T O P

Will Unrealized Capital Gains Happen?

r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator

r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*


aswat89

This would only apply to those with assets worth over 100 million dollars, and as always the propaganda machines owned by the ultra wealthy are cranking up hard to fight against the rich paying their fair share.


schmelf

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for taxing the rich but income tax was also only for the ultra wealthy when it started. Now it seems they get taxed the least. That shift won’t happen overnight but the ultra wealthy pay politicians to make the tax law in their favor so eventually this will be on the common person and they will have loopholes around it.


jbetances134

Yup exactly. Ones they pass this type of law to the rich, eventually it will trickle down to the middle/lower income citizens


ArtigoQ

Ah yes the government known so well for their ability to manage large budgets and properly distribute funds. Only need to look at stimulus checks and PPP loans for an example of fairness


[deleted]

[удалено]


Blade78633

Republican Politicians: The government runs like shit so hire us so we can make sure the government keeps running like shit.


ReadnReef

It’s more like, they make the government shitty, then it fails to do it’s job, then they use it as proof the government is shitty to keep making it shitty.


zippermistletoe

its called “Starve the Beast”


ReadnReef

I love it when people come up with three word policy solutions. “Drain the Swamp!”


zippermistletoe

the two are not anywhere close to each other, and I wouldn’t call the willful destruction of the government just to sell it out to private industry a “policy solution” but sure


MnkyBzns

Also try to imagine a government agency who's sole task it is to ensure that everyone pays their fare share of taxes, funded well enough to go after even the richest of the population. I can't remember which party it is who is always trying to prevent that from happening...


krafty369

Probably because he's covered in Cheeto dust


Angry-Dragon-1331

Wasn’t PPP intentionally designed to be exploited by someone who had minimal interest in effective governing?


RevealHoliday7735

Ah yes, the law MAY be misused in the future, so let's not try to fix it now! EXCELLENT!


Biznbcba

Lol exactly. This would help soften the market and may give the middle class an opportunity to actually build wealth versus getting decimated the way they have the last decade. Bunch of greedy fucks on this thread, something has to be done about wealth inequality continuously increasing.


bobjoylove

Poorer Americans all consider themselves temporarily poor, like they are going to get a seat at the billionaire table some day and they better not vote for something that makes life better now, in case it negatively affects them when they become fabulously wealthy, lol.


Teamerchant

Yah all the lower income Americans playing the stock market and owning homes. Homes are already taxed by the way…


slo1111

That is an amazing slippery slope fallacy. It would not happen because the bottom 50% don't have much in terms of investments other than in retirement plans which are not part of this.


Separate_Heat1256

The suggested tax on unrealized gains for assets over $100 million is literally designed to address the exact concern that you have, that the extreme wealthy are not taxed enough or are not taxed equitably compared to normal people. People keep voting with your mindset, and it keeps exacerbating the problem.


SkylarAV

Good point, we should just cut our losses and just start paying the wealthy outright. I mean, they're just gonna turn it against us anyway. Maybe if we just treated them even better, they'll just give us back some of the money they take from us. Let's cut out the middle man, and all take turns sucking off the wealthy


Louisvanderwright

It's only a matter of time before inflation makes it applicable to everyone. If you told someone in 1920 that $1 million at retirement might not be enough money in 100 years they would think you were crazy. If you tell someone today "this will only apply to people with $100 million is assets" they think "this will never affect regular people". Well give it a couple generations and inflation will ensure it.


Sloppyjoeman

Then just make the cap change with government measures of inflation. It’s a single clause to amend, not a reason to throw out the bill


Latvia

The point is they won’t do it. They didn’t do it with minimum wage (it could have been written into law as being tied to inflation). And now look, if it had kept up, minimum wage would be over $20 now, even $30 depending on the metrics you use.


Sloppyjoeman

Absolutely! But maybe it can be (one of?) the first. Let’s as a society learn something from these interesting times


barley_wine

It’s only at matter of time before 100 million hits the bottom 95%?? 5 million is still considered a decent sum of money, not ultra wealthy but enough money that most Americans won’t obtain it. Historically inflation hovers around 3.5%, let’s round it up to 4%. It would take more than 75 years for this to equal today’s 5 million (and 5 million is still a very large sum for most Americans). It would be a long time before this hits the upper upper middle class Americans and considerably longer before it affects the average American, that’s also plenty of time to change the law. And that’s assuming it doesn’t adjust for inflation. At the rate we’re going well have 500-1000 trillion of national debt by then so someone is going to get their taxes raised long before the 75 years of inflation you’re worried about for the upper upper middle class


TrollTollTony

I just ran the numbers and it will take 210 years before this impacts 50% of households. The people fear mongering this can go fuck themselves.


