the "Headline That Caught My Attention or the WTF" thread

Bates College is purported to a highly regarded institute of higher education. This story seriously refutes that regard. If I was paying $82K a year for my kid to attend this place, I would have yanked him immediately. What's next, getting disciplined for using an "index finger" gun and saying "Bang"???

BREAKING NEWS | Student Wins Conduct Hearing after Facing Four Years of Probation for use of a Nerf Gun


“The whole situation started during the football season,” Seneca Moore ’27 said. “Obviously, it wasn’t a good season, so there wasn’t a lot of fun being had.”

It was the night of Oct. 14 and some members of the football team decided to do a prank war to lift team spirit after a disappointing season. Earlier that day Moore went to Walmart with a few friends on the team and purchased a couple of Nerf guns with gelfire ammunition for the night’s activities.

He was in the backseat of a car driving down Campus Ave with two of his friends when they spotted two of their teammates on the sidewalk.

“We slowed down next to them and one of them actually had the Nerf gun as well. So they started shooting at the car,” Moore recalls. “And then another one of them for some reason had a bat, he was just carrying around a bat for whatever reason. And so we slowed down and he parked and I just shot at them two or three times. And then we drove back to the dorm. We didn’t speed off or anything.”

Initially, only his two friends who were sitting in the front seats of the car received emails from Jimmy Riley, Director of Residence Life & Community Standards, informing them of their violations.

“They got an email from Jimmy saying that they might have violated Code of Conduct for having a weapon on campus and for reckless driving and disorderly conduct,” Moore said. “And those two people, just to keep in mind, one of them is Black and the other one is Hispanic, people of color.”

Moore, who is also Black, told his friends that he would try to help them and that they could share his name to vouch on their behalf.

“Nobody on the football team was standing up for them in any way. I know how that feels,” Moore said. “So I wanted to be the person to stand up for them. And that’s the whole reason why I’m involved in this.”

After he told his friends that, Moore received an identical email from Riley saying that he had also violated the Code of Conduct for possession or use of a weapon, dangerous vehicle use and disorderly conduct.

Moore says that he is not aware of any action being taken against the football players on the sidewalk, both of whom are white.

“They were also shooting back and one of them was carrying a bat, an actual weapon, and they didn’t get an email from Jimmy [Riley] that they broke Code of Conduct,” Moore said. “The whole football team was doing the same stuff and they didn’t get [an email]. It was just the three people of color.”

In late October, Moore was offered the option to sign a Voluntary Resolution by Agreement which, according to Moore, would put him on probation for four years and he would have the Code of Conduct violations on his school record. This would also mean he would be required to report his Code of Conduct Violations if he tried to transfer colleges.

However, Moore rejected this offer and opted to go through with a Student Conduct Committee (SCC) hearing to determine whether he violated the Code of Conduct for possession of a weapon, reckless driving and disorderly conduct. What he sees as a night of harmless pranks and lighthearted games, the school alleged was a more serious offense that could have resulted in academic probation and a permanent Code of Conduct violation on his record, suspension or even dismissal from the school.

“I don’t just want to be okay with it because I feel like this whole situation was blown out of proportion. And it’s four years of probation, it’s not just one. So my whole time here I’m gonna be walking on eggshells not knowing when I’m gonna mess up because I didn’t even know I would get in trouble for that,” Moore said. “How would I know when the next time I’m gonna get in trouble?”

On Tuesday, March 12, Moore appeared before the SCC for his hearing and came away with a clean record and no probation.

“I’m still healing, but it’s good to be done with that,” Moore said. “I still feel pretty negative given that this shouldn’t have happened in the first place and because of trauma that was re-triggered during the process.”

According to Moore, the committee unanimously voted to lift all of the violations and the probation.

“A lot of the committee members apologized at the end because of how absurd the situation was,” Moore said.

Overall, he still has mixed feelings about being at Bates.

