re: The "tax the rich" ideaology.

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

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.

quote:

---

can't just be tax the long term capital gains as ordinary income instead

---

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.

And most first world countries tax at a similar rate RIGHT NOW.


The dudes here love the evil about the rich folks. They admire the abilities to genocide nations all around the world over and over again.


These dudes lie to themselves so much to make it seem like they are good Christian people, when Jesus said the complete opposite.

They claim to be Christian but celebrate people losing health care, they claim Christianity but celebrate when dudes are killed by cops.


There is no reality in MAGA, it's based on living life believing that their personal evil and desire to oppress is making the world better when everything has gotten worse since Regan passed the dark money laws and and cut taxes.

Abd I'm sure a lot of these dudes are broke or middle class.

They participate in destroying themselves, watching the dude they worship destroy every system in place to make sure that criminals aren't running the world, and they are not benefitting from it at all.

MAGA folks are just bad people. How do you come to a conclusion that betters life for everyone when you have about 23-26% of the country that does not give a frick about facts or reality? When 26% of the country does not need proof to brag about something a lying arse dude said?

It's dudes on this website talking about the 2nd Amendment over Democrats winning elections in places a Republican hasn't won in 30-40 years. They see their own people now struggling because of Trump, a bunch of trump meat riders going against dude right now, they see a 32% approval rating which is the lowest 3VER for a president at this time in their presidency, ect.

They see all these things (maybe they don't see them because they get all their information from liars that benefit from the lies) and they talk like they finna start killing some shite if a dem wins the presidency or even local elections.

But y'all are the good guys that should be in charge of how the world operates right?

People who don't give a frick about facts and lie over and over again should be the folks running things right?

It's frickin pitiful

Yikes.

quote:

---

"Its for the Greater Good"

---

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.

So while he'd no doubt spew the "It's for the Greater Good" mantra, he'd look like a complete dumbass doing it.

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.

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".

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.

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.