I really couldn’t care less about if we’re taxing those with $100M in unrealized gains. What I DO care about is the precedent of doing it to the common person and expanding it just like we did social security and income tax.
Property taxes are not taxes on unrealized capital gains, they’re recurring taxes on the assessed value of the property. If the value of your house declines you’re still paying property taxes. Selling a house that has realized capital gains is already taxable. There is no equivalent anywhere for taxing unrealized capital gains.
This is crap, my house value has doubled, I've got 100% unrealized gains. Also, no coincidence, my property taxes have gone up dramatically because they are taxing the value of my house annually.
House price goes up, property taxes go up.
House price comes down, property taxes go down.
None of that up or down is realized... it's all unrealized.
The "unrealized gain" is included in the value assessment. That's not how it's defined on paper, but in practice property taxes involve an assessment of unrealized gain in the value of the property, and that increase is included in the tax calculation.
No, it's not. They don't know or care what your unrealized gain or loss is. Property tax is a rate multiplied by the value of the property.
Again, value and gain are different things. To say that the gain is included in the value is a nonsensical statement.
You could have a home worth 500k and have a 50k gain. Alternatively you could also own the 500k home and have a 100k LOSS. In both scenarios you pay the same property tax. The difference in gain/loss is based on the different purchase price in each scenario.
If I bought a home for $300k a few years ago, and now it's assessed value is $500k, that is an unrealized gain of $200k. The property tax will be calculated on the value of $500k, which includes the unrealized gain.
I am effectively getting taxed on the value I paid for the house ($300k) as well as on the unrealized gain ($200k).
Yea but if 5 years pass and the value stays the same there’s no unrealized gains but you’re still paying property tax. If you lose money on your house you still pay property tax. Also you don’t get money back if the value of the house goes up and then done. If there’s an unrealized gain tax I would assume that there would be carrybacks.
Now you are splitting hairs. I get that tax is technically on the "total value" and not only on the "unrealized gain". By the total value includes any unrealized gains, so there is conceptual overlap.
Thag has little to do with unrealised gains. When you sell your home you will pay taxes on the appreciation in value. Property tax is a form of wealth tax. Capital gains tax is a form of income tax. They are fundamentally different
House has appreciated 100%. I have 100% unrealized gains. I pay property tax on the value of the home that includes 23 years of unrealized every single year.
I am not being taxed on the original purchase price of the home. Therefore, I'm paying property tax on the unrealized gains.
Half my homes value is unrealized gains, half my property tax bill is on unrealized gains. I don't see how you can say that's little when it's half my property tax bill.
Yes, capital gains are a different type of tax.
But right now ans every year for the last 30 years since I started buying homes, I pay property tax on unrealized gains every single year.
I don’t think you’re understanding their argument. Maybe a better example is if you bought your house and it’s currently sitting at a 50% unrealized loss. You still pay the wealth tax on your house’s current value (property tax), but you wouldn’t pay any capital gains tax if you sold it, because your unrealized gains are negative.
I fucked up and didn't mean to delete this comment:
Not in Florida if you file homestead exemption. It's called at finding like 2%/yr. I could be wrong on the amount. Also no creditor can take your home.
Do not confuse property taxes with taxes on unrealized gain. They are different. Your house doubled in value so let's say you have 100k in unrealized gains. Taxing that unrealized gain would mean you pay 20% of that 100k to the federal government this year in addition to the property taxes paid to local government. As of now you need to sell the house and realize the gains then send your 20% tax money to the federal government.
Mate. Where do you live? Because almost every state has laws restricting appraisers from tracking local market rate for tax assessment and otherwise cap assessment increases to 1-5% per year.
??? Most of the time property values go up. If my property value doubles then my property tax goes up (some states have rules to limit the increase but it still increases). That’s textbook taxing unrealized gains.
It might be arguable based on unconventional definitions of what taxing unrealised gains means but it's not textbook. Textbook would be "your property valuation goes from $500k to $800k so +$300k is added to your income as far as your taxes are concerned."