“I feel a bit of relief after because now I don’t have to walk around with a hat on my head saying criminal,” Moore said. He added that he was grateful for the support he received from Professor of Dance Brian Evans, Associate Dean and Director of the Office of Intercultural Education Tonya Bailey-Curry and the Head Track & Field Coach Curtis Johnson.

In an email to The Student, Professor Evans praises Moore for his resiliency throughout this five month process.

“Let me preface my statement by stating that I am bound by a confidentiality policy regarding the hearing and a genuine fear of reprisal and retaliation,” Professor Evans said. “So what I will say is, I am honored to have been Seneca’s advisor through this process. His willingness to remain present throughout these past five months is a testament to his character and those who helped him become who he is and will continue to be.”

However, in reflection about the entire disciplinary process he emphasizes that, “The existing process, as I experienced it, was extremely harmful to be a part of and beyond challenging to navigate,” Professor Evans said. “I am glad the outcome affirmed what was true five months ago, and I hope the takeaway is not that this proves the process works but rather clear evidence that it failed Seneca and that we as a community failed to protect our most vulnerable.”

He adds that he will continue to support anyone working to change systems to be more equitable. “As the late Civil Rights Leader and former congressman John Lewis said, ‘Speak up, speak out, get in the way, get in good trouble, necessary trouble[…],’” Professor Evans said. “I stand committed to working with anyone to continue getting in that ‘Good Trouble’ to improve our systems so they align with our stated mission and vision for our community.”

Bailey-Curry echoes many of Professor Evan’s comments adding that, “Student support, in my opinion, is an unwavering process. While it varies because every individual is different and therefore the support can look different, it is something a student should know they can rely on, particularly when challenges arise.”

Had Moore opted to sign the Voluntary Resolution he would be under a four year probation and have the three Code of Conduct on his school record.

“As of right now the two other kids are not free of charges, but it might change,” Moore said, referring to the two other players in the car with him on Oct. 14.

According to one of the players who still has charges, he now plans to challenge his Code of Conduct Violations and his probation. “I do plan to take action against the school now, but I am hoping I shouldn’t have to and that the school comes clean to me, however as of now nothing has changed for my own outcome,” he said. At this time the student prefers to remain anonymous for privacy.

Claims Made by Campus Safety Against Moore

The specific policy the school alleged Moore violated by using a Nerf gun states: “Weapons prohibited on Campus include, but are not limited to firearms, ammunition, BB – pellet or air guns, knives, and slingshots.”

Prior to the hearing, the school was saying that a Nerf gun may fall under the category of a pellet gun, but Moore disagrees with this characterization.

“It says ‘Nerf’ on the side of it,” Moore says. “So you’re trying to say a toy, something that’s made for kids, is a weapon?”

Nerf-brand packaging says the products are for users 14 years and older and “impact from rounds may cause temporary marks on skin.” The only other warning on the box is that it may be a choking hazard for children less than three years old and a reminder to use the provided eyeware.

Moore also disputes many of the claims made by Campus Safety in their report to the college. The biggest discrepancy is that the school claimed he participated in not one, but two nights of activity involving Nerf guns.

The first night, Oct. 14 at 11:36 p.m. Campus Safety Officer James McQueeney was dispatched for a report of a car driving down to Frye and College St. “The car was reported as possibly being a Volkswagen Hatchback that was playing loud music and would slow down and shoot an Orbeez gel gun or similar type toy gun,” according to a Campus Safety report obtained by The Student.

Neither McQueeney nor Campus Safety Supervisor Sean Bilodeau saw the vehicle, so McQueeney “took up a position on the corner of College and Frye in the hope that the vehicle would come back around, and [he] could get a license plate and/or description of the people in the car.”

“I was on the corner for about a half-hour and did not see the vehicle return,” McQueeney wrote.

Moore says that he remembers specifically that he and his friends were in an Audi and that they weren’t playing music at the time. Additionally, the Nerf gun he said they were using is different from the “Orbeez gel gun” that the Campus Safety report referred to, which is automatic and shoots faster.

