- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:48 pm to Powerman
The point of tax policy isnt to “soak” anyone
It’s to raise revenue
I do feel like many on the socialist left place higher importance on eliminating the rich rather than raising revenue for services
It’s to raise revenue
I do feel like many on the socialist left place higher importance on eliminating the rich rather than raising revenue for services
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:49 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
yes, and for a manager the be paid via carried interest, this is generally how it works.
It’s not a requirement though. The GP capital investment is more of an LP market ask so that the GP has skin in the game.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:50 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I mean I get it, but the proposal can't just be tax the long term capital gains as ordinary income instead. Youd have to eliminate the entire construct of the partnerships and only allow managed, custodial accounts.
No you wouldn’t.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:51 pm to riccoar
quote:
We already do dumbass.
No shite, dumbass.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:56 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:Sure it can. It is a fee. Not an investment return. As long as the originating money is trackable it can be taxed differentially as income. One could argue that if the money remains untouched in the fund over several years, it looks more like an investment than compensation, and perhaps could qualify for cap gains treatment. I'd not take that position, but I know it's been proposed.
can't just be tax the long term capital gains as ordinary income instead
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:57 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Should we not tax the rich?
Broad statements like this rarely lead to any quality discussion. I do the same thing though not singling you out.
Things like "the rich should pay their fair share" and others like "better/cheaper Healthcare" "better/cheaper Education" etc. aren't really controversial, but the methods R's and D's suggest using to achieve them are miles apart and are heavily debated.
On taxes, I personally believe in the Laffer curve concept. There is a certain point where people become over-taxed. In our modern, remote-work world, that usually means rich people GTFO instead of suffering higher taxes. I also believe most of tax the rich logic boils down to "this guy has more money so we have more money to take" which is flawed imo.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Sure it can. It is a fee. Not an investment return. As long as the originating money is trackable it can be taxed differentially as income. One could argue that if the money remains untouched in the fund over several years, it looks more like an investment than compensation, and perhaps could qualify for cap gains treatment. I'd not take that position, but I know it's been proposed.
Not what i'm arguing, because they very much are not fees. It is profit sharing by every legal definition. My point is the "solution" can't just be we are going to treat something as a guaranteed fee, even though it isn't guaranteed. That would be a stupid solution. That is why the 2-3% fee they are charged is taxed as ordinary income, because it is a guaranteed fee. The rest of their compensation is based around their partnership interest.
So, if we want to eliminate the fund manager from being eligible to have a partnership interest in the fund, that is fine, but that has its drawbacks too. They can work more like an investment banker and just charge flat fees.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:05 pm to Cashout
Yikes.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:09 pm to Trevaylin
quote:Except what the poster is clueless about, amongst several things in that post, is that effective tax rates following the 1980's tax reform actually INCREASED for the Top 1% over those associated with Jimmy Carter's 70% top bracket versions.
"Its for the Greater Good"
So while he'd no doubt spew the "It's for the Greater Good" mantra, he'd look like a complete dumbass doing it.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:12 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:As is anyone's in a partnership.
The rest of their compensation is based around their partnership interest.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:13 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
My point is the "solution" can't just be we are going to treat something as a guaranteed fee, even though it isn't guaranteed. That would be a stupid solution.
Taxing it as ordinary income would not be treating it as guaranteed though.
quote:
So, if we want to eliminate the fund manager from being eligible to have a partnership interest in the fund, that is fine
I don’t know why you’d have to do that.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:20 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
It’s not a requirement though.
Eh, while the IRS has been in their typical fashion of giving lots of variables and never one concrete standard, but IRS guidelines generally expect a GP to maintain a 1% interest in each item of parternship income/gain/loss/deduction etc. There is some nuance in there and some contradictions in their guidelines, and carve outs for fund size specifics. It does not specify the method to achieve that 1%, many use a waiver of their fee, but it generally is required to some degree and has been
quote:
The GP capital investment is more of an LP market ask so that the GP has skin in the game.
I mean, I think it is far more beneficial to discuss how things work in practice, than just theory so if the guidelines from the IRS and general market are having them have skin in the game to be eligible to be a GP and thus receive compensation via carried interest, that is how we should address things.
If you want your proposal to require a % capital contribution of the GP in order to be eligible for carried interest instead of fee income, and it can't be a waiver of their normal fee, i'm open to that discussions. However just saying we are going to tax one partner higher than the other partners is not a valid or good proposal.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
As is anyone's in a partnership.
I understand that, which is why singling out one partner and treating them different isn't a valid proposal to address the claimed "loophole".
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:22 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Also, I’m still waiting for you to point out where I mentioned something about 1% loans.
That was the other far left wackos. Yall seem the same so I get you mixed up.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:25 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Eh, while the IRS has been in their typical fashion of giving lots of variables and never one concrete standard, but IRS guidelines generally expect a GP to maintain a 1% interest in each item of parternship income/gain/loss/deduction etc. There is some nuance in there and some contradictions in their guidelines, and carve outs for fund size specifics. It does not specify the method to achieve that 1%, many use a waiver of their fee, but it generally is required to some degree and has been
But that doesn’t relate to their carried interest.
quote:
I mean, I think it is far more beneficial to discuss how things work in practice, than just theory so if the guidelines from the IRS and general market are having them have skin in the game to be eligible to be a GP and thus receive compensation via carried interest, that is how we should address things. If you want your proposal to require a % capital contribution of the GP in order to be eligible for carried interest instead of fee income, and it can't be a waiver of their normal fee, i'm open to that discussions. However just saying we are going to tax one partner higher than the other partners is not a valid or good proposal.
But again, the IRS “requirement” doesn’t relate to carried interest.
I don’t agree with the way that you’re characterizing it. You’re not taxing one partner more than another with respect to their at-risk Capital.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
That was the other far left wackos. Yall seem the same so I get you mixed up.
So, as someone who admittedly doesn’t read well, and confuses one poster for another, is it possible that you’re mistaken with respect to categorizing me as “far left”? What makes you think that I am?
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:29 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
By the way, the LP market ask for skin in the game also doesn’t have anything to do with carried interest. It because they want to know that the GP is facing the same risks that they are with respect to their capital.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:29 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
So, as someone who admittedly doesn’t read well, and confuses one poster for another, is it possible that you’re mistaken with respect to categorizing me as “far left”? What makes you think that I am?
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:29 pm to Mo Jeaux
You’re not far left. But you are left.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News