President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[Derec]

so what is the effective tax rate on a gain of 99 billion in one year for bezos... not amazon... bezos...

Same as the effective tax rate on any gains your assets experience before you sell them.
If you don't sell, it's just paper gains and losses. They are not income, and therefore not taxed. Duh!

 

[none]

so what is the effective tax rate on a gain of 99 billion in one year for bezos... not amazon... bezos...

Same as the effective tax rate on any gains your assets experience before you sell them.
If you don't sell, it's just paper gains and losses. They are not income, and therefore not taxed. Duh!

wow that is wonderful news now can you quantify it and answer my inquiry? Derec.

 

[Harry Bosch]

so what is the effective tax rate on a gain of 99 billion in one year for bezos... not amazon... bezos...

Same as the effective tax rate on any gains your assets experience before you sell them.
If you don't sell, it's just paper gains and losses. They are not income, and therefore not taxed. Duh!

wow that is wonderful news now can you quantify it and answer my inquiry? Derec.

There is no federal effective tax rate on a gain in assets in the US.

 

[ZiprHead]

LoL, from the gutter.. of course
Fuck, tax billionaires?
That sounds like robbery.... ETA: the generosity

The billionaires are already taxed on their income. What Warren, Wyden and Biden want is to tax any unrealized gain in their wealth. That would be a major change in US tax code.

And?

 

[ZiprHead]

so what is the effective tax rate on a gain of 99 billion in one year for bezos... not amazon... bezos...

Same as the effective tax rate on any gains your assets experience before you sell them.
If you don't sell, it's just paper gains and losses. They are not income, and therefore not taxed. Duh!

wow that is wonderful news now can you quantify it and answer my inquiry? Derec.

There is no federal effective tax rate on a gain in assets in the US.

No shit. Doesn't mean there can't be.

 

[Derec]

No shit. Doesn't mean there can't be.

Of course. Congress has broad taxation powers. But not unlimited powers - the legal opinions seem divided as to whether unrealized tax gains would be considered income under the 16th Amendment. If not, the tax would most likely be considered unconstitutional.

 

[Derec]

wow that is wonderful news now can you quantify it and answer my inquiry? Derec.

Quantify it?

 

[none]

wow that is wonderful news now can you quantify it and answer my inquiry? Derec.

Quantify it?

Good job.

 

[ZiprHead]

No shit. Doesn't mean there can't be.

Of course. Congress has broad taxation powers. But not unlimited powers - the legal opinions seem divided as to whether unrealized tax gains would be considered income under the 16th Amendment. If not, the tax would most likely be considered unconstitutional.

Property taxes are taxes on unrealized gains.

 

[Derec]

Property taxes are taxes on unrealized gains.

Wrong. They are taxes on total value of real property.
Doesn't matter though. There are no federal property taxes. They are local, and thus not subject to constitutional restrictions on federal taxes.

 

[none]

sounds like robbery to me..

 

[Harry Bosch]

No shit. Doesn't mean there can't be.

Of course. Congress has broad taxation powers. But not unlimited powers - the legal opinions seem divided as to whether unrealized tax gains would be considered income under the 16th Amendment. If not, the tax would most likely be considered unconstitutional.

Property taxes are taxes on unrealized gains.

Property is taxed because property on it's own is a drain on local resources. A house requires local water and sewer connections. A good community will protect it's houses with adequate policy and fire protection. Houses create little people that require education and all other kinds of services. You need roads and other infrastructure to get to a home. If I create a company in my garage and it appreciates in value, there is no local drain on resources. No one is hurt when someone creates paper worth as a company increases in value.

 

[lpetrich]

Manchin, Sinema meet with Biden aides as Democrats race on tax and spending package - The Washington Post - "Biden aides intensify meetings with two senators as they race to resolve a number of issues in giant tax and spending package."

Still not much more than rumors, however.

 

[ZiprHead]

Manchin, Sinema meet with Biden aides as Democrats race on tax and spending package - The Washington Post - "Biden aides intensify meetings with two senators as they race to resolve a number of issues in giant tax and spending package."

Still not much more than rumors, however.

Hoping there were boots and asses involved.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Details matter. ..." / Twitter

Details matter.

A lot of people don’t know what the “bipartisan” bill consists of (despite text) and why it’s critical that Build Back Better be paired with it.

Take climate. There is a LOT of oil and gas lobbyist spin about BIF, but deal is it’s climate negative. One example:

People will say “oh look at all this money in climate - like hydrogen energy!”

Well, not all hydrogen is the same. The H sources matter. There are 3 kinds: blue, green, and grey.

Green hydrogen is the good stuff: that hydrogen comes from water and helps us draw down emissions.

You know where Blue hydrogen comes from? Fracked gas. Blue hydrogen has worse emissions than coal, locks in more powerful climate destruction than what we’re doing now.

Blue is bad. (Grey too)

Guess which one bipar bill finances? Blue. So we need to mitigate that BIF alone harm

Passing BIF w/o BBB makes our emissions & climate crisis worse. Sure, some BIF investments do good - but not enough, so it keeps us in the emissions red.