The next night at 8:35 p.m., Campus Safety Officer Elly King claims to have seen “three male students wearing all black and black masks” run behind her “coming from the John Bertram parking lot.” She alleges that one of the students “was carrying what appeared to be an Orbeez gun” and that the three of them jumped into an Audi yelling “go, go, go” and then “sped away down Central Ave.”

When she and Officer Warren Barter went to look for the car in the campus parking lots, they discovered the Audi in the Village parking lot “a few spaces down” from a Volkswagen “that fit the description of a vehicle from the night before who had been seen shooting Orbeez out of the window while driving through campus.” The report alleges that the Volkswagen had an Orbeez gun in the backseat.

According to the Campus Safety report, officers identified one of the students by the license plate of his car, and used a combination of security camera images and ID scan logs to identify the second. A security camera image taken at the same time shows three people outside the dorm, one of them carrying a nerf gun.

Nowhere in the reports does Campus Safety identify Moore. It wasn’t until Moore offered to advocate for his friends that he received a Code of Conduct violation email. However, he maintains that he wasn’t involved in the second night of activities.

He adds, “I don’t even own a ski mask.”

When asked to respond, the college stated, “The college does not comment on the outcome of Student Conduct hearings, which are the last element of a process involving a possible violation of the Student Conduct Code. All students have an opportunity to resolve issues around their conduct through a voluntary resolution process. Students who decline that process proceed through the Student Conduct Committee process to a hearing.”

To Moore, this entire situation has been confusing and disappointing.

“It has been an extremely hurtful process. Since [October], having to think about this day in and day out is exhausting and has weighed tremendously on my mental health. I have had to start taking medication to help me get by in the day and do things that should be easy for me to do,” Moore said.

He adds that he never thought this would happen when he applied. “Bates is my dream school. I go here, I’m gonna get whatever job I want. But my first semester here, they’re trying to give me a record for a toy gun,” Moore said.
 
NYC Residents and Visitors - BOHICA!!!! I'm sure @CELLFISH didn't want this as a "Welcome Back" present. If it's supposed to help gridlock, WTH are they charging on weekends too???

M.T.A. Board Votes to Approve New $15 Toll to Drive Into Manhattan

New York City’s congestion pricing program, the first of its kind in the nation, still faces challenges from six lawsuits before it can begin in mid-June.

New York City completed a crucial final step on Wednesday in a decades-long effort to become the first American city to roll out a comprehensive congestion pricing program, one that aims to push motorists out of their cars and onto mass transit by charging new tolls to drive into Midtown and Lower Manhattan.

The program could start as early as mid-June after the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the state agency that will install and manage the program, voted 11-to-1 to approve the final tolling rates, which will charge most passenger cars $15 a day to enter at 60th Street and below in Manhattan. The program is expected to reduce traffic and raise $1 billion annually for public transit improvements.

It was a historic moment for New York’s leaders and transportation advocates after decades of failed attempts to advance congestion pricing even as other gridlocked cities around the world, including London, Stockholm and Singapore, proved that similar programs could reduce traffic and pollution.

While other American cities have introduced related concepts by establishing toll roads or closing streets to traffic, the plan in New York is unmatched in ambition and scale.

Congestion pricing is expected to reduce the number of vehicles that enter Lower Manhattan by about 17 percent, according to a November study by an advisory committee reporting to the M.T.A. The report also said that the total number of miles driven in 28 counties across the region would be reduced.

“This was the right thing to do,” Janno Lieber, the authority’s chairman and chief executive, said after the vote. “New York has more traffic than any place in the United States, and now we’re doing something about it.”

Congestion pricing has long been a hard sell in New York, where many people commute by car from the boroughs outside of Manhattan and the suburbs, in part because some of them do not have access to public transit.

New York State legislators finally approved congestion pricing in 2019 after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo helped push it through. A series of recent breakdowns in the city’s subway system had underscored the need for billions of dollars to update its aging infrastructure.

