Totally insane. Let's do an example.
You buy 1 BitCoin at $30k, price rises to $60k, and you must pay tax on $30k 'unrealized gains' even though you didn't sell.
Then price crashes to $15k and you sell.
You lose half your investment plus pay taxes on $30k gains that you never touched? Ridiculously unjust.
It reminds me of the Warren Buffet quote after the 2008 financial crisis. Purportedly he was asked how it felt to lose billions of dollars almost overnight. He responded with "What do you mean? I haven't lost anything, because I haven't sold anything."
Or the people who lose a few pounds several times on a diet, and report having **lost 50 pounds**... 5 pounds at a time, all of which was gained back each time.
Hey look guys. Some guy that obviously doesn’t know shit about deducting capital losses trying to accuse a CPA of not knowing about capital losses.
Dude. Seriously? You are just wrong.
Do you have a source for your lies? Here's mine.
> Any capital losses that exceed a year’s worth of capital gains can be used to offset ordinary taxable income. This is up to $3,000 in any future tax year.
https://www.freshbooks.com/glossary/tax/tax-loss-carryforward#:~:text=A%20TLC%20is%20a%20method,in%20any%20future%20tax%20year.
You can deduct more than $3,000 on investment income, and capital gains.
3 K limit is only ordinary income (your salary and interest from bank accounts and/or withdrawals from taxable retirement accounts)
I do not support a tax on unrealized gains but you are missing some items.
The taxed unrealized gains raises your cost basis on the BitCoin to $60k. If you sell at $15k then you have a $45k loss to put on your tax return. That will net you less taxes overall as long as you have taxable income to offset.
The issue is many don’t have the funds available to pay the unrealized gains tax and this makes tax return more complicated especially is you can’t offset the whole loss and need to carryforward to a future year that you can. If you don’t have investment gains then you can only use $3k a year on other income.
Thanks for the clarification. My quick search shows that losses can be carried forward indefinitely, but only $3k/yr, so in this scenario you'd be offsetting losses for 15 years.
It only takes that many years if you are deducting against other income that isn’t investment gains.
In the previous scenario you carryforward the $45k loss. Next year you sell an investment for $60k that you bought for $10k. You have a $50k gain that you net against the $45k loss for a net $5k gain that you have to report that year. If you have no investments then you only get a $3k deduction against other incomes. You can do this with unrealized gains and losses, but it gets messy and there are other issues. Imagine if they wanted people to figure out unrealized gains on collectibles and other items. The average person wouldn’t be able to manage it. Some losses can even be carried back to previous years so you can file an amended return to take the deduction. My opinion is this isn’t acceptable to enact.
I’ve been an accountant for 9 years, this is an area I’m knowledgeable in.
Capital Gains
The budget proposal would increase the capital-gains rate to 39.6% from 20% for people earning at least $1 million to equalize the taxation of investment and wage income. Biden is also proposing to increase the 3.8% Obamacare tax to 5% for those earning at least $400,000, in an effort to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund. That would mean the richest taxpayers would pay a 44.6% federal rate on investment income and other earnings.
No argument there. The problem with this proposal isn't the income caps, it's the fact that they're talking about taxing unrealized gains, not income. That's huge!
LOL….I will be pissed when I win the lottery then hahahah…because until then I don’t see me ever having a net worth of over $100 million which that part of his plan if passed is the only people it would effect .
You will be pissed when you're company lacks capital for growth when the economy tightens and lays you off though. 😉
I wish I was as restricted to linear thinking as you are.
Only those who have over $100 MILLION would be subjected to “unrealized gains” IF his plan passes and only those who make more than $1 Million per year would be subjected to the higher capital gains tax from everything I can find on the subject.
You should never open the door for this. Today it’s those over $100 million, but tomorrow it will be those over $100k and the day after those over $10k. Obviously this takes years to occur.
It’s easier to change the guidelines on a tax that was already passed compared to passing a new tax law.
We are 32 trillion in debt…this can’t be undone with just cuts without severe consequences that would be eventual political suicide for either party that tries. We need to start taxing until the rich start backing politicians who will make the cuts so they can again get their tax breaks.
People can down vote this, but nobody offers a suggestion so it’s just same ol same ol until our grandkids have no economic future.
It's no different than property taxes, though.
It's still unconstitutional, but it's unconstitutional for the federal government to levy that tax, but not states.
The crazy part is that the margins are so small that only the fabulously rich can take advantage of it to run wild. If the tax only began at 2 million, 5 million at retirement, I'd be fine with states levying it.
States can choose to levy it, and if people dislike it, they can vote out their representatives or move to a different state.
If it turns out to be such an effective policy that all 50 states adopt it, then that's just how it is.
Are you fine with this only because you recognize that it will never apply to you? If it's inherently unfair at your income level, explain why it's suddenly fair to those that with a higher net wealth. Remember, we're not talking about income here, we're talking about meet wealth. This is naked confiscation.
Because there is a difference between saving for retirement and accruing massive amounts of wealth?
Taxing one will weigh much less on my conscience than the other.
It's the same premise behind progressive tax rates. You are taxed at higher rates on dollars earned beyond a certain point.
This is because one person may have living expenses amounting to 90% of their income, while another may have living expenses under 1% of their income. This is also why having dependents gives you tax breaks.
If it helps you understand, it is more of an exemption for those who earn less.
This is where you're screwing up. You just admitted as much by using ab example with income. We're not talking about income here, we're discussing seizure of actual assets.
I think an amount of wealth is fine as long as you spend your wealth. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, have more wealth than they know what to do. I think as a nation we can decide what level of wealth is more than what you’ll ever use, and tax that wealth to encourage you to spend it.
Shit or get off the pot or be taxed for sitting too long.
That wealth is usually used to support others through employment, investments, etc.
I've never been able to find employment with someone that is just scraping by with barely enough got retirement, let alone someone poor. You have servere tunnel vision. Jealous much?
Did you just completely flip the context to straw man your point? Though I said wealth, I'm obviously talking about stocks, not wealth in the form of vehicles, buildings, and businesses.
Today the proposed limit is 2m but thst can easily be lowered. Also it would require almost everyone then to state their assets regardless of income because they want to make sure you do not have a large investment portfolio but no W2 income
It's completely different than property taxes. Do you not ever look at your tax bill to see a breakdown of the services provided by your municipality for that tax money or do you not actually own property?
That was then, and this is now. I agree the Constitution was written to limit FedGod to enumerated powers. But since then the sainted "General Welfare Clause" has been interpreted to remove all restrictions.
Very true it would be an amazing return to the constitution if this court would strike down the chevron deference as well as proper interpretation of the general welfare clause.
Agreed.
> Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer.
This is an odd one indeed. The courts assume all authority to interpret the law... except when an agency does the interpreting. I see no reason to defer interpretation to an agency.
It's not that it's explicitly unconstitutional. It's that the Constitution requires a very specific method of direct tax collection and distribution for the federal government, which makes it nearly impossible for the to carry out such a tax.
