Impossible tax increase for Biden
On April Fool’s Day, I’m putting pen to paper to write this. This might be a good time to point out the absurdity of Joe Biden’s latest tax proposal.
For those who are wealthy, President Biden is proposing a tax on the increase in their fortune. You’d have to pay a tax on the value of your home if it appreciates in that category. Taxes will be owed on any growth in the value of your shares.
It is possible to pay a tax on a profit made by a privately held firm if it had an excellent year. Taxes would be due if you owned a farm with increasing assets such as land, equipment, and structures.
When it comes to a new tax, why do you think it will just affect a small number of wealthy people? There is always a need for additional money for the government and pro-government politicians. Immediately, they would begin squeezing the next lowest level.
There are numerous examples in the history of a tax that began small and grew over time. In 1894, only the wealthiest ten percent of Americans were meant to be subject to the federal income tax.
Over time, it spread to about half of all American families, naturally. The Biden wealth tax would be subject to similar growth in the near future. There will be a sophisticated system of paying taxes on a gain in wealth for nearly everyone within the next few years, even for those with no rise in income.
This type of wealth tax has three additional flaws.
At the beginning, who is going to keep track of your assets? No, I don’t want an IRS official looking through my belongings and telling me how much I’m worth in his or her estimation. The more money the government requires, the more things you own will be included in your wealth assessment.
Furniture, artwork, jewels, family treasures, and automobiles will be among the many items they can gain access to. How many appeals will there be to a reviewing authority as a result of all the paperwork? There will be no shortage of bureaucracy created as a result of this activity.
Is it possible for the government to force you to sell your assets to pay the wealth tax, including the assets it just assessed? Is this a violation of your property rights?
What about years in which you have less money? Many firms were affected by the COVID-19 outbreak after the financial crisis of 2008. This will be a one-way path, knowing the government and liberal politicians who are thirsty for money. Once you’re successful, you’ll be charged. In the event of a defeat, there is no consolation.
Look at Biden’s budget proposal, and you’ll see why they’re begging the American people for more money.
In their analysis, Republicans on the House Budget Committee found that over the next decade, Biden’s budget calls for spending of $73 trillion. This is a 66% increase in federal spending over the last decade.
Republicans claim that Biden added an additional $58 trillion in taxes to his budget. 80 percent growth in the past decade. For the following decade, the new Biden budget would add $16 trillion to the national debt, with annual deficits of more than $1 trillion.
Debt, taxation, and spending to the point of absurdity are not inevitable. During my tenure as Speaker of the House, we implemented work requirements for welfare recipients, reduced taxes and regulations to spur economic growth, and maintained a four-year federal budget balance (the only time in your lifetime).
If we pay off the entire government debt, the Bush administration has a working group working on how to control our money supply. For the first time ever, then-Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan said in public testimony, the United States needs to prepare for a debt-free economy.
We do not have to have a giant, bureaucratic, corrupt government. Taxes, interest rates, and job creation can all be reduced through alternate options.
The Biden strategy is a complete failure. Take, for example, the findings of the non-profit Tax Foundation. This approach will tax people on earnings that they never generated, according to the foundation, because it taxes unrealized capital gains annually.
Additionally, maintaining track of this would be both time-consuming and expensive, making it difficult for those with less financial resources to do so.
This is what the foundation said:
Administratively expensive, reducing U.S. savings, and unknown income potential all work against the proposal’s stated goal of effective tax policy. An entirely distinct tax regime is proposed for illiquid taxpayers that include a deferral charge instead of prepayments for non-tradable assets as well as nine- and five-year payment terms.
All alternatives, however, add extra complications, chances for tax planning, and the possibility of conflicts with the IRS—in other words, economically inefficient activities. All options, however.
In addition, because the tax is assessed on assets minus debts, it may incentivize borrowers to take on extra debt in order to get around the tax, unless safeguards are put in place.
You should contact your representatives in Congress and the U.S. Senate right away and urge them to rein in spending, streamline government operations, terminate welfare as we know it, and reject Vice President Biden’s tax on success.