It has taken another five years to reach the starting line. Before the tolling program can begin, it must be reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration, which is expected to approve it.

Congestion pricing also faces legal challenges from six lawsuits that have been brought by elected officials and residents from across the New York region. Opponents have increasingly mobilized against the program in recent months, citing the cost of the tolls and the potential environmental effects from shifting traffic and pollution to other areas as drivers avoid the tolls.

A court hearing is scheduled for April 3 and 4 on a lawsuit brought by the State of New Jersey, which is seen as the most serious legal challenge. The mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., Mark J. Sokolich, has filed a related lawsuit.

Four more lawsuits have been brought in New York: by Ed Day, the Rockland County executive; by Vito Fossella, the Staten Island borough president, and the United Federation of Teachers; and by two separate groups of city residents.

Amid the litigation, M.T.A. officials have suspended some capital construction projects that were to be paid for by the program, and they said at a committee meeting on Monday that crucial work to modernize subway signals on the A and C lines had been delayed.

Nearly all the toll readers have been installed, and will automatically charge drivers for entering the designated congestion zone at 60th Street or below. There is no toll for leaving the zone or driving around in it. Through traffic on Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive and the West Side Highway will not be tolled.

Under the final tolling structure, which was based on recommendations by the advisory panel, most passenger vehicles will be charged $15 a day from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. The toll will be $24 for small trucks and charter buses, and will rise to $36 for large trucks and tour buses. It will be $7.50 for motorcycles.

Those tolls will be discounted by 75 percent at night, dropping the cost for a passenger vehicle to $3.75.

Fares will go up by $1.25 for taxis and black car services, and by $2.50 for Uber and Lyft. Passengers will be responsible for paying the new fees, and they will be added to every ride that begins, ends or occurs within the congestion zone. There will be no nighttime discounts. (The new fees come on top of an existing congestion surcharge that was imposed on for-hire vehicles in 2019.)

The tolls will mostly be collected using the E-ZPass system. Electronic detection points have been placed at entrances and exits to the tolling zone. Drivers who do not use an E-ZPass will pay significantly higher fees — for instance, $22.50 instead of $15 during peak hours for passenger vehicles.

Emergency vehicles like fire trucks, ambulances and police cars, as well as vehicles carrying people with disabilities, were exempted from the new tolls under the state’s congestion pricing legislation.

As for discounts, low-income drivers who make less than $50,000 annually can apply to receive half off the daytime toll after their first 10 trips in a calendar month. In addition, low-income residents of the congestion zone who make less than $60,000 a year can apply for a state tax credit.

All drivers entering the zone directly from four tolled tunnels — the Lincoln, Holland, Hugh L. Carey and Queens-Midtown — will receive a “crossing credit” that will be applied against the daytime toll. The credit will be $5 round-trip for passenger vehicles, $12 for small trucks and intercity and charter buses, $20 for large trucks and tour buses, and $2.50 for motorcycles. No credits will be offered at night.
 
While we're talking about Government reaching into our pockets...

Taxing unrealize gains is just insane. The AMT 30 years ago used to do that and let me tell you, it's no fun paying taxes on money you haven't made yet...

Democrats look for new ways to tax the super-rich

Earlier this month, President Biden unveiled a budget plan that proposes to raise more than $4.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade, largely by targeting corporations.

Headed into the November election – and with a big fight over expiring tax cuts looming in 2025 – Democrats are pushing once again to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Earlier this month, President Biden unveiled a budget plan that proposes to raise more than $4.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade, largely by targeting corporations. While repeating his pledge that families making less than $400,000 a year should not pay more tax, he revived and expanded upon an idea that Democrats have been kicking around for more than a decade: A minimum tax on the ultrawealthy.

Biden proposes to raise $503 billion over the next decade by imposing a 25% tax on people who claim more than $100 million in assets – a source of wealth that has long been beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The new levy would be assessed not just on annual income but on the annual increase in the value of their holdings, including stocks and real estate, even if that additional value was not realized because those assets were not sold.