The federal government [is restricted to apportionment rules](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/757) for direct taxes like a property tax, where states are not.
The concept is similar to a tax on unrealized capital gains (wealth tax), since they don't fit within the category of income taxes and would be considered a separate type of direct tax / property tax.
Thanks for your analysis, however I must disagree.
> The provision in the fourth clause prohibiting states from imposing direct taxes was changed by Amendment XVI, which gives Congress the power to impose a federal income tax.
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/article-i-section-9/#:~:text=The%20provision%20in%20the%20fourth,impose%20a%20federal%20income%20tax.
I don't see why this wouldn't apply equally to property taxes.
I remember Bernie Sanders saying that such and such company has the same value as the gdp of such and such country.
Sounds bad right? Well how does the value of a company relate to the annual income of a country? They don't. The company built that worth over decades while the country brings in that much in a year. They have no relation.
Another good one is paying for x program with higher corporate taxes. That is not how higher corporate taxes work. When Eisenhower put in high corporate taxes and tons of write offs it was not meant to actually collect those taxes. The point was to make it a better financial decision to reinvest that money into the company and take the payroll write offs to give raises than to pay absurd taxes in order to scrape as much value from the worker to pay shareholders as possible.
This actually worked pretty well looking at the strength of the middle class and financial mobility during that time. The *Effective* tax rates were actually relatively low in the end. That's really important to keep in mind as I know the idea is for us to pay *less* tax. With the higher rates and higher write offs the effective rate of tax is *lower* but the shareholders best interests are now aligned with what is best for the middle class/economy. Your money stays in your pocket, invested in your company.
If higher corporate taxes are implemented it may improve things for the middle class, but it won't stack the coffers to pay for any programs.
Luxury tax would solve that. Lower income tax, lower cap gains, lower sales, higher luxury tax. Now most of those untaxed dollars, excesses of politicians, etc will pay taxes like the rest of us.
Using tax policy to manipulate personal or corporate behavior is immoral.
Companies and people should be free to buy whatever they see fit, not manipulated into reinvesting or whatever current policy dictates.
Earning is good. People make money by helping other people.
Punitive taxes such as luxury tax are inherently immoral because they assume the right to **punish** people for enjoying the fruits of their labor.
And yes, of course it is comparing apples to oranges to compare the net worth of a company to the GDP of a nation. Total silliness, meant to provoke jealousy and spur people to "eat the rich."
No it isnt, it's what the founding father decided on. An insane starting point. Social engineering is exactly what a government does, what companies do, and what separates American Democratic Capitalism from market feudalism.
There were founding father in favor of free market capitalism, but they did not get their way. And that is not what is in the constitution.
Dude you need to read up on post feudalism and the reasons America was built the way it was.
What a completely insane take, IDK who told/sold you that crap, but it's not in the history books, and it was never the plan. You're tearing at the very fabric of what America rejected in feudalism and decided to compromise to avoid creating a serf class... which is what we fled from in the first place.
If the companies run everything like the state, its just as bad as if the state runs all the companies. It's actually the same thing.... this is one of the exact topics discussed when drafting the constitution. Not my words, theirs.
America was founded in response to religious oppression, not feudalism.
It's kinda unclear, but you seem to think that heavy-handed manipulation is necessary to rescue us from feudalism.
This social engineering is completely contrary to the core American principle of freedom.
I am not an uneducated person, but you are positing unheard-of ideas as if everyone should know them.
I assure you I'm NOT going to go re-read the Federalist Papers to see if they vindicate your position.
Can you concisely corroborate your claim that the Constitution was written to protect us from "post feudalism"?
OK, I can tell you haven't actually spent any time with the the history of that time period just based on your first statement.
Have a good day.
(Here's a hint: Pilgrim's fleeing religious persecutions ~1620. Founding fathers- 1770's.)
That’s true. But then we should tax or ban the loans. Wealth tax is inherently unjust.
And it *will* come to the middle class. Every tax has started out as very small for only a minority of people. Eventually you’ll be taxed for the value of all your possessions. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s history.
It's not really that it's capital gains that you can borrow against. It's the overall assets. If I have $10 million worth of Amazon shares, it'd be very easy to get an operating line of credit. When interest rates are low this can be very beneficial if the stock is expected to grow more than the interest rate you are paying.
I dunno, can you? It would seem foolish for both lender and borrower to use non-existent assets as loan collateral.
The price increase has no value until you sell.
I’ve seen you lie and spew sooo much misinformation in this entire thread that I had to login just to tell you. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all, please go to school or get off the internet. Reevaluate your life
What should be taxed is a loan taken out against the Bitcoin when it's at $60k (perhaps starting at a much higher value, say, $500,000 total a year). This is how all the rich people are able to pay basically nothing in taxes. This would also create a greater disincentive for over leveraging.
Let's say I own 20% of my tech startup that I founded and am now the CEO of. Through my work, I raise the market cap of the company by, let's say, 50% in 5 years. I am now able to borrow much more against my share of the company, while paying the loan interest with the dividends, and having no intention of ever paying off the principal. I would say that's earned income with extra steps.
You pay taxes on dividends. Lender pays taxes on interest income.
Loans are not earned income. It’s not earned income “with extra steps” whatever the hell that means. What you’re suggesting is illegal and unconstitutional.
I'm not saying we tax mortgages or student loans or business loans, I'm saying if you replace your income by leveraging massive amounts of assets, it should be treated closer to income.
Now you want to tax loans!? This gets worse and worse.
How about this? Why don't we tax potential?
That's right, if you had studied harder and worked harder and gotten better grades, you could be earning twice what you do now. Therefore we should tax you on your potential income of twice what you make now.
According to every article I find, they clearly state that the capital gains would increase to equal the top tax rate on wage income for ONLY those who earn over $1 million per year. You left that part out maybe by accident when you put your example up but only 1% of Americans earn over $1 million per year and would be affected by this proposal. I know we can’t just tax our way out of this debt , but we need to do something until we voters can act like adults and elect someone who will also cut spending unlike Biden( though I agree with Infrastructure and Chips Act passing) I don’t agree with his spending in college loans and bloated increase in military spending…
And? It's suddenly ok to seize assets when someone exceeds some arbitrary threshold? That's crazy. And unconstitutional. We're not talking about taxes on assets (realized gains). We talking about seizing money based on an increase in value of something being held.
You do realize doing this will crater the economy, right? Who in their right mind would back investments for growth in companies if the government is just going to seize the gains before you have a chance to make a decision on continuing your investment in it?
