YOU WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT A STUPID IDEA IT IS TO IMPOSE ANNUAL “MARK-TO-MARKET” TAXATION ON CAPITAL GAINS ?
An opinion column in the Knox News goes over just a few of the most obvious reasons why taxing capital gains annually based on the market value of capital assets would create tremendous problems. The columnist dismisses the idea as a class warfare scheme that will go nowhere. I hope the columnist is right.
I note that the announcement has received little attention since it was made earlier this month (just in time for tax day). I predict that the promised explanation of how the idea would actually work will not be forthcoming, or if it is provided, will be ignored.
I like this concept. What they are selling is modular houses. They don’t say what the houses cost. They do give the price to rent a space to park one of the houses. I’m not sure if that price makes sense, compared to renting an apartment with similar amenities, but there is the benefit that you own the house and that it is relatively mobile, unlike most modular houses. We’ll see if this concept has any lasting appeal.
I have written in the past about the use of shipping containers to construct modular houses.
No kidding, there is a be kind to lawyers day, and it is today, the second Tuesday in April. Actually, it’s International Be Kind to Lawyers Day. I don’t why I hadn’t heard about it before. Read all about it at bekindtolawyers.com.
I could give you example after example of how taxation of unrealized capital gains would be (a) ineffective in accomplishing the stated objective of its proponent to "ensure wealthy pay their fair share," and (b) harmful to the economic well-being of millions of ordinary (non-wealthy) Americans. I'll come back to it if this proposal goes anywhere, which it should not, and probably will not.
Certainly not people who are clueless enough to say things like this:
Tokyo is one of the few cities in which supply has kept up with demand, keeping a crisis from developing. But that is due largely to deregulated housing policies that other countries would have a hard time reproducing.
Airplanes aren’t autonomous. More important, the public doesn’t think that they are.
Airplanes crash. So do cars. And yes, autonomous cars will crash. Just a lot less often than non-autonomous cars.
So why would two crashes involving one model of airplane undermine public confidence in autonomous cars?
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.