“I’m a capitalist. If you want to make or can make a million or millions of bucks, that’s great. Just pay your fair share in taxes,” Biden said in his State of the Union address this month. “No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker or a nurse.”

Many independent tax experts say such a levy would be almost impossible to enforce: The IRS would struggle to assess anyone’s total net worth, much less the complex fortunes of the ultrawealthy, they say.

“There’s never going to be a comprehensive database at the IRS of everybody’s assets,” said Garrett Watson, a researcher at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, who also cautioned that trying to tax assets as volatile as stocks would create a highly “unstable” source of federal revenue.

Moreover, any attempt to value assets would lead to billionaires finding new ways to hide those assets, said Eric Zwick, an economist and tax expert who teaches finance at the University of Chicago. Much simpler changes to the tax code could raise revenue from rich people without forcing the IRS to estimate unrealized gains, Zwick said, including reducing the deduction for business income claimed on personal tax returns – a tax break created in Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

That change would be “pretty straightforward and it doesn’t require us to define a new concept of income,” Zwick said, adding: “My instinct on [Biden’s proposal] is the economic benefits are relatively low – but it has political appeal.”

At least since billionaire investor Warren Buffett complained in 2011 that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, Democrats have been looking for a way to rectify the imbalance. There may be momentum on the global level as well. After reaching a historic agreement on a minimum tax rate for multinational corporations in 2021, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s push, finance ministers used an international meeting of the G-20 group of nations last month to debate creating a minimum personal tax for all of the world’s 3,000 billionaires.

“There has been a growing movement over the last 10 years [that recognizes] we need to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy. But if you don’t also tax unrealized gains, you’re not really getting at the source of the problem,” said David Kass, an analyst with the left-leaning organization Americans for Tax Fairness, adding that Democrats increasingly see taxing the rich as a winning campaign issue.

‘SWISS CHEESE’

Democrats’ effort to target billionaires is based on the assumption that simply raising tax rates on conventional income will fail to increase revenue collected from the richest people.

“The entire tax code became this giant block of Swiss cheese that any smart tax accountant can navigate through on behalf of the richest people and the biggest corporations,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. “It’s not that we can’t figure out what a marginal tax is or what a progressive tax structure looks like. The problem is all the exceptions baked in the code.”

Warren and others on the left want to change the definition of income. They point to very wealthy people, with almost no wage income, who live off their investments by obtaining tax-free loans before passing on tax-advantaged appreciated assets to heirs. This strategy – called “buy, borrow, die” – was detailed in a 2021 ProPublica investigation that helped focus fresh attention on the idea of taxing wealth rather than income.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said he thinks it would be worth the IRS’s time to conduct the type of complicated investigations needed to collect a wealth tax. “While each [high-net-worth taxpayer] may take considerable effort to figure out what their unrealized gains are, the tax payments for doing that make it easily worthwhile,” he said.

Biden often claims that billionaires pay an effective tax rate of just 8%. But that number is based on defining rich people’s “income” very broadly to include the rising value of their assets, not just the money they earn in wages or take in capital gains. People in the top 1% of the income distribution do pay on average more than 20% in income taxes and more than 30% in all federal taxes, according to Treasury calculations.

The issue has also come before the Supreme Court, which heard a case this term brought by activists seeking to preemptively prevent Congress from taxing unrealized gains. They argued that imposing such a tax on holdings whose value the owner hasn’t received yet is unconstitutional. The high court is expected to rule on the case in the spring.

NO GOING BACK
While Democrats have long sought to target the rich with new taxes, they have often run into strong opposition – and not just from Republicans.

As president, Barack Obama pushed without success for the “Buffett rule,” which would have required Americans to pay a tax rate of at least 30% on annual income over $1 million. Even when Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress, they have had to scale back their ambitions on taxes. Two years ago, for example, Democrats failed to end the “stepped-up basis” that lets families avoid taxes on appreciated holdings that they pass on to their heirs. Resistance from centrist Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin III, W.Va., proved a powerful curb.