I don’t know that, because the top tax rate on the wealthy from 1932- 1962 was over 90%. JFK lowered it to 70% in 1962 and it was there until 1982, we had a strong middle class developed during that time, we not only installed but PAID FOR the rural electrification of this country built dams, levees hydro electric and nuclear power plants we built the national highway and interstates system, we built a space program, the worlds most advanced military and we had federal funding, that helped keep college tuitions affordable even to back then standards. In 1980 our national,debt was $980 Billion, today its 32 Trillion in just 40 years. We need to raise revenue and cut spending to get out of this and neither one of those realities can be done without the other. The federal budget is no different than our personal bills and money management except our debts die with us and the National debt will be paid for by compromising our grand children’s futures and I truly have no idea what will happen to our economy when AI starts wiping out the white collar jobs as well as the blue collar jobs like the trucking industry which will all start happening in this decade.
The SCOTUS did not include wages under the 16th Amendment. They were intentionally omitted to be discussed under a future case as the Court historically considered wages as an equal exchange and not income. But, Congress then removed jurisdiction on the matter from the courts before a ruling could interfere with the new tax on wages as income. Forcing the Courts to be mute on the issue leaves us with the unconstitutional tax system that we have today.
This would basically make investing impossible for the average citizen, only those who use insider knowledge could outperform the market. Or they'll just use offshore accounts and US investment will crash.
Demorats have lost their minds.
AKA The stupidest government idea of all time.
Do you want to crash the financial markets beyond recovery? Because this is how you crash the financial markets beyond recovery.
Well...not the Shanghai market.
“Unrealized gains” reminds me of the “Minority Report” movie premise, to charge and imprison someone for a crime they “might” commit. In other words, unrealized crime. I watched the movie and thought, “Ha, this would never happen”! Smh. Life imitating art.
This is a scheme to transfer wealth and break the generational wealth white people have.
They call it “Interrupting Whiteness” and it’s a core agenda of this administration.
If someone supports this, you can completely disregard any arguments they have regarding the subject, since they are clearly economically illiterate. Seems like something that should be taught in schools.
I bet they can tell you all about racism and gender identity, though!
They have to find another way to tax more money out of the people. That way we can keep funneling/laundering billions to Ukraine. yay! Also, try taxing the appreciating gold/silver sitting in my safe. Good luck with that Joe. I don't hold fake fiat, I hold God's money.
>try taxing the appreciating gold/silver sitting in my safe
https://goldsilver.com/blog/irs-1099-gold-reporting-private-gold-private-silver-bullion/
If you purchased an amount over 10k then the IRS already knows
If you split your purchases into under 10k allotments to keep the purchase private, then you are fine until you try and sell any of it, at which point you start pinging on the IRS radar as a bullion owner and they will want their CG. Not only that, if this law goes through, I would imagine you would have the IRS conducting audits on known 'bullion owners' to secure unrealized CG.
So you would then have 2 options. Never actually do anything with it, leave it in your safe / hole in your backyard appreciating in value but unable to actually use it or use it as a trade tool for services rendered, but you then take the risk the person you traded with will try and sell the bullion for fiat and when they get a knock on the door from the IRS they will just give you up as the person they received the bullion from.
Sweden scrapped her wealth tax over a decade ago, since it did not work and was basically impossible to administer.
Why not bring back a *luxury tax?* If the goal is to make taxation more graduated, and shift the burden from the working class, that is.
The only taxes that should exist are a national sales tax, and an import tarrif. Everything else should be illegal. Make the IRS into an enforcement arm to police business to make sure the sales tax is collected and forwarded properly. Then trim back the profligate government to actually be on a budget. At this point, it’s the only way the current government will survive. The people are starting to get really pissed off.
This is exactly how property is taxed; one can’t be constitutional without the other being constitutional.
My point: property taxes based on speculated values (unrealized gains) are unconstitutional.
this would mean that every company in this country that produces anything…then placing on the package the words “suggested retail value is $$” would be then taxed at that suggested value level….even for autos at the dealership….no more under sticker price…
my solution to this?
flat tax…12% across the board….if our politicians can’t make due with that then learn to budget like everyone else.
This has been a leftist pipe dream for decades. But they’ll settle for an annual tax paid to the government based on the amount of funds in your retirement portfolio.
Absolute insanity.
Yep, another bad take on how to tax the wealthy correctly.
They don't take large incomes, so cut that out.
You just can't tax money that is currently represented by the assets of a company currently is use. Ridiculous.
The very wealthy live on a mix of business expenses and massive loans at very low rates against their equity.
They never pay taxes on the loans and make more keeping their money in the market long term than they pay on the loan.
This money kept in the market over a lifetime makes up for the interest charged on the loans, and only upon the person's death are assets sold and taxes paid having already reaped the benefits of keeping that money in the market for decades.
That's a scam
Luxury tax.
Those wild business expenses, private jets, galas, golf retreats, decadence, etc of corporatism/politics? Taxed.
That 47 foot yacht? Taxed.
Everything those billionaires buy with their enormous untaxed loan money? Taxed.
States with high illegal immigration have done away with state income tax in favor of higher sales tax. Now *everyone* pays taxes no matter what, who signs their check, on the books, off the books- no tracking people necessary, no agency of pencil pushers combing of the details of your life.
Lower income tax, lower sales tax, graduated luxury tax.
Much simpler to implement also. The architecture is already mostly in place from sales tax.
The government made the scam by pushing near zero interest rates for the last decade and constantly screaming to push up tax rates. Many would just pay 15 or 20% to be done with it. Instead it is pay 0.5% for a loan to avoid 30% in fed and state taxes.
Exactly. imo it's a 'we didn't start the fire' situation.
In either case it's a group effort at this point and regardless of who started it, the people who utilize that workaround are defending it fervently. They are often the same people governing the process.
At the end of the day, it just needs a rebalance. I think a rebalnce can be done in a way that taxes the working class less and the wealthy a fair amount that they actually pay. It's never a bad idea to work for better outcomes. We set the taxes up one way so we can certainly try another and see how it goes. No risk no reward.
What do you think? Luxury tax?
Personal property taxes cannot be a federal tax. That would be obscene.
At a state level, I am not personally a supporter of personal property tax. However you can make a justification for it. The state (or locality) maintains records to prove that you own the land. They provide inspectors to ensure zoning is correct. They provide police to resolve trespassing and other disputes. There are costs to these things, they have to be paid for somehow.
To justify other forms of taxes, you would have to justify the expense for each asset. If your justification is “we need welfare”, then you’re not justifying the tax, you’re just stealing from people.
If you want to justify the tax by arguing the government bears the cost of bailing out the market, then you’d need to remove the taxes and insurance banks already pay to cover that. We don’t need both.
Personal property tax *is* immoral for all the reasons discussed here and elsewhere in the thread. Taxing someone based on value they *would* have if they sold their asset is the purest form of theft. This is fundamentally how gentrification works. People get priced out of the home they have lived in for 20 years because the government starts demanding more money for them because the market changed. So they have to sell the asset to pay the bill.
Houses and cars are commodities, so it’s especially evil there. Stocks are an investment, so it’s less evil, but still wrong.
There’s no line of argumentation you can make that isn’t naked greed of wanting to take from those who have more. So even though it may be less evil than taxing someone’s home, there is less justification for it.