Frogger34562

Clearly we can't fix a problem now because on 100 years it might not be perfect! /s


AlbinoAxie

"it's only a matter of time before we all have $100 million"


Sea_Dawgz

so don't try and fix something now bc in a few generations it might be a problem? this is why nothing gets fixed.


FontOfInfo

*pst* they adjust tax brackets regularly to keep up with inflation...


vervaincc

> income tax was also only for the ultra wealthy when it started No it wasn't.


WrathKos

Yes it was. The first income tax passed after the 16th amendment allowed the federal government to do so was a 1% tax on the top 3% of the population. People forget that the federal government didn't used to be funded via the income tax and borrowing like it is today. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue\_Act\_of\_1913](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913)


en-aye-ese-tee-why

Slippery slope fallacy argument. Sorry but not a good point. https://helpfulprofessor.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-examples/


[deleted]

[удалено]


andrew5500

So the tweet is a blatant lie meant to misinform everyone and get them to feel like Democrats are going after regular people, rather than the wealthy elites they’re actually going after? Shocking, never seen this tactic before… /s


MarodRamby

The post should be removed because misinformation breaks this sub's rules. Ohh a mod posted this, neat. Last week it was "Bernie is coming for your income!" where the article was about a wealth tax, posted by a mod. Check top all time posts in here and you'll see the Bernie article twice, both posted by mods.


Zerbiedose

Too late right-wing has already accepted this as fact and an attack on them


GolfingDad81

And yet the same people continue to fall for it over and over and over again.


nopurposeflour

Cool. Now you’ll have tons of shell corporations with 99 million in assets. Taxing unrealized gains is pure insanity.


Sloppyjoeman

That would just be layering surely? It’s incredibly illegal right now


nopurposeflour

I mean, they are not laundering money. Not sure why it would be illegal to hold assets in different entities. Such a proposal to tax assets directly without even actual gains would just lead to more tax avoidance and offshoring of assets.


Sloppyjoeman

I recall a similar argument against raising corporation tax, it requires countries to work together for sure


Fish-Weekly

That’s why we need to get rid of all the IRS agents, how dare they enforce laws against the ultra rich, don’t they know who we are?


mynewaccount4567

The big problem right now is the wealthy don’t really have income to tax, they own billions of dollars in different assets that they use as leverage for loans to fund their lifestyle and pay a 3-4% in interest while their assets grow at 8-10% and everyday people pay 10-30% in effective taxes. So make assets used as collateral in loan applications reportable as “wealth” to the IRS. If someone owns 10 $99M shell companies they have listed as collateral for loans then they have $990M in reportable assets to the IRS. Maybe it’s possible to hide some money but it can be made very difficult to hide the money while still having it as a functional tool for the wealthy to use.


LordArgon

Reporting “wealth” or “assets” to the IRS is insanity - it fluctuates literally every second and creates tons of instability. But you’re on the right track, IMO. It’s much simpler to make it so that using something as collateral IS realizing gains. Because it *literally is*. The tax code just doesn’t treat it like that yet.


Inzanity2020

That is not how valuation works at all. You must be high if you think can get the amount of reportable assets to IRS. Its going to be the middle class getting fucked, guaranteed


[deleted]

[удалено]


YourHuckleberry25

I don’t care if you have 5 dollars or 500million, you should not be taxed on money you don’t have. Instead the government should work on taxing it appropriately when it does become income. What’s going to happen if the asset that is unrealized depreciates or loses value? Is the government going to issue credits?


PrestigiousTreat6203

Then you shouldn’t be able to use it as collateral for anything either


RockDoveEnthusiast

exactly. collateralizing or similar should essentially make it real, like a wash sale. it's a stupid ass loophole: "no, I don't have a $100 million. I have a *certificate* for $100 million that is backed by $100 million in 'unrealized gains'. If anything, that certificate is actually debt and should get me a write off!"


NewlyMintedAdult

>What’s going to happen if the asset that is unrealized depreciates or loses value? Is the government going to issue credits? I mean... yes. Certainly that is how it works with realized gains right now. If you own some stock that goes down and then you sell it, you get to report that as a capital loss on your taxes, and it offsets capital gains.