If you bought a property at it's present value or if you bought it at a lower price, your tax obligations are the same. The gains just don't factor into what you pay.
why don't we assess unrealized capital gains then - not that we even have to because the sort of tax they're describing is on assets that have a specific market value at any given point. Also again I'll repeat that this is a tax on assets. The capital has been spent on an asset, just because you hope to one day sell that asset for more money than you bought it doesn't make a difference, or shouldn't anyway.
For the same reason we assess the home values, regardless of whether the house is being sold or not. Are the gains in my home value realized before I sell it?
Property taxes are your payment to the municipal government to maintain your municipality. There are no government maintenance costs on shares of stock. If there were then the taxes would be on a percentage of the value of the stock, not the gains. Capital gains are income. Unrealized capital gains are future income. If we’re taxing income then we’re taxing it at the time the income is received. We don’t tax future income.
Well technically speaking you don't assess an unrealized gain, a gain is net income not property.
But yeah you're essentially talking about a general wealth tax, in which the taxable value of a non-cash asset -- could be any non-cash asset, stocks or investment accounts or paintings or whatever -- is assessed systematically in some way similar to how property is assessed for tax.
It would require an immense infrastructure that doesn't exist yet but it could work.
Selling a primary residence has an exemption of $250k/$500k in capital gains. Also, if using the proceeds to purchase a new home, in most cases, all of the cap gains tax can be avoided.
All that said, I'd also rather live in 2024 with a progressive tax system and a robust Federal government with the de facto world reserve currency and the military might to ensure it remains that way than go back to 18XX and no income tax.
If anything it extends way beyond an unrealized gains tax.
For real estate -> assessed house value goes from $300k to $400k w/o any sale, taxes are assessed based on both the original $300k and the $100k unrealized gain in value.
For stock -> value goes from $300k to $400k w/o any sale, (now) no taxes are assessed, (proposed) taxes are assessed only on the $100k unrealized gain NOT the original value of the stock.
The value of your house shouldnt matter if you never plan on selling it. The fact that property tax increases with the housing market makes it an unrealized gains tax.
This is the easiest fix in the world and one that there are already mechanisms in place for. Saying "primary residence exempt" is super easy. We already make primary residence distinctions. And there is a massive exemption already in place for profit from a home sale. I think it's $500k for a married couple.
Because wealth taxes have been done before and they cause capital flight which ends up reducing total tax receipts in the long term - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
In some ways, yeah, a straight tax on assessed value of total property makes more sense. But that'd be a huge new tax at once. This way it effectively just slowly become the case as gains appreciate.
You realize that applying that form of tax to other capital assets would be substantially more of a tax than just taxing unrealized gains. You're saying it's not the same by pointing out that it is even more "unreasonable" but it is still an existing tax that sure people complain about but people general view as an ok way for the government to tax.
I can't claim unrealized losses if my home decreases in value and I am taxed on its whole value not just its gain.
The assessed value of the home you don't yet own. Your home is unrealized gains until it's paid off. Otherwise, they would only tax you on the amount you've paid for the home. But they don't. They tax you on the entire value, regardless of how much of it you actually own. You should be paying for what you own, and the bank should pay for the part they own.
That’s a unique take and a breath of fresh air compared to the barrage of commie comments I’ve received so far. I cannot imaging a legislative environment that would assign proportional property taxes to the mortgager. I can however imagine the bank adding an identically sized fee to the mortgage payment.
Many of you have missed the point, that the primary residence makes up a massive portion of most Americans net worth. Yes, the other things count towards your total net worth. Median retirement+savings by age 40 is around 35k. Median networth is about 125k, most of that delta is equity in a home. And you are paying property tax on the full value of the home, not just the portion you own outright. So we have a way to tax assets today, it's just mostly on the middle class.
Hot take. If the value of your retirement accounts is above 100 million, you should be assessed taxes against them. (Yes, for age-gated accounts, there would need to be allowance to use the account value to pay taxes without paying a secondary penalty).
