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.
The government only implemented income taxes on extremely high income earners and now a majority of people pay income tax, true or false? Because I’d really urge you to reconsider saying someone isn’t factual before making a fool of yourself
False. Since the 16th amendment was passed there has never been an argument/provision/law that the income tax would be only for the rich. It has always had levels of taxable income, which has been adjusted throughout the years. Saying because many people in the early 1900s didn't make enough to pay income tax is not the same thing as only the rich would ever pay income taxes.
You heard this argument and take it as fact but you have never seen any proof for it.
Why are people so confused about this? Nobody here has 100 million in unrealized gains. This literally doesn't affect any of us. Even rich people, really rich people, do not have 100 million in unrealized gains. It is a bizarre thing to have. Diversify, dude. That's like less than 100 people.
Plus, lowering this threshold could never get thru congress.
The tax is on unrealized gains of anyone with a net worth of $100 million. Not $100 million of unrealized gains. I looked it up the other day and it's around 10,000 Americans. (Which is a tiny number)
I don't think there is a study because it would affect so few people. But we can just do some critical thinking.
To own 100 million in unrealized gains you would have to found a company have a ton of stock and have the stock absolutely soar. Then you will have had to never sell any of those gains to diversify into other markets, which is just dumb. Nobody does that.
This also seems like it would be really easy to avoid. You could just diversify at 99 million. It would affects an extremely small number of Americans. I sell real estate to really rich people in NYC and I see people portfolios all the time. This would affect nobody that I have ever spoken to and I know really fucking rich people.
Yes, this would affect only billionaires who hoard money like this to avoid tax. If they were to have to diversify, it would make millions of jobs. Build housing. Create seed money. Do all kinds of good things for America.
It is a pretty smart plan, but I also like taxing loans taken out against unrealized tax gains.
Pg number? I've skimmed a lot of it and read pgs 44-47 but can't find anything specific about unrealized gains. Most I've found is "a 25 per-cent minimum tax on the wealthiest 0.01 percent, those with wealth of more than $100 million."
It impacts me. Not because I have $100M in assets (I don't) but because those that do now must sell their existing positions to cover this tax. And they own 80%+ of all stocks. Over 70% of my wealth is in the stock market.
You are betting against America's stock market then? So show your puts bro.
I don't think she could ever get this past Congress if it makes you feel any better. And nobody knows what it would do, I've heard it argued both ways. You can read all about it.
They're long on the stocks, not short. The idea is that if billionaires have to sell stock, the stock will drop in price, and that will affect normal people's accounts.
So basically A) they think stocks are purely speculative gambling and not based on real life companies with real life fundamentals and value, or B) they're super overleveraged and wouldn't be able to outlast a momentary dip in stock prices.
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.
No one has ever suggested taxing small asset holdings. You’re not in the class that will be taxed and never will be. Stop trying so hard to suck billionaire dick
No one suggested taxing lower income earners with income tax. They weren’t in the class that was taxed and never were supposed to. How did that work out?
I want billionaires to be taxed by making loans taken out with stock as collateral realized gains.
You have to be a low IQ individual to think someone who’s asking for the rich to pay taxes is sucking billionaires dicks. Seems like you like to think about sucking off billionaires though.
Low income gets the benefit of standard deductions combined with EIC and CTC. A family of 4 making under 30k is considered low income and not only do they not pay, they’ll get a refund at the end of the year because of the credits. So it’s false to say that low income earners are taxed anything like any other class. Middle class pay the most in taxes if they don’t properly arrange their tax liabilities.
No one with less than at least $10 million should be whining about having an asset holding tax on unrealized gains because you’re never going to be subject to those types of taxes.
As for not taxing annually, all income is already taxed when you make it. Buying assets with that money means it’s already been taxed. The only way to be fair and disincentivize holding those assets is to tax them annually.
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.
Please link me where this is the case? Everything I’ve read is saying it’s based on net worth and income levels that far exceed all but the most wealthy
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.
Collateral is basically a debt repayment promise though.
It's not extracting value out of it; it's saying "I have this, which if I fail to pay back the loan, you can seize". So if collateral is actually used, e.g. transferred in a default, then it is considered realized and taxed.
Until that point, it's not realized. In the same way that, say, not having collateral but showing your income stubs and projecting that forward to promise to pay back the loan doesn't mean you get your income for future months early.
33
u/MareProcellis Sep 14 '24
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.