consistently show, for years now, this isn't something the majority of Democrats or Republicans want.

Your basic libertarian position is unrealistic and we as a society would suffer bigly if your basic view wee re implemented.

Basic gonna basic every time. The adults will keep talking right over you until you choose to come to the discussion with more than just 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps like I did! Ignore all the government benefits and infrastructure I relied on to pull myself up!'

Just bc you say it doesn’t make it true.

Just bc the masses think they want or need it doesn’t make it true.

 

[mstateglfr]

You know what they say - if you divide up all the money in the U.S. evenly among everyone, in less than 3 years the same winners would get rich and the same losers would be poor that we got now.

What did the middle class really do for us other than get a lot of tax breaks, discounted medical care, cheaper college tuition, etc. Do you really believe they could contribute more than wealthy oligarchs?

- each time I hear that theory, the one about the same winners and losers after 3 years, I wonder why it appeals to some people so strongly. I mean, it isn't actually true- it's a totally made up guess that's said with authority. Yet it continues to be repeated because it is so appealing to some that they want it to be true.
Would some who are poor now become poor later? Of course.
Would some who are wealthy now become wealthy later? Of course.
But for the vast rest?...yeah I am not so sure everyone would be back to where they were in 3 years or even 10 years.

My skepticism is especially true for a situation where everyone starts with the same money and wealth. So many who are wealthy simply due to inheritance would find themselves without wealth or ability to regain it.

- Bro, you really just asked what the middle class has done in this country? It has consistently produced leaders of industry. It has consistently produced innovation. It has pushed for increased protections on worker safety, increased retirement protections, and increased educational opportunities.

 

[mstateglfr]

Just bc you say it doesn’t make it true.

Just bc the masses think they want or need it doesn’t make it true.

Just because I saw what doesn't make what true? Are you questioning my claim that the majority of democrats and Republicans support SS benefits?

As for your other dumb claim, that just because the masses think they want or need it doesn't make it true...Um what now?
If someone wants something, then that makes it true that they want that thing. Like seriously there- do you even read what you type before you post it? Your comment is absurd.

 

[paindonthurt]

Your basic libertarian position is unrealistic and we as a society would suffer bigly if your basic view wee re implemented.

just bc you say this doesn’t make it true. Is that clear enough for your feeble mind to understand?

Ignore all the government benefits and infrastructure I relied on to pull myself up!'

Why aren’t all your poor friends using that gubment infrastructure to help? They got the infrastructure and the hand outs and still can’t do it! And DEI!!

 

[paindonthurt]

- each time I hear that theory, the one about the same winners and losers after 3 years, I wonder why it appeals to some people so strongly. I mean, it isn't actually true- it's a totally made up guess that's said with authority. Yet it continues to be repeated because it is so appealing to some that they want it to be true.
Would some who are poor now become poor later? Of course.
Would some who are wealthy now become wealthy later? Of course.
But for the vast rest?...yeah I am not so sure everyone would be back to where they were in 3 years or even 10 years.

My skepticism is especially true for a situation where everyone starts with the same money and wealth. So many who are wealthy simply due to inheritance would find themselves without wealth or ability to regain it.

- Bro, you really just asked what the middle class has done in this country? It has consistently produced leaders of industry. It has consistently produced innovation. It has pushed for increased protections on worker safety, increased retirement protections, and increased educational opportunities.

We’ll never know but if I handed out $100,000 to 25 poor people at a random gas station one day I bet 75% wouldn’t have much left in 10 years. Probably 5. Maybe 1.

 

[mstateglfr]

Your basic libertarian position is unrealistic and we as a society would suffer bigly if your basic view wee re implemented.

just bc you say this doesn’t make it true. Is that clear enough for your feeble mind to understand?

Ignore all the government benefits and infrastructure I relied on to pull myself up!'

Why aren’t all your poor friends using that gubment infrastructure to help? They got the infrastructure and the hand outs and still can’t do it! And DEI!!

Oh thanks for clarifying whst it was that you took issue with. Words help.

Correct, just because I claim that your basic libertarian approach would hurt society bigly doesn't mean the claim is true.

Economists and sociologists have shown, thru research, that a social safety net is a net positive for society(imagine that!) as it reduces poverty, reduces family burden, and increases quality of life at later ages.