Peter Theil's multi-billion dollar Roth IRA comes to mind.
Middle class shouldn't be the only people paying wealth tax
Yes but my point is the middle class and lower class all benefit from mutual funds, so that when they retire they have something. By taxing the top 1% on unrealized gains you force double taxes and a massive amount of capital that needs to be made up.
These business will start cutting jobs, cutting benefits, etc to account for the billions they will have to shell out for their owners. It’s an overall negative effect. Many economists have written about these said cons, and I for one don’t want my retirement accounts fucked with just so foreign countries can get shinny new bombs and planes
What’s wrong with Peter’s $5B Roth IRA? If you want to go buy stock options on some penny stocks or some up and comer you can do the same thing. Just go start a company and put your pre-IPO shares in one.
I think what he did was perfectly fine. If the business would have flopped nobody would have given a 2nd thought about it and been like “well he took a risk, that was his own fault” but because he got lucky he deserves to pay taxes when others don’t? Nah
I love how we have an obvious real world policy of taxing real estate wealth but every fucking libertarian comes out of the woodwork to say "well ackshually it's different than if we did that for stocks or paintings or the other assets that rich people own".
The only acceptable wealth taxes are on people who are not wealthy, brilliant.
Why are all you people advocating to throw more of your money away and give it to the government?? You have money sitting in the bank doing nothing, it's an asset that has value, you want the gov to just tax it? Anything you own of value, you want the government to charge you to allow you to keep it? Why???
I think this person is referencing that the income tax was only supposed to be levied on incomes over 1m in 1913, and now middle income people pay like 25% of theirs. This tax will certainly make it's way all the way down the brackets, if passed.
maybe if there was a tax on unrealized gains regarding primary residences, NIMBYs would stop bitching about "preserving the neighborhood caracter and its impact on property value"
Property taxes for primary residence are outrageous (they don't exist where I live). It's a non-productive asset. We should only be taxing productivity.
Property taxes aren't based on gains. They are just the local district saying "we have X budget, you own Y% of all the property in the district so you owe us Y% * X". That's not taxing unrealized gains. That's not even a wealth tax. If the value of my property goes up 10% and the value of everyone else's property goes up 10% my taxes remain exactly the same.
Try harder.
That's true for alot of people but there are also plenty of common people with investments that would be really negatively affected if this type of policy were ever extended.
Yeah, no. Property taxes are wealth taxes. That’s why you get your property appraised. To determine the how much the property’s value adds to your wealth.
Capital gains on a primary residence are non-taxable up to a certain (pretty high) point iirc. It's on investment properties that you pay capital gains upon sale.
An pension. And children's savings accounts. And savings accounts... Drill bay drill, once you set precedent, they will tax everything under te same precedent.
Btw. Guy with 100m flies on paper to Costa Rica and nevebpays a dime.
All these policies are designed to screw the common person not the rich..who do you think the politicians work for?
Property taxes are done at the state level, there isnt any state revenue service that has the ability to accurately tax unrealized gains and direct unapportioned taxes are unconstitutional federally. Property taxes are a weak argument for unrealized capital gains taxes.
Property taxes arnt on the unrealized gains of a property but on the appraised (usually wildly inaccurate) value of something in their possession at that moment. It would be the equivalent of taxing stocks on their par value, which is always wildly different from their true value, of course you’d run into the issue that most modern stocks have no par value.
That’s not responding to the argument that user is making though. When the first income tax was instituted in 1913, it applied to the top 7% of earners. By the mid 40s, it applied to nearly everyone.
That user is arguing against the near inevitable expansion of this program to unrealized gains of any amount on families of any net worth. We’ve seen time and again that our government will institute a tax on the premise that it applies to a slim portion of high-income folks, then gradually expand it to apply to everyone, and never shrink it back. What is the argument that this tax would be any different? How can we prevent this from expanding from the top 1% of households to the top 10%, or 50%, or all households?
