JFK Assassination Forum

It was a choice between 2 scary looking candidates both of whom exhibited signs of suffering from delusions of grandeur and one making strange gestures while the other was laughing hysterically for no reason.

So I went with the crazy capitalist that likes gold and puts his name in big letters on everything , because he was the only one who promised to get the border under control and was saying “America First.”

The other crazy female candidate with hysterical laugher was promising to raise the capital gains tax to 40% which would wipe out my retirement income.

No, you went with the con artist who happens to be Vladimir Putin's favorite "useful idiot" (or worse).

Is your taxable income more than a million dollars per year?

If not, then Kamala's raising the capital gains tax to 28% (not to 40% which you mistakenly believe) wouldn't apply to you.

So, what it boils down to is that Kamala is a woman with a "crazy" laugh and you were misled by [fill in the blank].


ME: Did Kamala Harris promise to raise the capital gains tax to 40%?

No, Kamala Harris did not promise to raise the capital gains tax to 40%. She proposed increasing the top federal long-term capital gains rate to 28% for households with annual income over $1 million (from the current 20%), which is a more modest increase than in President Biden’s earlier budget proposals.

Key Details from Her Proposal

Core proposal: Tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at 28% (instead of ordinary income rates) for taxable income above $1 million.

This was announced in September 2024 and represented a softening from Biden’s FY2025 budget, which called for taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates (top rate 39.6%) for high earners.

Combined with the existing or proposed Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) of 3.8%–5%, the effective top federal rate on capital gains for the highest earners would be around 33% (or up to ~38% in analyses including certain interactions). State taxes could push combined rates higher in some places (e.g., over 40% in high-tax states), but the federal component she directly proposed was 28%.

Context and Comparisons

Current top federal long-term capital gains rate: 20% (plus 3.8% NIIT for high earners).

Historical note: Rates were near 40% in the late 1970s (pre-Reagan cuts), but Harris’s plan did not restore that.

Other elements: She also supported a billionaire minimum tax on unrealized gains for those worth $100 million+ (a narrow proposal from the Biden administration) and taxing unrealized gains at death above exemptions, but these are distinct from a broad 40% rate on realized gains.

Claims of a 40% (or higher) promise often stem from conflating her plan with Biden’s original budget, adding NIIT/state taxes, or referencing older Democratic proposals. Reliable analyses from sources like the Tax Foundation, CRFB, CNBC, and ITEP confirm the 28% figure as her stated position.

In short, the claim is not accurate—her public proposal was for a 28% rate on long-term capital gains for top earners.

ME: If the capital gains tax were raised to 28%, would it have had a negative effect on the retirement income of some people?

GROK: Yes, raising the long-term capital gains tax to 28% (as Harris proposed for households with taxable income over $1 million) would have a negative effect on the retirement income of some people.

Who Would Be Affected?

High-income retirees with substantial taxable brokerage accounts (not IRAs or 401(k)s) who realize large gains to fund spending. Example: A $100,000 long-term gain at the current 20% top rate nets $80,000 after tax. At 28%, it nets $72,000 — an 10% reduction in proceeds from the gain itself.

This requires selling more shares to maintain the same spending level, accelerating portfolio depletion over a long retirement.

Retirees near or above the $1 million income threshold in a given year (e.g., from a big stock sale, business exit, or concentrated positions). Combined with the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (potentially rising), the effective federal rate could reach ~31.8–33%.

Those in high-tax states, where state capital gains taxes (often ordinary income rates) could push combined burdens noticeably higher.

Ripple Effects

Higher taxable income from gains could make more Social Security benefits taxable, increase Medicare IRMAA surcharges, or trigger other phase-outs.

Reduced incentive for frequent rebalancing or realizations, potentially leading to less optimal portfolios or higher volatility exposure.

Indirect market effects: While modest, higher taxes on high earners could slightly dampen asset prices or returns over time, affecting all investors (including those in tax-advantaged accounts).

Who Would Likely See Little or No Direct Impact?

Most middle-class retirees whose total taxable income stays well below $1 million — they’d remain in the 0% or 15% long-term capital gains brackets.

Those relying primarily on Social Security, pensions, or traditional IRA/401(k) withdrawals (taxed as ordinary income regardless).
Users of Roth accounts (tax-free) or strategies like holding until death for step-up in basis.

Analyses (e.g., Tax Foundation) show the 28% proposal is targeted at high earners and would raise revenue mainly from them, with smaller dynamic economic drags compared to larger hikes.

Bottom line: At 28%, the direct hit is narrower and milder than a 40% rate, mostly affecting wealthier retirees with large taxable portfolios. Many average retirees using taxable accounts for supplemental income would still face modestly lower after-tax proceeds on realizations, making tax-efficient planning (e.g., asset location, Roth conversions, tax-loss harvesting) even more valuable.

ME: What about households with less than one million dollars of yearly taxable income?

For households with less than $1 million in yearly taxable income, the 28% capital gains rate would not apply. They would continue to pay the current long-term capital gains tax rates: 0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on their total taxable income.

Current Long-Term Capital Gains Brackets (2025)

These brackets are based on total taxable income (not just the gain amount):

0% rate: Single: Taxable income ≤ ~$48,350; Married filing jointly: ≤ ~$96,700

15% rate: Single: ~$48,351 to ~$533,400; Married filing jointly: ~$96,701 to ~$600,050

20% rate: Single: Over ~$533,400; Married filing jointly: Over ~$600,050

(The exact thresholds adjust annually for inflation.)