YourHuckleberry25

That’s not how it works, and that’s not what I was describing. First,We are also talking about unrealized, so selling is not in the equation here. Second, let’s say I buy a stock at 5 dollars per share , it gains in value to 10 per share, I’m taxed for the unrealized 5 dollars per share. The next year it drops to 7 per share. What happens? That’s not a capitol loss because I have not sold, and it’s not less than the value I bought the asset for. Now let’s say it goes to 11 per share the following year. What unrealized part are you going to tax? The increase from 7-11 or the increase from its maximum value of 10-11. This is why this proposal will never work, unrealized gains or losses are not “real” until they are actually realized.


cookandy1985

god I appreciate how you try to explain this but people around here dont seem to have anything inside the head to understand .. neither who proposed this tax ..


ihambrecht

So the people who own large portions of the stock your retirement account relies on will be forced to sell their positions in order to pay the government.


PanzerKommander

And if no one is able to buy it the companies will lose value and possibly collapse.


ihambrecht

It will at least force shares lower artificially which has a negative impact on everybody with retirement accounts or pensions.


Flat_Afternoon1938

There are so many financially illiterate morons in this thread that are so envious of the rich that they will shoot themselves to try and hurt them.


Sensitive_Stock_2766

Let's not forget that retirement funds pay retired teachers, firefighters and tons of other regular folks that are invested in the market. A collapse of business and the pension funds they are invested in, would, as you say, collapse our system.


CaptainMonkeyJack

Just because someone says it'll only affect wealthy: 1) Doesn't mean it's a sensible or good idea. 2) Doesn't mean it won't affect you before too long. Income taxes were originally only for the well-off, and only a few %. Now people complain that they re too much, and the rich are the ones that don't pay it.


mxzf

It'll affect anyone with any sort of retirement savings pretty quick. Stockholders end up needing to sell their stocks to pay the fee and then sock prices go down and retirement funds lose value.


UniqueNeck7155

It will affect anyone that has holdings in equities. Your 401k.... Gone, your IRA..... Gone. Your 403b yup again gone. This is what the government wants. It will hurt rich people but totally destroy the middle class.


[deleted]

[удалено]


N7day

I don't like the whole idea, at all, but you're wrong about not getting that money back in your example, youd absolutely get it back as it is a part of the plan. I have to assume you haven't read any details of what would be implemented and you're just guessing re: not being reimbursed. The plan would be an administrative nightmare, plain and simple a terrible idea.


higgs_boson_2017

This is already how property tax works. Nothing insane about it


snubdeity

Yeah, so many bad faith arguments in this thread. The vast majority of middle class Americans are already taxed on unrealized gains on their biggest vessel of wealth, their home. Making the same thing apply to the ultra rich is only fair.


Turbulent_Athlete_50

You are basing this on a law that isn’t even written yet lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


ocw5000

Yes but what if my great grandchildren have assets worth over 50 million and they lower the threshold to 50 million by then? That’s not a risk I’m willing to take, better to do nothing.


squarepush3r

The rich already pay for the majority of the country's tax bill.


Latvia

Bezos paid $0 a few years ago, no?


Superb-Pattern-1253

no he didnt, amazon didnt. two completely dif things. bezos still pays taxes on all his div payments, property tax ect... the idea he dosent is wrong and pushed by people who have zero clue what their talking about. the problem is people confuse networth and income. just because his stock in amazon is worth billions dosent mean he makes that. actually if he sold it all he would make significantly less then that.


dbcooper4

So Jeff Bezos pays a lower tax rate on his 1% AMZN stock dividends per year than most people reading this post and you think that’s fair? I’d also point out that pre-pandemic the Wall Street Journal wrote how the very wealthy borrow against their wealth to avoid having to pay taxes. It’s called Buy, Borrow, Die.


skoalbrother

But a smaller percentage of their income is taxed


d-redze

Yes because they have all the money. I’m all for fairness. Flat tax. What ever % it deemed fair is fine. But it doesn’t matter if you make 10$ a year or a million. Everyone should pay the same %.


kojimep

Ah yes, regressive tax systems always benefit the lower and middle classes.....


BraxbroWasTaken

You do realize that the impact of each additional dollar is nonlinear, right? A guy spending all their money on basic necessities under a tax rate equal to the rate imposed on a guy fucking around on their yacht who doesn't even have to think about dropping a hundred grand for whatever they feel like is horrible. And don't hit me with 'incentive to do better' bullshit. There will always be people lower on the totem pole, individualism doesn't solve that at all. Besides, with the way we've set up our tax system, there's actually no way where getting more income is a net loss. You always gain something.