Rates for the wealthy were once much higher than they are today. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, for instance, he boosted the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. The top rate soared again, to more than 90%, during World War II. And when President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, a married couple was still paying a top marginal tax rate of 70% on every dollar earned over $215,400 – the equivalent of $730,000 today.

Reagan pushed to cut the top rate to 50% during his first year as president and to 28% in his second term. Since then, the top rate has moved in a fairly narrow band and currently stands at 37% for a couple with income above $693,750.

Meanwhile, Republican opposition to higher taxes of any kind remains staunch. Last week, Rep. Lisa C. McClain, R-Mich., argued with White House budget director Shalanda Young about how much the wealthy should pay, noting that the top 1% of earners paid 42% of all income taxes in 2020.

What is the number that the wealthy and the corporations would have to pay for you and this administration to feel like they paid their fair share?” McClain said. “We should be celebrating those people.”

For their part, Democrats have redefined what it means to be rich. Obama campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, which he defined as couples making less than $250,000 a year. But during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations in 2012, he and Biden, his vice president at the time, adjusted that definition to include couples making up to $450,000, a standard Biden has more or less adopted.

“The Republicans don’t want to tax anybody, and the Democrats don’t want to tax 98% of anybody,” said Michael Graetz, emeritus professor of tax law at Columbia University. “That’s where we are.”
 
IMG_0108.jpeg
 
While we're talking about Government reaching into our pockets...

Taxing unrealize gains is just insane. The AMT 30 years ago used to do that and let me tell you, it's no fun paying taxes on money you haven't made yet...

Democrats look for new ways to tax the super-rich

Earlier this month, President Biden unveiled a budget plan that proposes to raise more than $4.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade, largely by targeting corporations.

Headed into the November election – and with a big fight over expiring tax cuts looming in 2025 – Democrats are pushing once again to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Earlier this month, President Biden unveiled a budget plan that proposes to raise more than $4.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade, largely by targeting corporations. While repeating his pledge that families making less than $400,000 a year should not pay more tax, he revived and expanded upon an idea that Democrats have been kicking around for more than a decade: A minimum tax on the ultrawealthy.

Biden proposes to raise $503 billion over the next decade by imposing a 25% tax on people who claim more than $100 million in assets – a source of wealth that has long been beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The new levy would be assessed not just on annual income but on the annual increase in the value of their holdings, including stocks and real estate, even if that additional value was not realized because those assets were not sold.

“I’m a capitalist. If you want to make or can make a million or millions of bucks, that’s great. Just pay your fair share in taxes,” Biden said in his State of the Union address this month. “No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker or a nurse.”

Many independent tax experts say such a levy would be almost impossible to enforce: The IRS would struggle to assess anyone’s total net worth, much less the complex fortunes of the ultrawealthy, they say.

“There’s never going to be a comprehensive database at the IRS of everybody’s assets,” said Garrett Watson, a researcher at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, who also cautioned that trying to tax assets as volatile as stocks would create a highly “unstable” source of federal revenue.

Moreover, any attempt to value assets would lead to billionaires finding new ways to hide those assets, said Eric Zwick, an economist and tax expert who teaches finance at the University of Chicago. Much simpler changes to the tax code could raise revenue from rich people without forcing the IRS to estimate unrealized gains, Zwick said, including reducing the deduction for business income claimed on personal tax returns – a tax break created in Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

That change would be “pretty straightforward and it doesn’t require us to define a new concept of income,” Zwick said, adding: “My instinct on [Biden’s proposal] is the economic benefits are relatively low – but it has political appeal.”

At least since billionaire investor Warren Buffett complained in 2011 that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, Democrats have been looking for a way to rectify the imbalance. There may be momentum on the global level as well. After reaching a historic agreement on a minimum tax rate for multinational corporations in 2021, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s push, finance ministers used an international meeting of the G-20 group of nations last month to debate creating a minimum personal tax for all of the world’s 3,000 billionaires.

