Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

taxing unrealized gains

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tangler
    replied
    Originally posted by zlandar View Post

    If your net worth is >$100m I think you are beyond saving for retirement. How many docs are worth $100m?

    I don't disagree with your tax creep argument. But the very narrow target of this tax makes all the VHCOL, retirement, upper middle class, etc irrelevant.


    So tell me this:

    Are you certain?

    Why would they not tax the wealth of people with <100M?

    Why would this not expand?

    Why are you convinced that this is not just the start?

    Why would this be a great idea for people with over 100M but not a good idea for people with _____?

    What is the _____= cut off point?

    1M? 3M? 5M? 10M? 20M? 50M?

    What net worth needs to be punished with a different set of rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lithium
    replied
    As much as the idea of a “wealth tax” sucks and seems fundamentally unfair, what’s not up for debate is that economic inequality in the US has worsened over the last generation. It’s likely that this is only going to increase with our current policies, even if income tax rates are increased dramatically.

    The question is what, if anything, the government should do about it. Despite the inequality, living standards for the general population are always getting better, but people on minimum wage and food stamps aren’t usually satisfied just because they are living with better amenities than their parents and grandparents. All they see is everyone else driving Teslas and buying McMansions with cash. I just worry that if something isn’t implemented in our tax code, the resentment towards the wealthy is only going to build, potentially exacerbating social unrest and even violence. It’s hard to imagine it getting as bad as the French Revolution, but if the national debt starts damaging our credit rating and the strength of the dollar, the wealthy are going to receive more invective from politicians on the cable shows and the campaign debates.

    That said, a wealth tax sounds like an accounting nightmare to implement. WCI discussed ten better proposals than a wealth tax in one of his previous blog posts. I’d rather start with taxing realized CG higher, eliminating the step up, or lowering the estate exemption, to name a few.

    Leave a comment:


  • zlandar
    replied
    Originally posted by Tangler View Post

    Eliminating Step up in basis at death would be much more tolerable IMO.

    People trying to save for retirement will get smashed by taxing unrealized gains
    If your net worth is >$100m I think you are beyond saving for retirement. How many docs are worth $100m?

    I don't disagree with your tax creep argument. But the very narrow target of this tax makes all the VHCOL, retirement, upper middle class, etc irrelevant.



    Leave a comment:


  • Random1
    replied
    A lot of people who have the most means , may have a lot of NW , but most of the NW is tied up in illiquid businesses and real estate. So does some one have to sell part of their business to pay their fair share ?

    Trickle down taxes is worse than trickle down economics.

    Leave a comment:


  • K82
    replied
    I have been wondering how long it would take the US to start taxing wealth. I believe it's inevitable and will quickly trickle down to all of us on this forum. I'm sadly confident that this will occur due to our ever increasing national debt and deficit spending. Whatever can't go on forever will eventually end and I see no appetite to get spending under control from either party. Money to keep the Ponzi scheme going will need to come from somewhere. I agree with others that I don't think this current proposal will occur now, but I believe it is coming.

    There are currently 7 countries that levy a wealth tax. The amount at which its triggered varies but is as low as around 100K net worth. The tax rate ranges from 0.2% up to 5.25%. This is in addition to income taxes.

    "Why do you rob banks?" ...
    "Because that's where the money is!"---Willie Sutton, notorious bank robber

    Leave a comment:


  • Tangler
    replied
    Originally posted by STATscans View Post

    Time to vote the democrats out of office ?
    Let us try to stay out of going too political.

    IMO both parties spend way too much and our overall system is inefficient and wasteful.

    I don’t have all the answers but i would start by simplifying the tax code.

    Tax code could be one page long.

    Leave a comment:


  • STATscans
    replied
    Originally posted by Tangler View Post
    100%
    Time to vote the democrats out of office ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tangler
    replied
    Originally posted by Lithium View Post
    Some interesting details and ramifications in the WSJ today. I won’t spend too much time on it since it is almost certainly DOA politically. Apparently if you hold “illiquid” assets like real estate that are difficult to value you can get away with just paying an interest charge rather than the gain every year. I think just about any other proposal, even eliminating the step up in basis at death, sounds better than a wealth tax.
    Eliminating Step up in basis at death would be much more tolerable IMO.