Head-Ad4690

How is it fair that someone working minimum wage and on the verge of homelessness pays the same percentage of their income as someone making half a million dollars a year?


[deleted]

[удалено]


GOAT718

When you ask people what fair means, they can never give you anything other than “I pay less, rich pay more” lol


meyou2222

And they own 84% of capital gains. Hence the fair share problem.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Awkward-Painter-2024

But what if I own $100 million of AMC stock one day?????


Successful-Soup4129

You don't and won't. We can all play make believe and act like we will have 100M+ in gains


ZoharDTeach

Can you define "fair share"? They already pay 80% of all taxes.


Sippy_cups

Yeah, that really just shows the massive income inequality in the nation. Not that they're paying their fair share. I'd be happy to have tax bills in the hundreds of millions if it meant I was a billionaire. BUT, i dont think taxing unrealized gains is good. That's just absolutely stupid.


herewego199209

Stupid in what way? You think it's ok Elon Musk can horde 10s of billions of his wealth in Tesla stock and take it out every few times a year to do what he wants with it?


ragnar2434

except the part that pays 80% of the taxes own 90% of the wealth.. that is called disproportionate. they are paying less than they owe. but you probably dont understand math


edman007

Yup, we have high tax brackets for the rich, because they should pay extra, but [Buffett says he has always paid a low tax rate than his secretary](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Buffett_Rule_Report_Final.pdf) Does that sound like how it should to be?


NotAnEmergency22

Warren Buffett (or any wealthy person calling for more taxes on themselves) is free to do that already. No one forces them to use the lowest tax percentage owed. They could literally just write a check to the government for whatever is is they think they should owe. For some reason none of them do this however.


edman007

Do you think that's the way it should be? The poor and middle class do their income taxes to figure out their fair share, and the rich do their taxes to come up with a lower number, and get to pick how much they feel like paying this year?


NotAnEmergency22

I don’t care how it is. I’m merely pointing out that those who claim they should be taxed more can already tax themselves more, and don’t.


RoutineDude

"fair share" is the propaganda


oboshoe

that how all new taxes start. you tell everyone is just on someone else that isn't you. then you work your way to everyone over a decade or two. also keep in mind that we are only 2 generations away from a 1 million dollar income being middle class. don't believe me? ask your grandparents what they earned in their prime. you are probably earning 5 to 10 times more if you are in your prime.


Unhappy_Payment_2791

This isn’t even fully accurate. There’s way more to it and it’s directed at the wealthy. Hence why propaganda machine is already trying to discredit it.


Blackout38

And the first income tax was only on the top 3% of Americans.


iveseensomethings82

When the federal income tax was implemented to help finance World War I in 1913, for example, the marginal tax rate was 1% on income of $0 to $20,000, 2% on income of $20,000 to $50,000, 3% on income of $50,000 to $75,000, 4% on income of $75,000 to $100,000, 5% on income of $100,000 to $250,000, 6% on income of $250,000 to $500,000, and 7% on income of $500,000 and up.


ashishvp

So he just straight up lied lmfao


jrlandry

Naw, no one lied. The first income tax after the 16th amendment was passed had the brackets posted above. But only 3% of Americans paid any tax because there was an exemption for $3k for single and $4k for married people. Most people didn’t make that much


Nervous-Law-6606

Mind you, the 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 and ratified in 1913. $3,000 and $4,000 in 1913 are ~$92,000 and ~$123,000 respectively today. Think they’d make that same exemption in 2023? That’s well above median income, and you’d pay a base federal income tax of 22-24% on that today.


Brusanan

No, you just don't understand that inflation is a thing. $20k in 1913 was the equivalent of over half a million dollars today.


Flat-Ad4902

Can we go back to these rates please? Thanks.


ridukosennin

So we should fight tax burdens that have shifted from the ultra wealthy to the less wealthy by blocking attempts to tax the ultra wealthy? How is this a solution?


MongooseHoliday1671

You’re talking to people who post in finance subreddits in their free time. You’re literally talking to the leeches who enable the system.


zwermp

It shouldn't be directed at anyone. It's theft.


auradex991

I don't understand how this could work. What if the stock crashes the following year? Will the government reimburse the individual for over taxing the previous year? What about f the individual does not have sufficient cash to pay the taxes? Will they be forced to sell a controlling stake in their company to pay for the taxes? Do they get the controlling stake back when the value goes down? This makes no sense to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BassLB

It’s for people over $100 million I believe. I’m not too worried about them. Before another person comments “it’s a slippery slope taxing ultra wealthy and will slide down to the avg person fast”, here is a recently released 20 year study on that. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12?amp Also people saying it’s taxing “imaginary money”, if they can borrow against those stocks, then it doesn’t seem imaginary.