“There has been a growing movement over the last 10 years [that recognizes] we need to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy. But if you don’t also tax unrealized gains, you’re not really getting at the source of the problem,” said David Kass, an analyst with the left-leaning organization Americans for Tax Fairness, adding that Democrats increasingly see taxing the rich as a winning campaign issue.

‘SWISS CHEESE’

Democrats’ effort to target billionaires is based on the assumption that simply raising tax rates on conventional income will fail to increase revenue collected from the richest people.

“The entire tax code became this giant block of Swiss cheese that any smart tax accountant can navigate through on behalf of the richest people and the biggest corporations,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. “It’s not that we can’t figure out what a marginal tax is or what a progressive tax structure looks like. The problem is all the exceptions baked in the code.”

Warren and others on the left want to change the definition of income. They point to very wealthy people, with almost no wage income, who live off their investments by obtaining tax-free loans before passing on tax-advantaged appreciated assets to heirs. This strategy – called “buy, borrow, die” – was detailed in a 2021 ProPublica investigation that helped focus fresh attention on the idea of taxing wealth rather than income.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said he thinks it would be worth the IRS’s time to conduct the type of complicated investigations needed to collect a wealth tax. “While each [high-net-worth taxpayer] may take considerable effort to figure out what their unrealized gains are, the tax payments for doing that make it easily worthwhile,” he said.

Biden often claims that billionaires pay an effective tax rate of just 8%. But that number is based on defining rich people’s “income” very broadly to include the rising value of their assets, not just the money they earn in wages or take in capital gains. People in the top 1% of the income distribution do pay on average more than 20% in income taxes and more than 30% in all federal taxes, according to Treasury calculations.

The issue has also come before the Supreme Court, which heard a case this term brought by activists seeking to preemptively prevent Congress from taxing unrealized gains. They argued that imposing such a tax on holdings whose value the owner hasn’t received yet is unconstitutional. The high court is expected to rule on the case in the spring.

NO GOING BACK
While Democrats have long sought to target the rich with new taxes, they have often run into strong opposition – and not just from Republicans.

As president, Barack Obama pushed without success for the “Buffett rule,” which would have required Americans to pay a tax rate of at least 30% on annual income over $1 million. Even when Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress, they have had to scale back their ambitions on taxes. Two years ago, for example, Democrats failed to end the “stepped-up basis” that lets families avoid taxes on appreciated holdings that they pass on to their heirs. Resistance from centrist Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin III, W.Va., proved a powerful curb.

Rates for the wealthy were once much higher than they are today. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, for instance, he boosted the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. The top rate soared again, to more than 90%, during World War II. And when President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, a married couple was still paying a top marginal tax rate of 70% on every dollar earned over $215,400 – the equivalent of $730,000 today.

Reagan pushed to cut the top rate to 50% during his first year as president and to 28% in his second term. Since then, the top rate has moved in a fairly narrow band and currently stands at 37% for a couple with income above $693,750.

Meanwhile, Republican opposition to higher taxes of any kind remains staunch. Last week, Rep. Lisa C. McClain, R-Mich., argued with White House budget director Shalanda Young about how much the wealthy should pay, noting that the top 1% of earners paid 42% of all income taxes in 2020.

What is the number that the wealthy and the corporations would have to pay for you and this administration to feel like they paid their fair share?” McClain said. “We should be celebrating those people.”

For their part, Democrats have redefined what it means to be rich. Obama campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, which he defined as couples making less than $250,000 a year. But during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations in 2012, he and Biden, his vice president at the time, adjusted that definition to include couples making up to $450,000, a standard Biden has more or less adopted.

“The Republicans don’t want to tax anybody, and the Democrats don’t want to tax 98% of anybody,” said Michael Graetz, emeritus professor of tax law at Columbia University. “That’s where we are.”
So many falsehoods in there. Would take me quite the effort to put this in perspective.