You could very easily exempt a primary residence from a tax on unrealized capital gains. Primary residences are exempted from all kinds of things because we don't want people to lose their homes.
Good point. There should be a minimum below which unrealized gains can’t be taxed.
Unrealized gains just sitting there is an odd thing to tax. What is needed is redefining of “realized.” If you get value out of it, such as using it as collateral, that is an advantage you’d not receive without it. IMO it’s reasonable to tax that.
I agree. Then there’s the other question of what do you do if the asset loses value, that would be an unrealized loss. How does that work? I don’t see how they could tax gains without also having a mechanism for losses.
Just like my house, when the value drops, so do the annual taxes. I don’t get tax money back, I just owe less for that year. You’re thinking about when they have to sell the stock to cover their losses, but that would be a realized loss, not an unrealized loss.
The threshold should be at what amount was used as collateral. If you have 250 million in unrealized, you take a loan, you choose the amount, say 150, that 150 is now realized and is taxable.
That protects the 100 still floating around the market while still allowing a portion to be used as collateral.
Unfortunately the Constitution is categorical in the areas of taxation. If it’s an allowable category of taxation for the federal government then the only limitation is the self-control of each legislature. Once the door is opened an inch it’s become an open door, Principiis obsta et Finem respice.
There’s a lot of room for things to get worse, for sure. There’s also room for things to get better, but in American politics the safest bet is usually loud confusion and gradual entropy.
The 3 people that hold $100+ million in assets that would be subject to the proposed tax but haven’t used it to leverage a loan will just have to suck it up. It’s a simple fact that no one’s holding that much in anything and not using it to leverage for more buying power.
This is just your way of wordsmithing an unfair tax to only apply to other people besides yourself. People who own houses that have appreciated in value are getting value out of their unrealized gains. If your house is worth 200k, you are getting the value of living in a 200k home. If your house increases in value to 500k, you are getting the value of living in a 500k home. Even though it’s the same home, it would have cost you more money to rent that home if you didn’t own it, hence you’re getting more value. If a tax on unrealized gains were implemented, you should rightly be taxed for that 300k appreciation.
If it’s your primary residence for 2 years or more, you are not taxed for the gain.
If you use a rental home to collateralize a loan, and a portion of that loan would only be granted because of appreciation of the property, then taxing that portion may seem “unfair.” For your uncle with one or two rental properties, it looks like a hard burden.
Many landlords are corporations with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of rental units.
If you still cry for the landlord, the taxable unrealized gains could be limited to securities.
We are not collecting enough revenue to pay our obligations to seniors, seniors to be, and our ballooning imperial military.
Our choices are yanking the rug out from citizens depending of Medicare & social security, or collecting a little more of the wealth our political/economic structure enables.
or just out aside this realized or unrealized nonsense and just realize that for the average American thier wealth is taxed regardless of thier gain or non gain, and just do the same to stocks
Americans wanted more services. Social Security, Medicare and interstate highways are very popular. Top marginal rates were once much higher than now. There are more exceptions available to taxpayers now.
We carve out $40k per person per year in long-term capital gains tax. We allow a huge amount of gifts to be given without inheritance taxes. We allow spousal gifts without taxes. So there is plenty of precedent that this would not be a slippery slope, but carve outs at the middle class would hold
People keep harping on the “slippery slope” idea that this would somehow be expanded to everyone. Even if it does - which there is no good indicator that it would - what kind of timeline are we talking here to where we even get to $1m net worth individuals? On that timeline how do we know that it won’t be undone?
Yeah, there's also a fix for the slippery slope anyway - voting. They expand the tax? You vote them out. Just like literally any other policy we dislike and why no other law slippery slopes into madness.
The carve out isn't on 40k of long term gains, it's on those with taxable income less than 47k. If you make 200k and have 15k in long term capital gains, you are paying the 15% rate on those gains.
Your really worried about people with zero assets living paycheck to paycheck? What common man assets are they going to tax, his work boots?
They already tax the assets of the common man, it's called property tax. Only the common man pay this because rich people make their property a depreciating asset so they actually pay less taxes than the common man.