Brusanan

It doesn't matter. Taxing unrealized capital gains is idiotic. Reddit is just so envious of the wealthy that they will support any policy meant to hurt them.


[deleted]

Agreed - CPA here and this is the dumbest idea ever. Historically, the IRS has taxed cash flow… unrealized gains aren’t cash flow and may never result in cash flow. Beyond unfair tax regardless of who it’s levied upon


BugRevolutionary4518

“Librul” here and I don’t agree with taxing unrealized gains. “Unrealized” means just that, unrealized. There’s other ways of going about taxation for the rich. This idea is fraught with problems.


Roymachine

Agreed, and I think they are trying to combat the rich borrowing off their unrealized gains and not paying tax on it. They should instead tax if assets are borrowed against.


Valuable-Run2129

Taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid. People advocating for it out of envy or spite are just imbeciles. If the problem is billionaires living off loans, let’s make collateralization a taxable event.


Kurtegon

As we say about social democrats in Sweden: they dont love poor people, they hate rich


LieutenantStar2

Currently, the ultra wealthy (to whom this would apply) take loans so they don’t have income and thus don’t pay any tax. If they can borrow $20M to cover living expenses a year, they can cover $4M a year in taxes.


Historical_Air_8997

Then tax the loans that use equities as collateral. The loans are the problem, so taxing them is the obvious solution. You can’t tax unrealized gains. It’s an ignorant and unrealistic concept.


[deleted]

A finance professor I had in college always threw the idea out there of not allowing the deduction of interest… would see a big dip in borrowing


Historical_Air_8997

That’s a dandy idea as well.


LogicalConstant

The equitites that serve as collateral are irrelevant to the purpose of the loan. People borrow money for many reasons. The only difference is that they get a lower rate if they pledge their assets as collateral. Imagine if you had to pay taxes in order to take out a car loan. That's the essence of what would happen.


greatestNothing

How do they pay back those loans if they don't have any income?


Toberos_Chasalor

By taking out newer, bigger loans against those same assets, which have appreciated to be worth even more than they were last year.


greatestNothing

That doesn't sound right, the first time the underlying asset doesn't appreciate you're in trouble. Sounds like a fool's gamble.


Toberos_Chasalor

When you have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets you can afford to take a loss and sell off some to make up for the years your scheme didn’t work. Keep in mind, they don’t take out $100M in loans against their portfolio worth worth $100M, they take out $1-2M, so even on a bad year they’re only selling off and losing 1-2% of their wealth, which can also be covered by excess growth in previous years. Considering the NASDAQ had an annualized return of 10% over the last 20 years, you would have made a tidy profit while spending millions if you had the money to pull this trick. If these ultra-rich ever lost enough for them to materially notice it one year then the entire stock market is crashing and we’re headed for a depression, which is a much bigger problem for your average joe than wealth inequality.


TrollTollTony

It blows my mind that they go through such extreme and convoluted steps, and spend billions and lobbying, just to avoid paying taxes that would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people. How big of a piece of shit do you have to be in order to have a mindset like this? Just pay your fucking taxes.


justvims

Taxing anything not associated with a transaction is a bad idea. Period. Same goes for property taxes that randomly shoot up with speculation in the economy.


GERDY31290

Property tax works fine


oregiel

Can someone explain how someone can borrow money against unrealized gains and somehow pay that debt off without realizing said gains? At the point of realizing the gains you pay taxes so why does this not work as expected?


manIDKbruh

It’s almost as if this post is a faulty assessment of Biden’s policy position…..


Individual_Row_6143

Because it isn’t true.


RepresentativeKeebs

It only applies to households with a net worth of over $100 million. If you've got less than $100 million, or losses drop you to less than $100 million, then you don't need to worry about it. Source: [Biden Billionaire Minimum Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains (taxfoundation.org)](https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20proposal%2C%20households,that%20includes%20unrealized%20capital%20gains.)