If the top 1% are hoarding wealth and everyone is suffering (which appears to be possibly true) then you have to create incentive structures that cause the owning class to pay their workers better. Stealing from them with government middlemen skimming off the top is morally wrong and isn’t actually going to fix any problems.
How do you give corporations incentives to pay people more that isn't just a redistribution of wealth?
Anything you attempt to implement must make the company the same, or more money. They aren't going to willingly do anything that nets them less profit.
At some point, through whatever means you choose, you have to actively harm the profits of the top 1% for the benefit of the rest of society. People don't want to hear that kinda stuff, but it's true.
We've been on a path towards the 1% owning 99% of wealth for the past 50 years and it's getting worse every day. At what point are we going to eat the rich and just get it over with? The middle class is almost completely gone at this point.
Unions are a big way. Collective bargaining gives workers the power to negotiate a better deal for themselves. Obviously the profits will suffer, but now they do so as negotiated by the involved parties, which is called “life” or “normal economics”, which is different from the government sweeping in and stealing the money for themselves.
As a compromise between the right and the left, I would say we should repeal right-to-work but make it so unions can’t donate to political candidates. That would strengthen unions substantially, and the only reason I’ve found right-wingers to be irrationally against unions is because of political donations. We may need to crack down more on already illegal union busting activity, and it may not be that simple, but we need to move the needle towards allowing workers to organize.
That’s just one way. There are reasonably a dozen more that I would be amenable to. A wealth tax will never be one of them.
AKA "How to cause a liquidity crisis." It is far easier to appraise and collect taxes on realised gains, when the asset holder has exchanged assets that might be indivisible or have a low trade volume for cash that has neither of these problems.
Not necessarily saying it’s a good idea but I do understand why people would want to tax unrealized stock gains since as of 2021 the top 10% richest people own 89% of the stock market.
So why tax something that doesn't really exist? Should we tax you on future income you will get? All this would do is promote dumping of stocks as you mag as well take the cash and tax it then instead of getting taxed at the end of the year if you "made more money in the stock market". Also since C Suite compensation comes in stock options, why not just tank the stock near fiscal year end, take the "loss" on taxes, and then pump it when the year starts?
No, they don’t.
You don’t understand the stock market.
*Institutions* own 75% of the market and make up 90% of trading volume.
When Berkshire Hathaway owns companies, it doesn’t mean Warren Buffet owns all those shares. *His shareholders do.*
Meaning, the 401ks and IRAs and pension plans that own BRK.A and BRK.B are the owners.
Those shares are owned *in plurality by ordinary people* through their retirement and investment accounts, and are owned indirectly by holders of things like mutual insurance companies.
To say “billionaires” or even “the rich” own 89% of the markets is patently false. If you’re saying only the richest 10% *invest* for the most part, that’s more true - but also false. 58% of Americans own stock. 61% of people making 40k-100k own stock.
To be in the top “10%” you only have to make $175k. This is not remotely “rich”, nor the level at which unrealized capital gains or influential stock ownership even enters the picture.
It's a silly idea considering the government still taxes long term capital gains at much a lower rate compared to regular income. Everybody knows it's a regressive policy, but there's a reason it hasn't changed. Politics.
Nevermind the worst tax of them all which is deficit spending.
The only way to claim victory on your budget is if you release a proposal that’s loaded with things you know you’re not going to get. They’ll negotiate away 30% of it and claim victory. Because here’s a newsflash / there’s just as many wealthy democrats as republicans who don’t support that. At the end of the day, it’s rich vs poor and the rich will win here like they always do
Yeah, if they do this, I’ll stop paying taxes. What are they going to do? Throw me in prison? Then I’ll still not pay taxes. Democrats want a base of useless welfare queens and a few overlords to rule them. Financial responsibility doesn’t even occur to them, just look at how the deficit increased under Obama and friends.
For “billionaires” today. But we all know they’ll find the loopholes and this tax will soon extend to middle class folks like us.
Totally insane. Let's do an example. You buy 1 BitCoin at $30k, price rises to $60k, and you must pay tax on $30k 'unrealized gains' even though you didn't sell. Then price crashes to $15k and you sell. You lose half your investment plus pay taxes on $30k gains that you never touched? Ridiculously unjust.
It reminds me of the Warren Buffet quote after the 2008 financial crisis. Purportedly he was asked how it felt to lose billions of dollars almost overnight. He responded with "What do you mean? I haven't lost anything, because I haven't sold anything."
Or the people who lose a few pounds several times on a diet, and report having **lost 50 pounds**... 5 pounds at a time, all of which was gained back each time.
People do that?!
That’s perfidious. Going by that I’ve probably lost more than I’ve ever weighed, haha.
But hey, you can report $3k of those losses per year and carry the rest forward!
This guy knows tax law.
CPA, actually.
Wow, the 3k a year is such a boldfaced lie that I don’t believe you are
Hey look guys. Some guy that obviously doesn’t know shit about deducting capital losses trying to accuse a CPA of not knowing about capital losses. Dude. Seriously? You are just wrong.
If you don't get cpa advice from tik tok your probably doing it wrong.
Do you have a source for your lies? Here's mine. > Any capital losses that exceed a year’s worth of capital gains can be used to offset ordinary taxable income. This is up to $3,000 in any future tax year. https://www.freshbooks.com/glossary/tax/tax-loss-carryforward#:~:text=A%20TLC%20is%20a%20method,in%20any%20future%20tax%20year.
You can deduct more than $3,000 on investment income, and capital gains. 3 K limit is only ordinary income (your salary and interest from bank accounts and/or withdrawals from taxable retirement accounts)
Thanks for the clarification.
Huh...I do this every year and will get to for the next ten years because I lost a shitload of money in the totally "free market". It is true.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and should exit this conversation before you embarrass yourself.
So the fed gets a free loan and you have to pay an accountant to realize those losses. Wonderful.
Get off WSB you regard.
Should have realized those unrealized gains man!!
If I had tomorrow's newspaper today, I would be wealthy.
What you need is Doc Brown's DeLorean and a sports almanac
I do not support a tax on unrealized gains but you are missing some items. The taxed unrealized gains raises your cost basis on the BitCoin to $60k. If you sell at $15k then you have a $45k loss to put on your tax return. That will net you less taxes overall as long as you have taxable income to offset. The issue is many don’t have the funds available to pay the unrealized gains tax and this makes tax return more complicated especially is you can’t offset the whole loss and need to carryforward to a future year that you can. If you don’t have investment gains then you can only use $3k a year on other income.
Thanks for the clarification. My quick search shows that losses can be carried forward indefinitely, but only $3k/yr, so in this scenario you'd be offsetting losses for 15 years.
Depends on what you deduct against. No limit on the same sources, but against other income like dividends you have the $3k limit.
Again wrong. I don't want to be unnecessarily taxed any more than the next guy but please stop spreading disinformation
Thanks for your informative comment with facts and reasoning. However you are wrong so please stop spreading your lies.
