11 ms·
It's unearned income. In other words: no income. They will get taxes the full 15% rate when they sell the asset so what does it matter if it's 0% in the year th
by marknutter 10y ago
It's unearned income. In other words: no income. They will get taxes the full 15% rate when they sell the asset so what does it matter if it's 0% in the year they don't sell it other than to sell a narrative? I'm sorry if somebody's assets appreciate over time but to call that income is just dishonest.
I hate how people constantly move the goalposts when it come to claiming that a certain minority of people aren't "paying their fair share". You know who else doesn't pay taxes on unearned income? The 99%. That's about as fair as it can get.
FICA goes to benefits that overwhelmingly favor the poor compared to the rich, so I don't find that argument compelling either.
Your original claim was that the tax code heavily favored the 1% but so far all you've managed to back that up with is a tax rate on their unearned income being the exact same as it is for the 99%'s unearned income. Hardly convincing.
- cmurf 10y ago>It's unearned income. In other words: no income. No that's wrong, it is income. Examples of unearned income are dividends and interest, and capital gains. These are taxed at a lower income tax rate than earned income, i.e. income from a salaried job. And unearned income is not subject to FICA tax. You have to make enough money for starters in order to have income sources that are unearned, so yes this is favored at people who make money. The very wealthy, the 1%, aren't making this money from earned income, they make it from unearned income.