    People trying to save for retirement will get smashed by taxing unrealized gains

    Leave a comment:


  • Tangler
    replied
    Originally posted by CordMcNally View Post

    These things always expand.
    100%

    Leave a comment:


  • Tangler
    replied
    So we will have different rules for different groups.

    When does one become too rich to play by the regular rules?

    Who decides? What is the cut-off point?

    What if the person making the cut-off point is empowered to lower it to increase “ government funding “ of their pet programs ?

    I love how people are fine with screwing over the “evil rich” as long as the rules only punish the dude who has more than them.

    Here are my questions for pondering:

    Questions:

    1. Do we want to change the rules for people depending on their level of wealth?

    2. At what wealth level does someone become “too wealthy” to be taxed by the regular rules?

    3. Who decides?

    4. Does the person who decides benefit (conflict of interest)?

    5. Does this create unity or is it divisive?

    6. Will the wealthiest (those who are the “intended target”) have resources and resilience to avoid / diminish the intended acquisition of their wealth?

    7. Will this ultimately increase taxes for the upper middle class and high income professionals?

    8. Will a tax on unrealized capital gains encourage investment in the market?

    Leave a comment:


  • CordMcNally
    replied
    Originally posted by zlandar View Post

    A Dem was finally smart enough to propose a tax that affects an extremely narrow segment of Americans (0.006% by my calculation) who are unquestionably wealthy and don't pay at least 20% of their "income" in taxes. The gotcha is "income" is definef so in includes unrealized gains.

    Still it avoids the "upper-middle" class debate in HCOL areas. It wouldn't surprise me if a watered-down version of this proposed tax passes.
    These things always expand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tangler
    replied
    Originally posted by Hatton View Post
    This is unworkable. Would everyone retreat into artwork? Harder to value until an auction. If something like this ever passed the very wealthy would find an asset class to avoid it and the rest of us would pay it. Interesting article in the WSJ today that stated when the income tax was passed in 1914 the top rate was 7% and that bracket began at $14.5 million inflation indexed income. She how thing get started and trickle down.
    It will trickle down. I have no doubt this is coming.

    A forum friend reminded me that around 50% of our nation pays zero in income taxes.

    Many of this same 50% thinks the system is unfair and needs to tax the people who pay more.

    Since this is an era when many people are concerned about 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?” Thomas Sowell

    Leave a comment:


  • zlandar
    replied
    I assume we are talking about the 20% tax on unrealized gains for individuals worth >$100m?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-t...=series_budget

    "WASHINGTON—President Bidenwill propose a new minimum tax on households worth more than $100 million as part of his annual budget, the White House said Saturday, in a bid to ensure the very wealthiest Americans pay at least 20% in tax on their income and rising asset values each year.

    The proposal would affect fewer than 20,000 households, and it would apply only to those who don’t pay at least 20% in tax on a combination of income as typically defined and their unrealized gains on unsold assets such as stocks and closely held businesses. The plan would generate roughly $360 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to a White House fact sheet released in advance of Monday’s full budget proposal. That is about twice as much money as raising the top individual income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, and it would affect a much smaller group of people."

    A Dem was finally smart enough to propose a tax that affects an extremely narrow segment of Americans (0.006% by my calculation) who are unquestionably wealthy and don't pay at least 20% of their "income" in taxes. The gotcha is "income" is definef so in includes unrealized gains.

    Still it avoids the "upper-middle" class debate in HCOL areas. It wouldn't surprise me if a watered-down version of this proposed tax passes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatton
    replied
    This is unworkable. Would everyone retreat into artwork? Harder to value until an auction. If something like this ever passed the very wealthy would find an asset class to avoid it and the rest of us would pay it. Interesting article in the WSJ today that stated when the income tax was passed in 1914 the top rate was 7% and that bracket began at $14.5 million inflation indexed income. She how thing get started and trickle down.

    Leave a comment:


  • medicoFIRE
    replied
    Its just a ploy out of political desperation. Makes no sense to tax unrealized gains. What if they go to zero the next week? Sorry sir, but now you’re bankrupt. You still owe us 100 million dollars eventhough your value is now zero. Way too arbitrary. And I’m not in the business of protecting super riches. But they should just find another way. A good start would be eliminating longterm capital gains as much as I stand to gain from it. And should have a limit on the amount of loans you can take against your assets. Because that is how these fools keep taxes low- by living off low interest loans instead of generating taxable events

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X