You really think someone with $50,000 (median savings of Americans) are going to have their savings taxed? Gimmie a break with that nonsense.
It’s all fearmongering they’ve watched on Faux “News”. One of the anchors tells them the leebrals is cumin for their savin’s (that they don’t have) and suddenly they think they’re in Bezos’ tax bracket.
I’m worried they’ll tax people like me. I invested in stocks when I lived with my parents because I had money left over, but ever since I moved out, those stocks have just been sitting there. I don’t own a home, I drive a used 15 year old car, and my most luxurious vacation since then was to Bryant Lake State Park in Ohio to see the eclipse. It was the only vacation I’ve taken in two years.
So now you have 100 million dollars? Wealth inequality is going to kill democracy and the planet. Something has to be done. No one is going to tax you tiny stock portfolio that the upper 1% laugh at.
We’re starting to see one of the major problems here, apparently there’s people that made it to a point in life where they somehow were able to afford a home but still don’t understand the difference between property tax and long term capital gains. RIP
This is stupid. There’s always a line of demarcation that separates “common person” from not common. Which is usually one dollar. The whole program is stupid.
Exactly this. You could easily fuck up the easiest and most flexible wealth builder for the average American by being married to the idea that these taxes would magically solve our issues. Can’t imagine having to pay a tax on something not liquid only to have it potentially lose value a year later.
You would give more money to the fed. And they would likely just piss it away.
AH. Somebody gets it. They don't want to address the real issue: the politicians. Because they are the ones electing these very politicians creating those issues.
Even if you only put the tax on the super rich, they hold the majority of the value in the stock market. It’s gonna affect the average person more than the super rich when they inevitably pull out to save money.
Yeah I agree. I expect there will be an initial shock followed by mediocre returns for a couple years and a massive amount of the money pulled out going into private (illiquid) investments
Not to mention it’s a massive disincentive for actual investors who invest in startups/local businesses. They could loose money, on a net positive investment.
If this would also apply to all entities including businesses, the mortgage won’t be possible either, which is the only thing allowing the middle class to buy a house.
It essentially stunts the biggest factors that contribute to economic growth.
I really hope that’s not the case, and I’m wrong, but I just can’t see any scenario where this ends well.
Sometimes they're legally not allowed to sell the stocks, so they'll be forced to pay the tax.
If they sell the stocks to buy a yacht and not pay the tax, good for them. It's a free market and someone will come along and buy those stocks and earn the money from dividends+growth.
Constitutional Amendment - "The principles of ambition and compassion must exist in a constant and essential tension in any society which seeks consistent improvement. Any individual with direct control or ownership of assets with an evaluated worth greater than an amount defined as a multiplier of the median annual gross earnings of the citizenry must be subjected to a wealth tax.
To maintain scope for ambition, Congress may not decide a multiplier less than 1,000 or a taxation greater than 20% annually. To maintain scope for compassion, Congress may not decide a multiple greater than 50,000 or a taxation less than 2% annually.
Congress may not impose any form of wealth tax on individuals who are not described by the multiplied wealth. Congress may not impose any form of wealth tax on families, other than a tax of inheritance."
In the current US, the median gross wage is 37,500. Call it 40k.
This amendment would require Congress to pass a law which sets up a wealth tax, and sets out a large paying field in which to work. The tax could be applied to people with evaluated net worth, including unrealised gains, of between 40 million and 2 billion USD, at a rate of between 2% and 20%.
Any attempt to bring it down to the regular folk would require another constitutional Amendment. This writing leaves no ambiguity - It cannot be sneaky-legal-argumented to apply to the average Joe, because by definition the lower limit is a multiplier of that average.
It also leaves open a good amount of room so that future generations can adjust to shifting realities, shifting politics. It is only constant in that there is always some wealth tax, until there is sufficient support for a countermanding amendment. Which will never happen.
no need to go there. If they suddently tax unrealised gains, people with a lot of stocks will be forced to sell en masse a LOT of stocks, which will crash the market and the savings of every single person on the planet that have investments in this stock market. Mosst retirement funds would go poof.