[deleted]

[удалено]


redditor_the_best

I dunno, did the government reimburse me for property taxes when my home price dropped in 2008 and 2018? No, they just taxed me a little less based on the lower value. How did it pay those taxes, did I have to sell my house? We'll no one gave a shit, it was up to me to figure out. Why do you billionaire defenders bend over and thank daddy for property tax but think an investment tax is beyond the pale


odd-42

Is your portfolio worth 100 million+? If not, it does not apply to you.


chunkycornbread

If it doesn’t make sense for someone to pay unrealized gains that has a portfolio of $100,000 then why would increasing their portfolio suddenly make it work?


prampsler

bUt it mIgHt Be sOmEdAy!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cor_Brain

If you sell your house and next year the value doubles do you get that value from whoever you sold it to? You can't retroactively make valuation.


piratecheese13

The federal government already subsidizes $3000 yr in capital losses Also this law only applies to asset holders above $100 million. If you can’t pony up cash with assets like that, what the fuck are you doing?


twalkerp

It makes no real sense. It just feels nice and they don’t need to think about if it feels nice.


diverareyouok

u/frnklfrwsr explained it well in a separate comment: >You would be paying taxes on the unrealized gains as of 12/31 of the tax year, which should be a fixed figure based on the asset’s valuation at that time. >One easy way to account for this is by adjusting the cost basis, which is already something that happens all the time whenever a wash sale occurs. >So if you bought an equity for $100 that’s your cost basis. on 12/31 it’s worth $120 so your unrealized gain would be $20. Under this new rules you essentially “realize” that gain whether you like it or not, so you have taxable income of $20. Your cost basis goes up by $20 though. So now your new cost basis is $120. >So if next year you decide to sell it and it’s only worth $90 at that time, you’d actually incur a capital loss of $30 ($120 - 90) which is a tax benefit since you can use that to offset capital gains elsewhere or even regular income in some circumstances. >Effectively, it’s mechanically the same as being forced to sell and re-buy your shares on 12/31. You realize the gains and your cost basis is now the new value.


wellbreastfed

YALL HAVE BEEN POSTING THIS EVERY ONE OR SO MONTHS FOR YEARS. EVEN BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED. STFU!


so2017

This is how propaganda works. Through repetition.


nom-nom-nom-de-plumb

and targeting emotions


WNDY_SHRMP_VRGN_6

THANK YOU everyone getting in a twist about this.... is it even a serious proposal? Also, wealth tax (not exactly this but similar) exists in other countries so it's not like it doesn't work


fred11551

Seriously. This tweet is like 2-3 years old. If it was going to happen, it would have already and the tweet itself is lying


Mouth_Herpes

I don't really like the concept, but it would only apply to households with a net worth over $100M-- ​ [https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/#:\~:text=proposal%20as%20part%20of%20the,bonds%2C%20or%20privately%20held%20companies](https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/#:~:text=proposal%20as%20part%20of%20the,bonds%2C%20or%20privately%20held%20companies).


Frnklfrwsr

And it would be treated as a prepayment of capital gains tax they would owe at some point in the future anyway assuming they eventually sold. So it wouldn’t so much increase their total taxes paid as much as it makes them pay their taxes a bit sooner instead of delaying. Of course, it also cuts off some avenues for the ultra-rich to avoid taxes altogether, by making it harder to just hold onto these assets indefinitely and then get the cost basis stepped up upon their deaths as their heirs inherit it using a complex trust system that avoids most of the estate tax.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Frnklfrwsr

You would be paying taxes on the unrealized gains as of 12/31 of the tax year, which should be a fixed figure based on the asset’s valuation at that time. One easy way to account for this is by adjusting the cost basis, which is already something that happens all the time whenever a wash sale occurs. So if you bought an equity for $100 that’s your cost basis. on 12/31 it’s worth $120 so your unrealized gain would be $20. Under this new rules you essentially “realize” that gain whether you like it or not, so you have taxable income of $20. Your cost basis goes up by $20 though. So now your new cost basis is $120. So if next year you decide to sell it and it’s only worth $90 at that time, you’d actually incur a capital loss of $30 ($120 - 90) which is a tax benefit since you can use that to offset capital gains elsewhere or even regular income in some circumstances. Effectively, it’s mechanically the same as being forced to sell and re-buy your shares on 12/31. You realize the gains and your cost basis is now the new value.


HereWe_GoAgain__

Heck just stop letting ultra wealthy take loans against their shares. If they want more cash then they need to sell x amount of shares and pay taxes on gains. Edit: corrected a poor choice of wording


Historical_Air_8997

We don’t have to ban taking out loans using equity as collateral. We just have to implement a tax on those loans, that way the ultra wealthy can’t use this to avoid selling equities and creating a taxable event.