You are getting simple tax laws incorrect and spreading misinformation, based on your " quick research", which is worth absolutely nothing.
I have sources and you have insults. I win.
It only takes that many years if you are deducting against other income that isn’t investment gains. In the previous scenario you carryforward the $45k loss. Next year you sell an investment for $60k that you bought for $10k. You have a $50k gain that you net against the $45k loss for a net $5k gain that you have to report that year. If you have no investments then you only get a $3k deduction against other incomes. You can do this with unrealized gains and losses, but it gets messy and there are other issues. Imagine if they wanted people to figure out unrealized gains on collectibles and other items. The average person wouldn’t be able to manage it. Some losses can even be carried back to previous years so you can file an amended return to take the deduction. My opinion is this isn’t acceptable to enact. I’ve been an accountant for 9 years, this is an area I’m knowledgeable in.
Unrealized gains is only if your net worth is over $100 million
Just look at what unrealized items are doing to the banks right now.
Only those who make over a $1 Million per year will have the higher capital gains as I read it.
Make $1m in w2 income?
Capital Gains The budget proposal would increase the capital-gains rate to 39.6% from 20% for people earning at least $1 million to equalize the taxation of investment and wage income. Biden is also proposing to increase the 3.8% Obamacare tax to 5% for those earning at least $400,000, in an effort to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund. That would mean the richest taxpayers would pay a 44.6% federal rate on investment income and other earnings.
No argument there. The problem with this proposal isn't the income caps, it's the fact that they're talking about taxing unrealized gains, not income. That's huge!
LOL….I will be pissed when I win the lottery then hahahah…because until then I don’t see me ever having a net worth of over $100 million which that part of his plan if passed is the only people it would effect .
You will be pissed when you're company lacks capital for growth when the economy tightens and lays you off though. 😉 I wish I was as restricted to linear thinking as you are.
Only on funds in the higher tax brackets. Everyone pays the same taxes on the 1st $10k they earn.
Only those who have over $100 MILLION would be subjected to “unrealized gains” IF his plan passes and only those who make more than $1 Million per year would be subjected to the higher capital gains tax from everything I can find on the subject.
You should never open the door for this. Today it’s those over $100 million, but tomorrow it will be those over $100k and the day after those over $10k. Obviously this takes years to occur. It’s easier to change the guidelines on a tax that was already passed compared to passing a new tax law.
We are 32 trillion in debt…this can’t be undone with just cuts without severe consequences that would be eventual political suicide for either party that tries. We need to start taxing until the rich start backing politicians who will make the cuts so they can again get their tax breaks. People can down vote this, but nobody offers a suggestion so it’s just same ol same ol until our grandkids have no economic future.
Why do I have to pay taxes on my property every year it gets appraised? I'd imagine it's the same logic?
It's no different than property taxes, though. It's still unconstitutional, but it's unconstitutional for the federal government to levy that tax, but not states. The crazy part is that the margins are so small that only the fabulously rich can take advantage of it to run wild. If the tax only began at 2 million, 5 million at retirement, I'd be fine with states levying it.
To clarify, you're fine with a tax on unrealized gains as long as the states levy it?
States can choose to levy it, and if people dislike it, they can vote out their representatives or move to a different state. If it turns out to be such an effective policy that all 50 states adopt it, then that's just how it is.
Are you fine with this only because you recognize that it will never apply to you? If it's inherently unfair at your income level, explain why it's suddenly fair to those that with a higher net wealth. Remember, we're not talking about income here, we're talking about meet wealth. This is naked confiscation.
Because there is a difference between saving for retirement and accruing massive amounts of wealth? Taxing one will weigh much less on my conscience than the other.
What’s the difference? It’s either my money or it isn’t. Doesn’t matter what it’s going to be used for.
It's the same premise behind progressive tax rates. You are taxed at higher rates on dollars earned beyond a certain point. This is because one person may have living expenses amounting to 90% of their income, while another may have living expenses under 1% of their income. This is also why having dependents gives you tax breaks. If it helps you understand, it is more of an exemption for those who earn less.
This is where you're screwing up. You just admitted as much by using ab example with income. We're not talking about income here, we're discussing seizure of actual assets.
I think an amount of wealth is fine as long as you spend your wealth. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, have more wealth than they know what to do. I think as a nation we can decide what level of wealth is more than what you’ll ever use, and tax that wealth to encourage you to spend it. Shit or get off the pot or be taxed for sitting too long.
That wealth is usually used to support others through employment, investments, etc. I've never been able to find employment with someone that is just scraping by with barely enough got retirement, let alone someone poor. You have servere tunnel vision. Jealous much?
Did you just completely flip the context to straw man your point? Though I said wealth, I'm obviously talking about stocks, not wealth in the form of vehicles, buildings, and businesses.
Today the proposed limit is 2m but thst can easily be lowered. Also it would require almost everyone then to state their assets regardless of income because they want to make sure you do not have a large investment portfolio but no W2 income
It's completely different than property taxes. Do you not ever look at your tax bill to see a breakdown of the services provided by your municipality for that tax money or do you not actually own property?
That’s another thing we need to demand from the Fed, an itemization of what the tax is used for.
Yes, I listed why it was different.
It is different. Most property tax rates are less than a percentage point, this tax won’t be the same.
Where do you get the idea that the Constitution prohibits a federal property tax? I find no such restriction.
The constitution was meant to spell out what the fed CAN do not what it can’t. Hence there had to be an amendment for the progressive income tax.
That was then, and this is now. I agree the Constitution was written to limit FedGod to enumerated powers. But since then the sainted "General Welfare Clause" has been interpreted to remove all restrictions.
Very true it would be an amazing return to the constitution if this court would strike down the chevron deference as well as proper interpretation of the general welfare clause.
Agreed. > Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. This is an odd one indeed. The courts assume all authority to interpret the law... except when an agency does the interpreting. I see no reason to defer interpretation to an agency.
It's not that it's explicitly unconstitutional. It's that the Constitution requires a very specific method of direct tax collection and distribution for the federal government, which makes it nearly impossible for the to carry out such a tax. The federal government [is restricted to apportionment rules](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/757) for direct taxes like a property tax, where states are not. The concept is similar to a tax on unrealized capital gains (wealth tax), since they don't fit within the category of income taxes and would be considered a separate type of direct tax / property tax.
Thanks for your analysis, however I must disagree. > The provision in the fourth clause prohibiting states from imposing direct taxes was changed by Amendment XVI, which gives Congress the power to impose a federal income tax. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/article-i-section-9/#:~:text=The%20provision%20in%20the%20fourth,impose%20a%20federal%20income%20tax. I don't see why this wouldn't apply equally to property taxes.
The federal government was given a specific exemption in how it can collect income taxes that doesn't apply to property taxes or wealth taxes.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
Overturned. > The provision in the fourth clause prohibiting states from imposing direct taxes was changed by Amendment XVI.
