198 Comments

If there were 52 Democratic senators, the Manchin and Sinema dog & pony show would be over. Those two make me spitting mad!

Expand full comment
Apr 5, 2022·edited Apr 5, 2022

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton (1834 - 1902)

We and the whole of American society would be best served to keep in mind who the 'absolute power' is, it is not the authoritarians and dictators of today, it is those who prop them up financially. The same applies to our representatives in the U.S. House and Senate.

VOTE

Expand full comment

Extremely interesting. Thank you for clear explanation. One of the challenges for the federal government is too many layers of bureaucracy. At some point in time the White House team needs to call in Six Sigma to help stream line a better functioning government. Six Sigma refers to a methodology that is driven by data and statistics. It is used to eliminate defects and improve processes. I called IRS this past week. Spent my first 91 minutes on hold. The federal government has a spending issue on top of fixing the tax issues. If we could address both at the same time we could accomplish much more going into the future. God Bless everyone who is working hard to help this great country.

Expand full comment

Another good reason to vote blue only.

Expand full comment
Apr 5, 2022·edited Apr 5, 2022

The $30 trillion number caught my interest in this morning's essay. $30 trillion, that is $30,000,000,000,000. Although "spelling it out" is useful shorthand, it doesn't really convey the sheer magnitude of that number. For perspective consider, if one were to divide that $30 trillion into one million dollar ($1,000,000) portions and invest each of those million dollar portions in individual annuities, the interest off each annuity would provide a living income for 30,000,000 (30 million) US Citizens - as the original $30 trillion principal investment remains intact.

As an afterthought: The Republicans believe in >your< hard work, and can bravely endure >your< exhaustion and/or deprivation and stress and dashed hopes. They'll sagely advise that all you need to do is just work harder, and you can "make it" - whatever the devil that's supposed to mean! After all, it's all in service to >family values< . . . . . . . . . . . . . >Their< family values.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't it be nice? It's not a good picture for Democracy if these measures are not passed. Especially when one or two members of the 'Democrat' party is the hold out on their vote.

Expand full comment

The argument against estate taxes is that it prevents struggling family farmers from passing their farm to their heirs. But, AgriBiz has essentially killed family farms.

And, of course, folks still benefit from transferring assets (including 401ks) into Roth IRAs, which taxes don't touch

Expand full comment

I am afraid I have a hard time comprehending Economic laws, and although I understand this article I do wonder about one thing: Should Biden’s tax plan go through (and I hate to be pessimistic but) for how long would this last in other words could the uber-wealthy still weasel their way around paying their fair share and if (Heaven forbid) the GOP gained control could they simply undo what President Biden accomplished? Forgive my ignorance.

Thank You 🌻

Expand full comment

The first proposal sounds like it would accomplish the objective. But the latter sounds like primarily another assault on the working middle class. If only that latter proposal passes, what would it mean for middle class working people who've managed to keep their houses and a comparatively small amount of savings? Their children keep half of those assets, not enough to afford to keep the house, while the wealthy's children barely notice the loss of half of their billions?

Expand full comment

Very good idea. Senate, make it happen.

Expand full comment
Apr 5, 2022·edited Apr 5, 2022

Though in theory I support both tax reforms, contrary to the 20% minimum tax on household net worth exceeding $100 million, repeal of the “stepped-up-basis-at death” loophole strikes me as a relatively easy, albeit structurally beneficial, adjustment both literally and politically, and hence not likely to create much resistance. With a 50-50 Senate, the election season kicking in, and the need promptly to pass a progressive piece of legislation, I would advise, for the present, to focus mostly on enacting the one reform of closing the “stepped-up” loophole.

Expand full comment

I’m so grateful for your information and how you keep us informed . I only wish every American who follow you and understand how we can solve such incredible problems and repair our democracy. Thank you for your work

Expand full comment

First eliminate the filibuster clause, second, get rid of the electoral college, which is obsolete for our generation, third, stop the massive tax loop holes, meaning tax the wealthy and stop the hidden overseas funds only the crooks have access to. I know there is a war going on in Ukraine, but we must keep our focus on the nations needs also. A must to conquer soon is aid to education debt, it’s a definite promise to the youth. Get it done

Expand full comment

Would the tax on unrealized cap gains be creditable toward future cap gains tax?

If so, I think one effect of the tax would be to mitigate stock volatility and overvaluation. For example, Elon Musk paid $11 Billion in taxes last year because he had to sell a lot of stock to take advantage of options that were expiring, but in most years he pays very little tax because he and other wealthy stockholders don't normally sell stock. They just borrow against their equity. The cap gains tax causes people to hoard their equity holdings, which creates scarcity, which leads to stock overvaluation, which increases stockholders' net worth, which increases their cap gains liability, which creates more of a disincentive to sell when they would otherwise be cashing out, ... . A creditable tax on unrealized cap gains would break the cycle and create an incentive for wealthy stockholders to gradually sell off their holdings before their accumulated credit exceeds their tax liability. Stock prices would be lower and more affordable to ordinary folks.

Expand full comment

The only thing about the 'taxed at death' thing is if the only person inheriting is an equally old, living off that account spouse, who actually needs the money to live on. I would have an issue with that.

Expand full comment

Einstein is reported to have said, "Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn't … pays it.” The same is true of any Return on Investment (ROI for short, and coincidentally, ROI means 'King' in French.)

There is a book about all this that everyone should read, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty and his large team of researchers. It is a blend of economic analysis and anthropology. They go way back though history of civilizations to find a constant: accumulated capital continues until the whole thing becomes unstable and topples over. If Piketty et al are right, and I am sure they are, then our right turn back in 1980 put us on this trajectory.

I am very concerned by this upcoming transfer of wealth to a generation that has never known anything but wealth. I spent a considerable portion of my professional career in service of such people, and the idea of them having immense power with no applicable skills, inclination or concern for the 99% will end this American Experiment within a generation or two.

Expand full comment