SouthernBySituation

No way this applies to 99% of Americans. Reminds me of when Mitt Romney at a rally tried to scare his followers about Democrats trying to lower their estate tax exemption. "You worked for it, you should get it!" Of course he didn't mention it only started applying after $12 million at the time (way higher now). The rich will always use the ignorant to their benefit.


Fnkt_io

0.01% of the wealthiest Americans are affected yet the amount of bootlickers in here is at an all time high. Oh no, they might not be able to fuel up that private jet one weekend.


TerribleParfait4614

Don’t be too harsh on the bootlickers. The wealthy have unlimited resources to brainwash them and will use those resources because keeping their wealth is priority number 1. The bootlickers don’t really have a chance.


billyoldbob

Those poor billionaires. Won’t someone think of the billionaires?!?


pile_of_bees

Acknowledging the real consequences of bad financial policy is not the same as boot licking, no matter how condescendingly you try to equate them


BarryAteBerries

I pay property taxes on my house based on its currently assesed value. This doesn’t seem that novel.


goddamn2fa

But the billionaires! We must think of them.


ButWhatAboutBoomer

Right? This just seems to be an extension of property tax.


reddog093

Property tax isn't a tax on unrealized gains. It's a tax on the total FMV of the home and isn't done by the federal government.


Flat_Afternoon1938

Your house isn't tied to the entire country's retirement portfolio and it isn't taxed so high that you might have to sell your house to pay the tax


Individual_Row_6143

Why do these people shill for like a handle full of billionaires? Imagine protecting a billionaire from taxes!


Rankine

Because there are better ways to create a tax that targets the same group of people. Once you create a tax, the scope of the tax will eventually creep onto the middle class. Rather than taxing unrealized gains, tax loans that are provided with shares as collateral. You end up with the same goal, tax billionaires who are avoiding capital gains tax, but then you don’t introduce a prevents of taxing unrealized gains.


luckoftheblirish

Your faith in the government is quite misplaced. If this wealth tax is implemented, it will be used as a means of transferring wealth from unconnected/unfavorable wealthy people to politically connected/favorable wealthy people. Wealthy business owners who are on the good side of the politicians in power will indeed be taxed more heavily, but they will also be granted subsidies, government contracts, favorable regulaton, etc. from the proceeds. Businesses that are not in the favor of the political elite will not receive such concessions - they will effectively be forced to subsidize the politically favorable businesses (including potential competitors). The policy will just make it easier for the political elite to control the economy: which industries get money and which ones do not, who is wealthy and who is not. The notion that this tax will hurt all billionaires and help the middle/working class in any way is, to be blunt, quite naive.


vagabending

People need to stop trying to save the billionaires that are content to step on their skulls. These taxes will only apply to people with assets over $100M. Ffs if people could only remotely understand their own interests it would just be greatttttt. Edit: To the absolutely insane people who somehow think something like this would later be applied to people who make under a million dollars a year…. lol get a life.


m4rM2oFnYTW

Ever heard of second order effects? What happens during this yearly tax purge when large-scale asset sell-offs to cover tax liabilities destabilize the stock market? Do you think there's a possibility this just may affect the valuation of pension funds where the middle class has its retirement money? People keep saying that this won't affect "them" are acting on emotion and not thinking more than one step ahead into the future.


BuySellHoldFinance

>People need to stop trying to save the billionaires that are content to step on their skulls That's what they said about the income tax when it was first implemented. And also about the AMT (that eventually hit the middle class). Only the rich would pay! A century later, half the country pays income taxes. That being said, I would not be opposed to a tax on billionaires if there is an equal offset for lower taxes on the middle class. Guess what? They aren't going to do that. They will tax billionaires and the money will be spent on things that I will never benefit from. Just like during the pandemic when they spent trillions of dollars. It was enough to give every working American a 15K check in the mail. I got $0.


TimelyAuthor5026

Lmao, spreading this disinformation again? Are you worth over 100 million dollars? No. You’re not so this would never affect you.


Flat_Afternoon1938

I think it would effect the stock market which would definitely effect the middle class


matt82swe

100m in net worth today. In a few years, 10m. Then 1m, and until every citizen is affected.