So with that in mind, I am confident in saying the removal of such a system would hurt society bigly.

 

[mstateglfr]

We’ll never know but if I handed out $100,000 to 25 poor people at a random gas station one day I bet 75% wouldn’t have much left in 10 years. Probably 5. Maybe 1.

That isn't at all the hypothetical I responded to, but when did that ever stop you from commenting?

 

[Boom Boom]

So? He’s still correct.

It means he's not. Drop that 15%, and the effective tax rate drops below those that make less.

 

[Boom Boom]

Yeah OKAY buddy

It isn't true, except for the two ways it is true, but except for those it isn't true! Stop laughing at me!!

 

[Boom Boom]

You know who wanted to eliminate those loop holes?

Orange man bad!!

Did he eliminate them in his one signature piece of legislation? Did he ever attempt to in his 4 years of office?

 

[Boom Boom]

We’ll never know but if I handed out $100,000 to 25 poor people at a random gas station one day I bet 75% wouldn’t have much left in 10 years. Probably 5. Maybe 1.

If I gave a tax cut of $100k to 25 very rich people, I bet 75% wouldn't have used it any way productive to society or our country. Probably 5. Maybe 1.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Why do they need to stay where they are?

Because it would cost them a half a million dollars to leave. That’s the whole point. They have no choice but to stay exactly where they are, or pay a tax bill that no middle class folks could ever afford….retired or not. And they aren’t retired, btw.

Not entirely true.

If they wanted to live in their communities, yes, but they can also take advantage of the equity they’ve built in their residences and/or the lower cost of living elsewhere…

In the past 20 years, several of my California kin (close and extended) did just that— leaving the state to go to Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi.

 

[patdog]

This isn’t true either. Owners may pass less as a percentage of revenue but not income.

if I have a business that makes $200,000 profit I’m gonna pay more taxes than an employee who makes $200,000 in w2 wages. Unless you have it set up in some type of corporation.

No if you are a business owner you are likely running a lot of personal expenses through as business expenses and that helps for sure.

Not necessarily true with the 20% deduction most business owners get these days. That pretty much offsets the increase in SS/Medicare taxes. And, as you say there’s a LOT more deductions available to business owners.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Not entirely true.

If they wanted to live in their communities, yes, but they can also take advantage of the equity they’ve built in their residences and/or the lower cost of living elsewhere…

In the past 20 years, several of my California kin (close and extended) did just that— leaving the state to go to Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi.

Exactly, but they’d have to pay a ton of money for the “privilege” of moving far away from everything they’ve known for years. The way that the housing market is supposed to work is that you accumulate more and more purchasing power and equity in the area you are in the longer that you are a homeowner. You’re not supposed to essentially be at the same level as you were at 40 years ago in that regard after spending decades of paying off a mortgage and property taxes. But that’s where many people are now, unless they choose to move hundreds of miles away…..and a very large part of that is the inability to cash in on hundreds of thousands in equity. Essentially their homes are only worth 75% of what they can actually sell them for, but they’ve got to offer probably 120% of their home’s value on a similiar or even smaller property in their same area in order to get it. That math doesn’t work for anyone.

And simply put, this isn’t only about what’s fair or not fair for individuals. Its the housing market as a whole that suffers. California is the most populous state in the country, by a very large amount. There is a nationwide housing shortage. When nobody there is willing to sell their homes, it just drives more people out to flood lower cost markets, driving those costs up, and putting more pressure on the already dire condition with housing inventory across the entire country. It’s an inefficiency created by a very obsolete policy that needs to be amended and corrected.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Exactly, but they’d have to pay a ton of money for the “privilege” of moving far away from everything they’ve known for years.

Eh…. For many Californians I think it’d still be more than enough of a positive benefit.

All my kin I mentioned previously lived in the Bay Area before going out of state and they’ve all said that moving out of California was an easy decision for them to make.

Also don’t forget that moving expenses can be tax deductible.

 

[Beretta.sixpack]

Wait til they tax UNREALIZED capital gains which has been discussed.

Boom boom says this isn’t true.

What is true is the far left, which doesnt understand math or history, has talked about it.....what is true, also, is that in every country around the world that has attempted this has failed miserably and had to revert......its not going to happen.....