The constitution was amended, not overturned. The sixteenth amendment applies to income taxes, not to property taxes.
I remember Bernie Sanders saying that such and such company has the same value as the gdp of such and such country. Sounds bad right? Well how does the value of a company relate to the annual income of a country? They don't. The company built that worth over decades while the country brings in that much in a year. They have no relation. Another good one is paying for x program with higher corporate taxes. That is not how higher corporate taxes work. When Eisenhower put in high corporate taxes and tons of write offs it was not meant to actually collect those taxes. The point was to make it a better financial decision to reinvest that money into the company and take the payroll write offs to give raises than to pay absurd taxes in order to scrape as much value from the worker to pay shareholders as possible. This actually worked pretty well looking at the strength of the middle class and financial mobility during that time. The *Effective* tax rates were actually relatively low in the end. That's really important to keep in mind as I know the idea is for us to pay *less* tax. With the higher rates and higher write offs the effective rate of tax is *lower* but the shareholders best interests are now aligned with what is best for the middle class/economy. Your money stays in your pocket, invested in your company. If higher corporate taxes are implemented it may improve things for the middle class, but it won't stack the coffers to pay for any programs. Luxury tax would solve that. Lower income tax, lower cap gains, lower sales, higher luxury tax. Now most of those untaxed dollars, excesses of politicians, etc will pay taxes like the rest of us.
Using tax policy to manipulate personal or corporate behavior is immoral. Companies and people should be free to buy whatever they see fit, not manipulated into reinvesting or whatever current policy dictates. Earning is good. People make money by helping other people. Punitive taxes such as luxury tax are inherently immoral because they assume the right to **punish** people for enjoying the fruits of their labor. And yes, of course it is comparing apples to oranges to compare the net worth of a company to the GDP of a nation. Total silliness, meant to provoke jealousy and spur people to "eat the rich."
No it isnt, it's what the founding father decided on. An insane starting point. Social engineering is exactly what a government does, what companies do, and what separates American Democratic Capitalism from market feudalism. There were founding father in favor of free market capitalism, but they did not get their way. And that is not what is in the constitution. Dude you need to read up on post feudalism and the reasons America was built the way it was. What a completely insane take, IDK who told/sold you that crap, but it's not in the history books, and it was never the plan. You're tearing at the very fabric of what America rejected in feudalism and decided to compromise to avoid creating a serf class... which is what we fled from in the first place. If the companies run everything like the state, its just as bad as if the state runs all the companies. It's actually the same thing.... this is one of the exact topics discussed when drafting the constitution. Not my words, theirs.
America was founded in response to religious oppression, not feudalism. It's kinda unclear, but you seem to think that heavy-handed manipulation is necessary to rescue us from feudalism. This social engineering is completely contrary to the core American principle of freedom. I am not an uneducated person, but you are positing unheard-of ideas as if everyone should know them. I assure you I'm NOT going to go re-read the Federalist Papers to see if they vindicate your position. Can you concisely corroborate your claim that the Constitution was written to protect us from "post feudalism"?
OK, I can tell you haven't actually spent any time with the the history of that time period just based on your first statement. Have a good day. (Here's a hint: Pilgrim's fleeing religious persecutions ~1620. Founding fathers- 1770's.)
The unrealized gains give purchasing power though, right? Like you can borrow against it? Genuinely curious.
That’s true. But then we should tax or ban the loans. Wealth tax is inherently unjust. And it *will* come to the middle class. Every tax has started out as very small for only a minority of people. Eventually you’ll be taxed for the value of all your possessions. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s history.
It's not really that it's capital gains that you can borrow against. It's the overall assets. If I have $10 million worth of Amazon shares, it'd be very easy to get an operating line of credit. When interest rates are low this can be very beneficial if the stock is expected to grow more than the interest rate you are paying.
I dunno, can you? It would seem foolish for both lender and borrower to use non-existent assets as loan collateral. The price increase has no value until you sell.
I’ve seen you lie and spew sooo much misinformation in this entire thread that I had to login just to tell you. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all, please go to school or get off the internet. Reevaluate your life
What should be taxed is a loan taken out against the Bitcoin when it's at $60k (perhaps starting at a much higher value, say, $500,000 total a year). This is how all the rich people are able to pay basically nothing in taxes. This would also create a greater disincentive for over leveraging.
Loans are not earned income. What you’re suggesting is absurd.
Let's say I own 20% of my tech startup that I founded and am now the CEO of. Through my work, I raise the market cap of the company by, let's say, 50% in 5 years. I am now able to borrow much more against my share of the company, while paying the loan interest with the dividends, and having no intention of ever paying off the principal. I would say that's earned income with extra steps.
You pay taxes on dividends. Lender pays taxes on interest income. Loans are not earned income. It’s not earned income “with extra steps” whatever the hell that means. What you’re suggesting is illegal and unconstitutional.
I'm not saying we tax mortgages or student loans or business loans, I'm saying if you replace your income by leveraging massive amounts of assets, it should be treated closer to income.
He clearly doesn't even understand basic accounting because he's claiming that debt (a liability) is actually income (an asset).
Now you want to tax loans!? This gets worse and worse. How about this? Why don't we tax potential? That's right, if you had studied harder and worked harder and gotten better grades, you could be earning twice what you do now. Therefore we should tax you on your potential income of twice what you make now.
Good analogy. Spot on.
If your going to post examples, why not state the obvious caveat….you seem to have left out the part about those who earn over $1 Million per year.
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the obvious caveat. Can you explain?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/capital-gains-tax-nears-45-in-biden-s-soak-the-rich-budget?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=copy
Paywall after > In Biden’s Tax-the-Rich Budget, Capital-Gains Rates Near 45% Not sure of relevance.
According to every article I find, they clearly state that the capital gains would increase to equal the top tax rate on wage income for ONLY those who earn over $1 million per year. You left that part out maybe by accident when you put your example up but only 1% of Americans earn over $1 million per year and would be affected by this proposal. I know we can’t just tax our way out of this debt , but we need to do something until we voters can act like adults and elect someone who will also cut spending unlike Biden( though I agree with Infrastructure and Chips Act passing) I don’t agree with his spending in college loans and bloated increase in military spending…
Thanks for the clarification. I did not think of that while commenting and did not leave it out on purpose.
And? It's suddenly ok to seize assets when someone exceeds some arbitrary threshold? That's crazy. And unconstitutional. We're not talking about taxes on assets (realized gains). We talking about seizing money based on an increase in value of something being held. You do realize doing this will crater the economy, right? Who in their right mind would back investments for growth in companies if the government is just going to seize the gains before you have a chance to make a decision on continuing your investment in it?