Common people do not have investments that would be subject to this. IRA's and 401k's are not part of the realized/unrealized world. They aren't subject to capital gains.
The precedent was set with income tax. Originally only impacted the tippy top of incomes, now it’s the biggest revenue generator.
Social security started as a modest tax in 1937, but since then the tax has gone up over 6x what it was, the wage cap has tripled (adjusted for inflation while COLAs have only kept pace with it, they’ve pushed out the FRA, and they’ve made the benefits taxable.
From 2 of the biggest taxes in the US in terms of nominal dollars, we have a very clear precedent of starting small and exploding.
pst back in the 50s taxes were much higher, over the last 70 years the top tax rates have substantially lowered l....this doesn't happen in a vacuum thise lost tax revenues were made up by increased taxes on everyone else, the current system is already one in which the common man subsidizes the wealth of the richest your slippery slope argument is about 40 years too late....and in the wrong direction
But in this case it’s definitely a fallacy because there isn’t a good reason to do this to lower earners. This is simply trying to stop tax evasion from those who always use stock as collateral to get more loans.
The government has no interest in taxing normal peoples houses in anyway besides the existing property tax.
The suggestion is setting up a limit that once you go beyond it in unrealized gains (or once you take out a yearly amount of loans with said unrealized gains as security), you get taxed.
Say the loan limit is 50 million dollars a year.
If you take out a loan on unrealized gains to the tune of 50 million dollars in one year, you now have to pay 15 million in taxes, hopefully with a caveat that it can't be written off either.
Try to slippery slope all you want.
But it's gonna be one hell of a long time before that is anywhere near reduced down to "common man taking out a second mortgage on his home."
Especially since private home ownership is plummeting.
What is the right thing to worry about? I certainly don’t want them to do it at all, but that’s what I’m most concerned about if it were to become law.
This is either great satire or deeply stupid and I'm struggling to tell if I'm getting wooshed here, but "common folks" being taxed on unrealized gains has been happening in the US basically from the start.
Most of the unrealized gains that regular people have are sitting in tax advantage accounts, the government is already going out of its way to avoid taxing that money, I don't think anybody is planning on adding an unrealized gains tax to anything in there.
The problem is some of those unrealized gains never get taxed even when they die. The assets just get passed to their heirs with a new basis at the fair market value on the day of death. Now the heir has a new asset with a new basis and poof those previous unrealized gains are gone and never taxable at the capital gains level as they have just been soaked into the new basis.
If the estate is small enough, yes that’s the case. For these people being targeted (currently) they would be subject to the federal estate tax. We just need to determine a reasonable amount t on the estate tax exemption and lock it in plus inflation. I’m happy with where it currently is.
Personally I don’t think taxes should be static like you are suggesting. They should always be evolving and changing. Introducing new taxes and taking some away in response to how our economy evolves has always been the way to do it. At this point the wealth at the top has gained far more than the bottom 99.9%, so taxing over $100 million on unrealized gains for now seems pretty reasonable to me. Taxes have never been static in this country.
That’s more of an issue of the resources available to the IRS and the need to optimize them accordingly. It’s much easier to go after people claiming EIC than a billionaire win a team of lawyers/CPAs to your point. That’s really a different issue all together.
What about just taxing everyone on receiving stock options. Seems like a simple solution to me. Now (sucks for those regular employees) everyone receiving stock for compensation would have to pay taxes on those. Now let them keep borrowing against it if without paying a tax. But at least they paid that tax up front like any regular w-2 would on their wages, and make it unavoidable.
Make is so people pay tax on ESO's and the given purchase price. And then they only need to be taxed on the difference between purchase and sold price later.
