I think it’s a matter of being actual proof instead of estimations and educated guesses.

But I’m in the “well no shit” camp as well.

That would make sense. Instead of “Whoa, I had no idea this was going on!” it would be more of a “Goddamn, it’s as bad or worse as we were thinking”.

That’s my take. I was not impressed by the article.

Hell, even the way they frame it is structured to make things even more extreme. Insisting on describing federal income tax as “how much taxes people pay,” for example, when even when these folks sell assets, it won’t generate income (long term cap gains). The problem is plenty big on its own. No need to play games with the numbers.

How many thought Trump was a sacrificing hero by giving up his pres. salary.

Researchers discover new principle of economics.

The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.

For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.

The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.

So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”

The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.

So they’re saying it’s a market driven by needs and wants… well, that’s surprising.

Astounding new study: people respond to incentives.

It’ll be more interesting to see a follow up after a year.

It is a well-known empirical, irrefutable fact of economics* that the 1% at the top respond quickly to a marginal fractional change in their wealth but the lower 99% are stupid and lazy therefore improving their financial status has no effect.

(*For the QOP)

So when supply is less than demand, prices increase until a new equilibrium is found.

I wonder if there is an idea for a book or theory in there…

I was looking on my bookshelf for an answer to your question, but then I got goosed by an invisible hand!

Check your wallet. The invisible hand is a notorious pickpocket.

In all seriousness, though, the result was obvious. What should also be obvious, but isn’t, is that it will not anger the inflation gods with a profit share war.

Practically speaking, the way the trusts were devised meant that I came into a significant amount of money at the tender age of 21. I became an asset manager before a lot of people get their first apartment. I’m 61 now, meaning I’ve been the recipient of four decades’ worth of tax advice from the decent, good, kind men (yes, they were all men) who were put in place by my grandparents, and then my parents, to ensure that I wouldn’t do anything stupid with what I had been given.

Every single method and practice outlined in the ProPublica report has been suggested to me at one time or another by these decent men as a credible, perfectly legal, and not-at-all-questionable way to manage my assets. And, over the years, I have said yes to many of those suggestions. So it’s true: If you were to get a hold of my tax returns, you would find a record of a person who has adhered scrupulously to the law and, in doing so, has also taken advantage of the many holes our legal system has left wide open.

When you come into money as I did—young, scared, and not very savvy about the world—you are taught certain precepts as though they are gospel: Never spend the “corpus” (also known as the capital) you were left. Steward your assets to leave even more to your children, and then teach them to do the same. And finally, use every tool at your disposal within the law, especially through estate planning, to keep as much of that money as possible out of the hands of government bureaucrats who will only misuse it.

If you are raised in a deeply conservative family like my own, you are taught some extra bits of doctrine: Philanthropy is good, but too much of it is unseemly and performative. Marry people “of your own class” to save yourself from the complexity and conflict that comes with a broad gulf in income, assets, and, therefore, power. And, as one of my uncles said to me during the Reagan administration, it’s best to leave the important decision making to people who are “successful,” rather than in the pitiable hands of those who aren’t.

I took far too long to look with clarity upon these precepts and see them for what they are: blueprints for dynastic wealth. Why it took me so long is a fair question. All I know is that if you are a fish, it is hard to describe water, much less to ask if water is necessary, ethical, and structured the way it ought to be. As long as no one so much as raised an eyebrow about the ethics of the CRAT, the CRUT, and the credit swap, who did I think I was to query the fundamentals? I did not have the emotional courage to go down that path.

There was another reason for my inaction, and I am deeply ashamed to say what it was. But here goes: Having money—a lot of money—is very, very nice. It’s damn hard to resist the seductions of what money buys you. I’ve never been much of a materialist, but I have wallowed in the less concrete privileges that come with a trust fund, such as time, control, security, attention, power, and choice. The fact is, this is pretty standard software that comes with the hardware of a human body.

How would taxing unrealized capital gains work? Would you also be paying stockholders when the value went negative?

That is a powerful piece. Basically, it seems to say everything seems to be above board until you realize that it all fits together to allow the wealthy to retain their wealth or accumulate more.

It’s basically a wealth tax, and the question of ‘how do you calculate wealth’ has been beaten to death, with one camp saying ‘we do it all the time so it isn’t a show stopper’ and the other saying ‘no it’s UNPOSSIBLE to calculate wealth.’ I’m in the former group: come up with a standard and a formula and use it. By way of example, you pay a wealth tax on your house, based on a not-very-rigorous tax appraisal, and it seems to work fine.

And no, I would not be paying stockholders if their investments failed, and that isn’t really a serious question.

On the other hand, realize what this has done.

See Joe Manchin:

How many actual W. Va. Constituents were on that call?

How much of the 4 hours a day a Congressperson spends dialing for dollars is with actual residents of who they allegedly represent?

How much of those tax savings are going to these calls, or simply buying their way into a a race (see endless billionaires running for office)?

Snippets:

The filibuster is a critical priority for the donors on the call, as it bottles up progressive legislation that would hit their bottom lines.

“Think about joining the House: You’re there for 730 days, unless you pick the leap year, and maybe you get 731,” said Bursky. “And for the vast majority, those days, you’re spending four hours on the telephone, dialing for dollars.

Regarding Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote.

Jacobson said on the call, adding that the group planned to raised and direct some $20 million in “hard” dollars this cycle, referring to money that goes directly to a member of Congress’s political action committee; that means the member of Congress has control over it, rather than having to rely on an outside super PAC.

So if I buy 100 shares of stock at $10 a share, and then it goes up to $15 dollars a share, even if I don’t sell it I have to pay capital gains on that gain.

And then, if it goes back down to $10 a share, I will have paid taxes on money that I never actually had, and which I no longer have any access to.

So every time stocks go up, you pay taxes… but every time they come back down, you don’t get any of that tax money back. That’s not a real sensible way to do it.

That’s all totally unnecessary. Just tax your assets at current valuation every year. When you have unrealized gains, your assets will have a higher value and you’ll pay a higher tax. When you have paper losses, your assets will have a lower value, and you’ll pay a lower tax. That captures the rise and fall nicely.