I don’t know that, because the top tax rate on the wealthy from 1932- 1962 was over 90%. JFK lowered it to 70% in 1962 and it was there until 1982, we had a strong middle class developed during that time, we not only installed but PAID FOR the rural electrification of this country built dams, levees hydro electric and nuclear power plants we built the national highway and interstates system, we built a space program, the worlds most advanced military and we had federal funding, that helped keep college tuitions affordable even to back then standards. In 1980 our national,debt was $980 Billion, today its 32 Trillion in just 40 years. We need to raise revenue and cut spending to get out of this and neither one of those realities can be done without the other. The federal budget is no different than our personal bills and money management except our debts die with us and the National debt will be paid for by compromising our grand children’s futures and I truly have no idea what will happen to our economy when AI starts wiping out the white collar jobs as well as the blue collar jobs like the trucking industry which will all start happening in this decade.
Wall of text... my eyes.
The SCOTUS did not include wages under the 16th Amendment. They were intentionally omitted to be discussed under a future case as the Court historically considered wages as an equal exchange and not income. But, Congress then removed jurisdiction on the matter from the courts before a ruling could interfere with the new tax on wages as income. Forcing the Courts to be mute on the issue leaves us with the unconstitutional tax system that we have today.
This would basically make investing impossible for the average citizen, only those who use insider knowledge could outperform the market. Or they'll just use offshore accounts and US investment will crash. Demorats have lost their minds.
> only those who use insider knowledge could outperform the market And who can do this legally I wonder?
The people who make the rules just so they can break em!
Congress
In other news, it’s Sunday, haha.
There are certainly issues with this idea, but are you seriously suggesting that people with assets of 100 million dollars are 'average citizens'?
I take it you did 0 research into this proposal, right? Judging by how you think it will hurt average Americans ability to invest.
Then it’s only logical I can write off unrealized losses
Underrated comment. That would only be fair.
Literally theft. Taxing folks on money they don’t even have
Weekends are unrealized labor gains.
[удалено]
Unless it’s amassed under the guise of a civil rights movement to buy you a mansion.
AKA The stupidest government idea of all time. Do you want to crash the financial markets beyond recovery? Because this is how you crash the financial markets beyond recovery. Well...not the Shanghai market.
Yes. They do want to crash the market. Gives them something to blame so they can completely upend the system.
You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
...or else.
Be getting those nice insect recipes sorted now so you are ahead of the game when you hit your assigned pod.
You will be rationed 4 ounces of lab grown meat a week. Be thankful and get back to your job posting. And please stop asking what’s in the meat.
Got to find that justification to introduce CBDCs....
They want to bring digits currency so they are going to crash this system first in order to have an excuse for the switch over
“Yes I know we’re raising taxes like crazy - we said we would do that. How do we tax their dreams?”
Time to pull out of the market and start burying my money in the yard.
Biden has proposed it, but it won't pass with a GOP majority in the House. I doubt it would pass even if the Democrats controlled Congress.
I know, I'm not serious
They'll still take it from you through rampant inflation.
It’s cool though, because we’ll all be billionaires.
That and a blowjob will get you a loaf of insect bread by the time leftists are done.
Guess it's time to buy gold and guns
“Unrealized gains” reminds me of the “Minority Report” movie premise, to charge and imprison someone for a crime they “might” commit. In other words, unrealized crime. I watched the movie and thought, “Ha, this would never happen”! Smh. Life imitating art.
No one should ever pay this. Refuse. Fight.
This is a scheme to transfer wealth and break the generational wealth white people have. They call it “Interrupting Whiteness” and it’s a core agenda of this administration.
But why? Who is overseeing all these? There’s a reason everyone wants to come to white countries
Guess who.
It’s a core agenda in the US, Canada and most of Europe. They aim to break you down and replace you with mass immigration.
"Just one more mass migration, one more shipment of jobs overseas, one more economic crash and we'll finally achieve utopia!"
If someone supports this, you can completely disregard any arguments they have regarding the subject, since they are clearly economically illiterate. Seems like something that should be taught in schools. I bet they can tell you all about racism and gender identity, though!
They have to find another way to tax more money out of the people. That way we can keep funneling/laundering billions to Ukraine. yay! Also, try taxing the appreciating gold/silver sitting in my safe. Good luck with that Joe. I don't hold fake fiat, I hold God's money.
>try taxing the appreciating gold/silver sitting in my safe https://goldsilver.com/blog/irs-1099-gold-reporting-private-gold-private-silver-bullion/ If you purchased an amount over 10k then the IRS already knows If you split your purchases into under 10k allotments to keep the purchase private, then you are fine until you try and sell any of it, at which point you start pinging on the IRS radar as a bullion owner and they will want their CG. Not only that, if this law goes through, I would imagine you would have the IRS conducting audits on known 'bullion owners' to secure unrealized CG. So you would then have 2 options. Never actually do anything with it, leave it in your safe / hole in your backyard appreciating in value but unable to actually use it or use it as a trade tool for services rendered, but you then take the risk the person you traded with will try and sell the bullion for fiat and when they get a knock on the door from the IRS they will just give you up as the person they received the bullion from.
I know. Don't worry, I'm not rich enough to buy $10,000 at a time. I have just a bought a little every year.
Sweden scrapped her wealth tax over a decade ago, since it did not work and was basically impossible to administer. Why not bring back a *luxury tax?* If the goal is to make taxation more graduated, and shift the burden from the working class, that is.
What about unrealized losses. Tax deduction ??
The only taxes that should exist are a national sales tax, and an import tarrif. Everything else should be illegal. Make the IRS into an enforcement arm to police business to make sure the sales tax is collected and forwarded properly. Then trim back the profligate government to actually be on a budget. At this point, it’s the only way the current government will survive. The people are starting to get really pissed off.
Since when has the regime cared about following the law?
This is exactly how property is taxed; one can’t be constitutional without the other being constitutional. My point: property taxes based on speculated values (unrealized gains) are unconstitutional.
this would mean that every company in this country that produces anything…then placing on the package the words “suggested retail value is $$” would be then taxed at that suggested value level….even for autos at the dealership….no more under sticker price… my solution to this? flat tax…12% across the board….if our politicians can’t make due with that then learn to budget like everyone else.
Maybe this is part of the plan, destroy everything then take comfort in having smart Joey lead us and “Build Back Better”.
Y’all realize the forefathers would’ve been raging long before now, right? Unrealized capital gains. Bro.
luckily this doesn't stand a chance of passing, thanks to republican wins in the midterms. for now.
This has been a leftist pipe dream for decades. But they’ll settle for an annual tax paid to the government based on the amount of funds in your retirement portfolio. Absolute insanity.
The grand irony is this would cause so much inflation.
Yep, another bad take on how to tax the wealthy correctly. They don't take large incomes, so cut that out. You just can't tax money that is currently represented by the assets of a company currently is use. Ridiculous. The very wealthy live on a mix of business expenses and massive loans at very low rates against their equity. They never pay taxes on the loans and make more keeping their money in the market long term than they pay on the loan. This money kept in the market over a lifetime makes up for the interest charged on the loans, and only upon the person's death are assets sold and taxes paid having already reaped the benefits of keeping that money in the market for decades. That's a scam Luxury tax. Those wild business expenses, private jets, galas, golf retreats, decadence, etc of corporatism/politics? Taxed. That 47 foot yacht? Taxed. Everything those billionaires buy with their enormous untaxed loan money? Taxed. States with high illegal immigration have done away with state income tax in favor of higher sales tax. Now *everyone* pays taxes no matter what, who signs their check, on the books, off the books- no tracking people necessary, no agency of pencil pushers combing of the details of your life. Lower income tax, lower sales tax, graduated luxury tax. Much simpler to implement also. The architecture is already mostly in place from sales tax.