Harris’s proposal specifically targeted the top rate (replacing the 20% bracket) only for income above $1 million. Most households—even upper-middle-class ones with significant investment income—would see no direct change to their capital gains tax rate.

Potential Indirect or Minimal Effects

Very few retirees or households under $1M taxable income would face the higher rate. Even someone realizing a large one-time gain (e.g., selling a business or appreciated stock) would only pay 28% on the portion of income exceeding the $1M threshold. The rest of their gains would still qualify for the regular 15% or 20% rates.

Other tax interactions could still matter for those near the higher brackets:Large gains could push total income high enough to make more Social Security benefits taxable.

They might increase Medicare IRMAA premiums or trigger the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (which applies above ~$200K/$250K modified AGI, regardless of the proposal).

No broad impact on typical middle-class or even affluent retirees relying on taxable accounts, as long as their annual taxable income stays below $1 million.

In short: For the vast majority of households (well over 99% based on IRS data), Harris’s 28% proposal would have had zero direct effect on their retirement income from capital gains. The change was narrowly targeted at very high earners. Tax-efficient strategies like asset location, Roth accounts, and tax-loss harvesting would remain just as valuable as they are today.

Well the WC also said that the SBT was not necessary and we know that only four of seven members agreed with it. Russell, Cooper and Boggs disagreed with the SBT.

That means 4 of them figured it out and the other 3 didn't.

I was referring to the period after 1964 until after the HSCA report in 1978…

A lot has been learned since 1978. Most people hadn't even seen the Zapruder film by 1978. It was sometime in the latter 1980s that I first saw it.

I think you are forgetting about Russell, Cooper and Boggs and the Connallys plus the Secret Service agents whose views are collected in Gerald Blaine’s book: The Kennedy Detail.Well, one whole bullet and several fragments. But we also know that some fragments defelected up and struck high in the car and at least one fragment left the car.  We don’t know if any others left the car but that is certainly possible or even probable.
The WC thought the neck shot was close to z210 and concluded that he was already reacting behind the sign based on how he appears when he first appears in z225.

There is nothing in the WC conclusions that indicate they thought the shot was closer to Z210. They said it struck between Z210 and Z225. They were right about that.

JBC is not reacting in z222-z226 so they thought his reaction was delayed.

WRONG!!! JBC is most definitely reacting in Z226 when he starts flipping his right arm upward in perfect unison with JFK bringing his arms up. That up and down motion of his right arm lasted just a half second and was immediately followed by him doubling over and dipping to his right. In addition, JBC's right shoulder dips at Z225 and in Z224 his jacket bulges out noticeably. All these are indications he has just been shot.

Had the WC had modern technology and decades to study the Z-film, they might have picked up on these clues and been far more precise in their conclusions. As it was, the parameters they gave us were correct if not terribly precise.

I have.  You just don’t agree that it fits the medical evidence.

What you gave us was a cockamamie drawing that didn't come close to showing JBC's actual position at Z271. His head and shoulders were both rotated about 90 degrees more than what your drawing showed. Even with that manipulation, you still needed a magic bullet deflecting significantly to exit where it did. It was an absurd attempt. You had JBC turned to the front right in the general direction of Zapruder instead of rearward toward Oswald which is what he actually was at that frame. Let me see you produce a drawing that shows JBC in the position he was actually in at Z271 and then show us how the bullet could have entered JBC's back and exited from the right side of his chest. You won't because you can't.

.

You seem to think that it was a tumbling bullet that struck when JBC was facing forward but made a neat tunneling wound first along the fifth rib without damaging the adjacent muscles. After pulverizing the last 10 cm of rib, you think it then exited the chest passing through the chest and making a long ragged tear in the back if the cuff (but not the other side) and then made a nice round hole in the thigh in the direction of and along the femur.

Where are you getting your information? The entry wound on JBC's back was elongated almost the length of a Carcano bullet. The bullet had to be tumbling to make that kind of wound and the father/son Haas ballistics showed they a Carcano bullet will tumble after passing through ballistic gel as well as ballistic soap.

That scenario is the one that strains belief.

The WC scenario with a single bullet striking two men is the only explanation of the shooting that has stood the test of time. Any objections to it are easily refuted.

Jake and Elwood!! The Blues Brothers LOLZ

Deleted

Alex, nice to see you posting here. Can you comment on Groden's publishing of a clearly fake autopsy photo in his book "Absolute Proof" without him ever explaining its true nature? He lost a lot of credibility from the research community by doing this.

Yes, I've heard this is making the rounds again. Although I don't think he intended to depict it as a real autopsy photo, he words things so poorly sometimes that I'm not surprised there's a lot of confusion surrounding him. I definitely think he should've disclosed outright that it was a recreation, but for some reason, he chose instead to say that "This is what all the frames look like." The "looks like" is the most important part of that caption. Again, he should've worded it differently, but he chose not to for reasons unknown to me.

Hopefully that clears that up, or at least makes it die down for now. As much as I know Groden has done, said, and stole things that he shouldn't have, his photographic work is outstanding, and it's unfortunate that he has chosen to withhold most of it, and never release anything in good quality. I think the main issue with his books is that he comments on everything as if he knows all about it. I've come to take anything he says that's not related to the photographic evidence with a grain of salt, because most of it is, at best, misleading.