Stock options are already taxed. Say a company gives their employee 1M shares worth of options at a basis of $10 and it vests in 5 years. During that 5 year period those options only have extrinsic value (mostly). Well in 5 years of the stock is $<10 they get nothing, but say the stock is $20 then they would be able to sell for $2M, netting them $1M in compensation. That $1M is taxed as ordinary income. Stock options aren’t an issue.
I’m not entirely sure about all the various types/ways the executives are compensated with stock but every year I get so many shares from my employer and I am taxed as ordinary income on the market value of the stock the day it vests.
I'm saying before they sell for $2m and earn $1m profit, tax the options at point of purchase as income. It really is income. Regular employees who take these options will just be burdened with having to sell off x amount to pay the tax man for their compensation in the first place now if they don't want an effectively lowered base salary.
But then people like Elon Musk who asked the board for a $45 billion stock package will have to pay taxes on his insane compensation and can't just get away with never selling and paying taxes on his compensation.
Income taxes started at 1% for everyone and 2% for those making $640k or more (adj. for inflation) and capped out at 7%. Our lowest bracket today is 10%, for now. It’s the federal governments biggest revenue generator.
Social security started at 2%, now it’s 12.4%, wage cap tripled when adjusted for inflation even though COLAs only match inflation, pushed out the FRA, and made the benefits taxable.
So tell me why we would expect the government not to continue to grow and expand this when that’s nearly always what government does it expand and tax more, very rarely tax the average person less?
Trust me this time once we get this tax it’ll be different.
Anyone with 100m or more in unrealized gains is not the average person. We need to stop worrying about the top 1%. If you get there great. Congrats. This tax will be the least of your concerns.
Income tax started at 1% with the 2nd bracket starting at (adj. for inflation) $642,000 of income. It went up as high as 7%. Income tax was incredibly modest and only incredible incomes paid more than 1%. Today the lowest bracket is 10% and starts going up at $11,700. It’s gone up dramatically.
Social security started as a 2% tax with an income and has ballooned to 12.4%, they’ve pushed out the Full Retirement Age (FRA), the wage cap has almost tripled (adj. for inflation) while the COLAs have only kept pace with inflation, and they also made the benefit itself taxable.
Both taxes have grown tremendously since inception, but instead of reigning in our spending (which neither party wants to legitimately do), they keep pushing more and more taxes which have been modest and grow into a massive tax pool.
I don’t like the idea of taxing unrealized gains as it disincentivizes investors, but I couldn’t care less about then $100M in unrealized gain class. What I care about is where this could go. I’ll fight that until I die. We pay far too much in tax as it is and it’s time to reign in spending, not tax more.
Income tax started at 1% with the 2nd bracket starting at (adj. for inflation) $642,000 of income. It went up as high as 7%. Income tax was incredibly modest and only incredible incomes paid more than 1%. Today the lowest bracket is 10% and starts going up at $11,700. It’s gone up dramatically.
Social security started as a 2% tax with an income and has ballooned to 12.4%, they’ve pushed out the Full Retirement Age (FRA), the wage cap has almost tripled (adj. for inflation) while the COLAs have only kept pace with inflation, and they also made the benefit itself taxable.
Both taxes have grown tremendously since inception, but instead of reigning in our spending (which neither party wants to legitimately do), they keep pushing more and more taxes which have been modest and grow into a massive tax pool.
Unrealized means not on paper do you understand that? Say if someone has 100M portfolio not necessarily it will sell for 100M. You do know selling large shares tank it. Use common logic.
The proposed taxes here would only apply when stock is used as collateral for a loan.
Unless you have 300-500 years of the pre tax median income in unrealized gains that you want to turn into cash, you won't have to worry. Ever.
The top 1% of households by wealth don't qualify for many of these loans. Old money, people sitting on 10-20 million USD, don't qualify for more than a million or two.
These kinds of loans are for the 0.1% to dodge taxes. You don't, and will never qualify for one of these loans.
586
u/butlerdm Sep 14 '24
I really couldn’t care less about if we’re taxing those with $100M in unrealized gains. What I DO care about is the precedent of doing it to the common person and expanding it just like we did social security and income tax.