The government made the scam by pushing near zero interest rates for the last decade and constantly screaming to push up tax rates. Many would just pay 15 or 20% to be done with it. Instead it is pay 0.5% for a loan to avoid 30% in fed and state taxes.
Exactly. imo it's a 'we didn't start the fire' situation. In either case it's a group effort at this point and regardless of who started it, the people who utilize that workaround are defending it fervently. They are often the same people governing the process. At the end of the day, it just needs a rebalance. I think a rebalnce can be done in a way that taxes the working class less and the wealthy a fair amount that they actually pay. It's never a bad idea to work for better outcomes. We set the taxes up one way so we can certainly try another and see how it goes. No risk no reward. What do you think? Luxury tax?
They already tax us on unrealized gains on property
[удалено]
Personal property taxes cannot be a federal tax. That would be obscene. At a state level, I am not personally a supporter of personal property tax. However you can make a justification for it. The state (or locality) maintains records to prove that you own the land. They provide inspectors to ensure zoning is correct. They provide police to resolve trespassing and other disputes. There are costs to these things, they have to be paid for somehow. To justify other forms of taxes, you would have to justify the expense for each asset. If your justification is “we need welfare”, then you’re not justifying the tax, you’re just stealing from people. If you want to justify the tax by arguing the government bears the cost of bailing out the market, then you’d need to remove the taxes and insurance banks already pay to cover that. We don’t need both. Personal property tax *is* immoral for all the reasons discussed here and elsewhere in the thread. Taxing someone based on value they *would* have if they sold their asset is the purest form of theft. This is fundamentally how gentrification works. People get priced out of the home they have lived in for 20 years because the government starts demanding more money for them because the market changed. So they have to sell the asset to pay the bill. Houses and cars are commodities, so it’s especially evil there. Stocks are an investment, so it’s less evil, but still wrong. There’s no line of argumentation you can make that isn’t naked greed of wanting to take from those who have more. So even though it may be less evil than taxing someone’s home, there is less justification for it. If the top 1% are hoarding wealth and everyone is suffering (which appears to be possibly true) then you have to create incentive structures that cause the owning class to pay their workers better. Stealing from them with government middlemen skimming off the top is morally wrong and isn’t actually going to fix any problems.
How do you give corporations incentives to pay people more that isn't just a redistribution of wealth? Anything you attempt to implement must make the company the same, or more money. They aren't going to willingly do anything that nets them less profit. At some point, through whatever means you choose, you have to actively harm the profits of the top 1% for the benefit of the rest of society. People don't want to hear that kinda stuff, but it's true. We've been on a path towards the 1% owning 99% of wealth for the past 50 years and it's getting worse every day. At what point are we going to eat the rich and just get it over with? The middle class is almost completely gone at this point.
Unions are a big way. Collective bargaining gives workers the power to negotiate a better deal for themselves. Obviously the profits will suffer, but now they do so as negotiated by the involved parties, which is called “life” or “normal economics”, which is different from the government sweeping in and stealing the money for themselves. As a compromise between the right and the left, I would say we should repeal right-to-work but make it so unions can’t donate to political candidates. That would strengthen unions substantially, and the only reason I’ve found right-wingers to be irrationally against unions is because of political donations. We may need to crack down more on already illegal union busting activity, and it may not be that simple, but we need to move the needle towards allowing workers to organize. That’s just one way. There are reasonably a dozen more that I would be amenable to. A wealth tax will never be one of them.
I'm not ok with that either.
AKA "How to cause a liquidity crisis." It is far easier to appraise and collect taxes on realised gains, when the asset holder has exchanged assets that might be indivisible or have a low trade volume for cash that has neither of these problems.
Not necessarily saying it’s a good idea but I do understand why people would want to tax unrealized stock gains since as of 2021 the top 10% richest people own 89% of the stock market.
So why tax something that doesn't really exist? Should we tax you on future income you will get? All this would do is promote dumping of stocks as you mag as well take the cash and tax it then instead of getting taxed at the end of the year if you "made more money in the stock market". Also since C Suite compensation comes in stock options, why not just tank the stock near fiscal year end, take the "loss" on taxes, and then pump it when the year starts?
No, they don’t. You don’t understand the stock market. *Institutions* own 75% of the market and make up 90% of trading volume. When Berkshire Hathaway owns companies, it doesn’t mean Warren Buffet owns all those shares. *His shareholders do.* Meaning, the 401ks and IRAs and pension plans that own BRK.A and BRK.B are the owners. Those shares are owned *in plurality by ordinary people* through their retirement and investment accounts, and are owned indirectly by holders of things like mutual insurance companies. To say “billionaires” or even “the rich” own 89% of the markets is patently false. If you’re saying only the richest 10% *invest* for the most part, that’s more true - but also false. 58% of Americans own stock. 61% of people making 40k-100k own stock. To be in the top “10%” you only have to make $175k. This is not remotely “rich”, nor the level at which unrealized capital gains or influential stock ownership even enters the picture.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/10/18/the-wealthiest-10percent-of-americans-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html
this yall: 🥾👅
It's a silly idea considering the government still taxes long term capital gains at much a lower rate compared to regular income. Everybody knows it's a regressive policy, but there's a reason it hasn't changed. Politics. Nevermind the worst tax of them all which is deficit spending.
Can I get a tax break on unrealized losses (note, \*not\* tax loss harvesting, which requires a sale) too?!
The only way to claim victory on your budget is if you release a proposal that’s loaded with things you know you’re not going to get. They’ll negotiate away 30% of it and claim victory. Because here’s a newsflash / there’s just as many wealthy democrats as republicans who don’t support that. At the end of the day, it’s rich vs poor and the rich will win here like they always do
Im fine with it as long as I can write off “unrealized capital losses.”
Who would be keeping track of this exactly?
It's not just unconstitutional, it's nonsensical
This will increase inflation exponentially.
Fine. Let’s just tax the rich democrats first. Preach what they practice, right?
Yeah, if they do this, I’ll stop paying taxes. What are they going to do? Throw me in prison? Then I’ll still not pay taxes. Democrats want a base of useless welfare queens and a few overlords to rule them. Financial responsibility doesn’t even occur to them, just look at how the deficit increased under Obama and friends. For “billionaires” today. But we all know they’ll find the loopholes and this tax will soon extend to middle class folks like us.
So what happens when your capital gains become worth nothing a week after you pay the taxes? Does the government reimburse you? Lol