"Taxing unrealize gains is just insane. The AMT 30 years ago used to do that and let me tell you, it's no fun paying taxes on money you haven't made yet..."

Stop your whining - those ISO's / RSU's set you up pretty well. ;)
 
"Taxing unrealize gains is just insane. The AMT 30 years ago used to do that and let me tell you, it's no fun paying taxes on money you haven't made yet..."

Stop your whining - those ISO's / RSU's set you up pretty well. ;)
Not whining, BUT when you exercised ISOs in the past and wanted to hold them for 1 year or more so you'd be taxed at the capital gains rate, they made you pay AMT on the "paper value you made" when you exercised them. I hadn't sold them so I hadn't made a cent.

To add insult to injury, I had to sell some immediately, which were taxed at my current income rate, not the current capital gain tax, to pay the damn AMT, reducing my future net. We had 10 years to exercise those options back then, and with the stock doubling every 3 years and splitting usually twice within those 10 years so we're talking some serious differentials between option price and current market price.

When they were sold, there was some recovery of the AMT paid, but not close to the initial screwing.
And stupid, honest me, back then, there was no real paper trail for anyone to find out if they were ISOs or normal stock options. Most of my colleagues never fessed up, but I did.

Like anyone, I hate paying taxes, but I feel less agita on paying them on my INCOME that I actually made, not the paper value of my holdings, which is always part of Bernie and Lizzie, tax plan 101.

Thank goodness "W" made some changes to the AMT tax code and I was finally able to recover those large "loans" I gave to the government.

That's OK, soon after the AMT law change my benevolent employer instituted a stock swap plan that let me get vengeance. If you swapped stock to exercise to pay for the non-ISOs, and the tax the exercise generated, they gave replacement options for the number of shares you used to pay for the exercise, priced at that day's market price, but expiring on the date of the original option grant.

When this was explained to me I immediately, "Is this a trick question or is that Free Money like it seems to me?" The response, which was delivered with a Cheshire Cat Grin, "You got it right!!"
 
Not whining, BUT when you exercised ISOs in the past and wanted to hold them for 1 year or more so you'd be taxed at the capital gains rate, they made you pay AMT on the "paper value you made" when you exercised them. I hadn't sold them so I hadn't made a cent.

To add insult to injury, I had to sell some immediately, which were taxed at my current income rate, not the current capital gain tax, to pay the damn AMT, reducing my future net. We had 10 years to exercise those options back then, and with the stock doubling every 3 years and splitting usually twice within those 10 years so we're talking some serious differentials between option price and current market price.

When they were sold, there was some recovery of the AMT paid, but not close to the initial screwing.
And stupid, honest me, back then, there was no real paper trail for anyone to find out if they were ISOs or normal stock options. Most of my colleagues never fessed up, but I did.

Like anyone, I hate paying taxes, but I feel less agita on paying them on my INCOME that I actually made, not the paper value of my holdings, which is always part of Bernie and Lizzie, tax plan 101.

Thank goodness "W" made some changes to the AMT tax code and I was finally able to recover those large "loans" I gave to the government.

That's OK, soon after the AMT law change my benevolent employer instituted a stock swap plan that let me get vengeance. If you swapped stock to exercise to pay for the non-ISOs, and the tax the exercise generated, they gave replacement options for the number of shares you used to pay for the exercise, priced at that day's market price, but expiring on the date of the original option grant.

When this was explained to me I immediately, "Is this a trick question or is that Free Money like it seems to me?" The response, which was delivered with a Cheshire Cat Grin, "You got it right!!"
Know all about it. And many folks like you said ignored the AMT. Reporting was spotty and wrong. Folks took advantage of that. Today it is much harder to "not pay your fair share".
 
More nukes. Same Kooks.

I'm sure it's typical spin to present this as "Biden Administration" does something sensible as opposed to 'they had no idea, but it's already in the regulations, so it just happened.'

Still, it's not a bad thing:

 
📱 Fish Smarter with the NYAngler App!
Launch Now

Latest articles

Back
Top