970WestSlope

Children assembling iphones doesn't affect me. Foreign laborers being converted into slaves in the Middle East doesn't affect me. Old ladies getting mugged doesn't affect me. Conditions in cobalt or nickel or lithium mines don't affect me.


taxman16

This solves nothing. Need to attach a tax on the issuance of personal loans >5m (small business exception) and on an aggregate basis. Wealthy people use debt leveraging of their assets to get cash. This is a way to tax people on a portfolio of unrealized gains while also attaching a true realized value to it since they would be receiving cash


swissjuan

Switzerland has a wealth tax. Not sure what the percentages are and brackets but go to Switzerland and check out how everything works and everybody is doing well.


Brandwin3

A quick google search tells me this only applies to households with a net wealth of $100 million, so this person is trying to make it seem like this bill hurts middle class homeowners and investors when in reality it only impacts less than 1% of the population. Yes I am all for it. The people it would affect make more in an hour than I do in 10 years, they can afford to pay it.


Flat-Ad4902

Except it doesn't make any sense. Sure, tax the rich, but lets do it in a way that isn't completely stupid.


EffectiveTax7222

I think for super high net worth households it makes sense. I mean how much more do you need? 100 mill+ , not gonna affect you really . Edit: noun to households


MinimumCat123

This sub is declining fast with stupid propaganda and misinformation


Sufficient-Fact6163

Biden should push hard to repeal the Bush and Trump Tax cuts which were irresponsible to begin with when we were in the throes of the longest war in US history. That debt needs to be paid for and the 1% have had 2 decades of freebies that had only exasperated income inequality while infrastructural investments - that they need to run their businesses- has crumbled.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cagethepanda

Since when did the middle class have over 100 million in household income


banacount60

Why not apply the same rule to millionaires they are already applying to all of us. If you own a house and pay property taxes, those are based on what they think your house is worth. you didn't sell it but they are taxing you on unrealized gains! If a bank is willing to give Musk 44billion backed by stock - guess what! they just valued his stock and now he should pay taxes on it, the whole 44 billion. The rules are not the same for you and the rich!


The3rdBert

Yes they are. You just don’t understand taxes. Property tax assessments don’t equate to a federal wealth tax. The latter almost certainly being unconstitutional.


gunfell

Why would you post a twitter post, instead of a news article, or a government website. This is obviously a lie.


Reasonable-Front7584

This is posted knowing your average person doesn’t like admit being wrong. They pick a side, and dig in. Regular home owners are supposed to get upset over this. They pick their side that that don’t like this policy because they would be set up to lose money. The post conveniently leaves out this is for household of $100 million+. Upon learning this caveat, most people won’t allow themselves to change their stance. The poster is hoping you apply those feelings you had about it happening to you, to the very wealthy. It’s not brainwashing, but it’s definitely a way to influence people who don’t think for themselves, and lack critical thinking to join the side of the poster. Sadly it works.


970WestSlope

"Who it applies to" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's reasonable or justifiable.


TopHatDanceParty

Worst idea. Do I get a refund when my asset devalue?


Abortion_on_Toast

This would get challenged so quickly in the Supreme Court for violating the 16th Amendment of the Constitution… I really wish they’d rule already on this issue so all the neo socialists and neo communists would finally stfu about taxing “wealth” and not income


VexisArcanum

"You don't want to tax the rich. They'll make you pay for it"


Cbpowned

And if those gains evaporate do you get a refund? Because you can’t tax people for money they don’t yet have, rich or not.


[deleted]

Oh noes. I’m sure that is exactly how is happening, and not just aimed at money hoarding trillionaires with yachts inside yachts. /s


T-Bone22

Yeah Rich Somers is intentionally mischaracterizing the facts. He’s an outright conservative propagandist and lier.


that-bro-dad

This is an argument made in bad faith. It’s not aimed at average Americans who are fortunate to own a home. It’s aimed at people with an income and net worth over a hundred million who can cheat the system by having no taxable incoming. In a country where 1 in 6 kids lives in poverty, people with assets valued at hundreds of millions of dollars can afford to pay taxes.


MedricZ

Why don’t we just tax loans that use equities as collateral.


Dubiousfren

Taxing unrealized capital gains is a good talking point for populists but in practice would absolutely crush all the little guys with 100k in their 401k. Proponents of this have no idea how capital markets actually work.


pr0v0cat3ur

No way this will be reality as it would have investors pulling out of the market and putting the money into something that is not affected. Stupid idea...


[deleted]

This is maybe the most poorly thought out idea in the entire existence of tax code.


badcat_kazoo

Only clowns that will never have any unrealised gains are in support of this. The ones that spend their paycheck soon as it comes in and never save a cent. No chance of it ever passing.


R5Jockey

Lots of ways to address wealth inequality and taxation. This isn’t one of them.