As someone who actually has to live in the future being debated for us: BBB gives us a fighting chance. BIF alone buries us.

Now for folks who say “you need to compromise”: to start, I do not support blue hydrogen. I am against expanding it.

The compromise is allowing blue hydrogen w/ the drawdown provisions in BBB. Passing blue hydrogen alone without guaranteed drawdowns is not a compromise.

So for those who like to call folks like me naïve, immature, or that “I don’t know what I’m doing”- some of us actually read the text while others get hustled by spin.

Details matter. On climate, they’re life+death. So to do my job, I need more than an IOU. Not too much to ask.

There are so, so many details like these linking BIF & BBB.

We can’t just say “oh there’s X million for this!” Does X million actually get it done or is it half a bridge?

How many times has leg been rushed just for people to be resentful at details later? Let’s do this right.

Colored hydrogen?

• Grey, blue, green – the many colours of hydrogen explained | World Economic Forum
• Blue, green, gray: the colors of hydrogen
• The hydrogen colour spectrum | National Grid Group
• Hydrogen colours codes - H2 Bulletin

The color meanings:

• Black - produced by steam reforming from bituminous (black) coal: C
• Brown - produced by steam reforming from lignite (brown coal): C
• Gray - produced by steam reforming from natural gas (methane): CH4
• Blue - like the previous three, but with capture of resulting CO2
• Turquoise - pyrolysis of CH4: heating it until it disintegrates
• Green - production by electrolysis from renewable-energy electricity and H2O
• Pink - like green, but using nuclear-energy electricity
• Purple - like pink, but with assistance from nuclear-reactor heat
• Red - from cracking of H2O using nuclear-reactor heat
• Yellow - various sources (solar, nuclear, mixed)
• White - naturally-occurring hydrogen in the Earth's interior

The chemistry:

• Steam reforming of coal: C + 2H2O -> CO2 + 2H2
• Steam reforming of methane: CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2
• Pyrolysis: CH4 + heat -> C + 2H2
• Electrolysis: 2H2O + electricity -> O2 + 2H2

As AOC says, the "good" kind is "green" hydrogen, with electricity from renewable energy.

 

[lpetrich]

More and more rumors: Manchin, Sinema meet with Biden aides as Democrats race on tax and spending package - The Washington Post

Rep. Pramila Jayapal is holding firm:
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "Moving the infrastructure bill forward without the popular Build Back Better Act risks leaving behind working people, families, and our communities. That’s not a risk we can take.

These two bills must move together at the same time. (link)" / Twitter
She's the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

 

[Derec]

Dem hopes for infrastructure vote hit brick wall

The Fauxgressives are obstructing again. The infrastructure bill is written and already passed by the Senate. It could be on Biden's desk tomorrow if not for the Obstructionist Caucus. The entitlements bill is not even written yet. I do not see why we should wait until it is written to pass infrastructure.

 

[Derec]

As AOC says, the "good" kind is "green" hydrogen, with electricity from renewable energy.

The pink, purple, red and yellow hydrogens are very good too. The Left's ideological opposition to everything nuclear is a detriment to climate.
Blue and turquoise are not bad. Grey is still much better than black or brown.
AOC et al need to stop making the perfect be the enemy of good to very good.

 

[Derec]

Hoping there were boots and asses involved.

As long as the asses are connected to AOC and Pamila Whatsherface. They are the ones obstructing right now.

 

[lpetrich]

WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL?: A Panel Discussion with Progressive Leaders (REBROADCAST AT 8:00PM ET) - YouTube - Bernie Sanders, AOC, and some activists.

One of the participants mentioned  Billy Tauzin After being in the Louisiana House for 1973 - 1980, he ran for the US House.

For fifteen years, Tauzin was one of the more Conservative Democrats in the United States House of Representatives.[3] Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994 elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

(snipped: his running for LA Gov in 1987)

However, on August 8, 1995, Tauzin himself became a Republican and claimed that conservatives were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party.[4] He soon became a Deputy majority whip, becoming the first Congressman to have been part of the leadership of both parties in the House. Regardless of party, Tauzin remained popular at home. After 1980, he was reelected twelve more times without major-party opposition; the first nine of those completely unopposed.

Tauzin served as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee from 2001 until February 4, 2004 when he announced he wouldn't run for a 13th full term. ...

Then he had this career as a lobbyist:

In January 2005, the day after his term in Congress ended, he began work as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA.[6] a powerful trade group for pharmaceutical companies. Tauzin was hired at a salary outsiders estimated at $2 million a year. Five years later, he announced his retirement from the association (as of the end of June 2010).[1]

Two months before resigning as chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.[7] Democrats said that the bill was "a give-away to the drugmakers" because it prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Veterans Affairs agency, which can negotiate drug prices, pays much less than Medicare does. The bill was passed in an unusual congressional session at 3 a.m. under heavy pressure from the drug companies.[8][2]

As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key figure in 2009 health care reform negotiations that produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.[4]

Tauzin received $11.6 million from PhRMA in 2010, making him the highest-paid health-law lobbyist.[9] Since 2005, Tauzin has been on the Board of Directors at LCH Group.[10]