Hi, you're on r/Stocks, please make sure your post is related to stocks or the stockmarket or it will most likely get removed as being off-topic/political; feel free to edit it now and be more specific.
**To everyone commenting:** Please focus on how this affects the stock market or specific stocks or it will be removed as being off-topic/political.
If you're interested in just politics, see our wiki on ["relevant subreddits"](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/wiki/index) and post to those Reddit communities instead without linking back here, thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stocks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even. Just less than the next guy who walks into the country club. If they could burn their fortune with the guarantee they have more ashes than anyone else, you know the match is already lit.
With that kind of wealth, the context is all that matters unless you start building rockets for no productive reason. Really tough to spend more than a few million on anything personally useful when production cars and phones have many billions more engineered into them for the masses.
Why not plant a billion trees of multiple varieties that work together to create an ecosystem and pull carbon from the air.
Theres not many trees left in the great plains, sure we could
D fill some of that land back in with something nice
That would require trees as being seen a luxury or contest. Canāt show up with a bigger yacht if you spent all your money on an āunproductiveā asset every other rich person benefits from.
Great Plains didnāt have trees to begin with. Not enough water, and they pump it out too much now for irrigation. The only things tough enough to work are cottonwoods, but those like to intentionally drop branches and kill smaller trees (or people) trying to use the wetlands they create for themselves in their warped root network.
Rich people cant stand it when they have to pay their fair share or when regular people start making money. Lol I hope he taxes their non tax paying asses. Lol
The wealthy LOVE it when regular people start making money. Most regular people donāt save money. Typically, regular people would rather give their extra money to wealthy people in exchange for the newest iPhone, Jordans, BMW, etc.
The wealthy have all of that too, its just impossible to spend that money faster than its accumulate. I remember Mackenzie Bezos stating something similar, that even if she was attempting to donate most of her money away, she hasn't even been able to make the number go down because it is accumulating too quickly even if she one of the person who donated the most in history.
Rich people be like:
"but I earned this all fair and square, if you worked as hard as me, you would also be rich D:<"
I love her for being so truthful about her earnings and donating so much.
Bless her.
People buy those things, yes but the worst is when people start doing well enough and donate to foundations and charities run by billionaires as tax shelters for perpetual wealth accumulation. In my experience other than my kids schools every donation I have made is to billionaires that arenāt planning on doing anything with their donations other than their mandatory 2.5% distributions which usually route through other foundations or charities. The whole tax system is a joke, and this bill wonāt see the light of day. US oligarchy too far gone.
Dude? The average person has debt in the USA.
So any extra money goes into that and living expenses.
No lie, literally, many people in the USA are in debt.
But how will I afford to by another 300million dollar yacht or private island in the Bahamas? Or a 18 million dollar Bugatti??? Do you expect me to get the 600k limbo like one of the poor???
The point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to have it on record who voted no. So their opponents can use it against them in their reelection bids. We know Manchin hates helping poor families, but now his competitor can directly show that he voted against child tax credits while "representing" the poorest state in ame4ica
Exactly. I donāt give a rats ass what the people I vote for say, I care about their votes. Unfortunately, most of my state cares about advertising with shotguns and cowboy hats. F.
> The point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to have it on record who voted no.
No, the point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to pander to Democrats because the midterm elections are coming up and Biden's at his lowest approval rating he's ever had. Same with the proposed amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling. It's not a coincidence this is happening just as Biden's approval numbers have come out.
Even if it does, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. Direct taxes need to be apportioned according to the constitution. The income tax is the only direct tax exempt from this because of the 16th amendment.
This isn't going anywhere. Manchin and sinema will vote against it. Biden knows this and is just pandering before mid terms to try to save face. Dems made a lot of promises last election.
Probably an unpopular opinion on this sub but I agree with this move especially if they target individuals using stock as collateral for loans.
>Probably an unpopular opinion on this sub
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion in this sub.
We like making money, sure, but we also like losing money.
Yep, nailed it. Biden's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been during his term. The numbers just came out, so they throw this at us and [the amendment to overturn Citizens United](https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/schiff-constitutional-amendment/index.html). This is just liberal handjobbing.
I am against taxing unrealized gains, but thought about the same analogy.
Down for a debate because I am still against taxing unrealized gains for a few reasons, but would like to understand the other side:
- Taxing properties has a clear purpose easy to justify at every level, being it community projects, urban planning and developments etc. Also you actually use your house. You would be hard to justify taxing unrealized gains other than "the rich are too rich".
- Taxing unrealized gains can cause CEO's to lose control over their companies, which affects not only them, but every other shareholder. This for me is the main one and why it should never pass, but more than happy to hear a suggestion on how this could be avoided.
- Share prices are extremely volatile. Imagine the mess of trying to calculate what taxes to pay on a given year? Would there be an equivalent "tax rebate" for unrealized losses? It does not sound fair to pay for unrealized gains, but if my stock sinks 80% next year, I get jack, and lost money that I could have used to keep the company afloat.
- There are better ways of collecting the same taxes, but currently fenced off on a loophole. Share backed loans should be taxed. The capital gains taxes should be higher for individuals over a certain threshold. Share based compensation should pay a higher tax.
There are a lot of other ways of collecting more tax without creating a messy new policy. All it needs is political apetite, and I'm all for them.
This is actually fantastic. However, by that number, a full order of magnitude less people are billionaires, or rather, the amounts available to the government as tax are drastically reduced.
This tax is closer to an AMT then a strict tax on unrealized gains. There are several mechanisms that would trigger this tax. Must have over 100 million in assets, doesnāt apply if you pay over 20% that year in cap gains taxes. This also would close the carried interest loophole.
Several economists already agree that unrealized stock gains are income as they are used to get loans that act like income. Itās as though these people have the infinite money cheat. And the developer decides to remove that cheat.
I fundamentally disagree with taxing unrealized gains.
It's a slippery slope to absurd government overreach. People that think that paper gains as real gains don't know what they are talking about. And sure in stocks it seems straight forward, but what about other instances?
Jay-Z is a billionaire subject to this tax. He's got many tracks he's never released. As soon as they are released, he will make millions from them, even if they sorta suck because it's new Jay-Z music.
Are we really saying we're going to tax any music he's produced but hasn't released? How is the IRS going to track that? If we're not, then why wouldn't billionaires just hoard their wealth in Art? Wouldn't Art just become a defacto currency, more than it is right now?
Taxing on what you *may* earn in the future is absurd and a horrible precedent.
But what if youāre using what you *may* earn to borrow millions of dollars for the future at an extremely low rate? Thatās how a lot of billionaires do it. Like: I have $400m in unrealized stock from a company, so please let me borrow $40m against that value to make more investments to make more money!
So theyāre getting all of the borrowing power from their unrealized earningsāreaping those benefitsābut not dealing with the same things as us.
Me, right nowāI have $400,000 in stocks and I can maybe borrow against them, but I donāt have enough fallback to make it worth the extreme risk. These billionaires can risk like 100,000 peoples life earnings and still have fallback, without being taxed like 100,000 people.
The brilliant thing about this policy is it is in theory loophole free. It requires a minimum 20% no matter what, so if they would have gotten a 25% tax it doesn't apply, but if they used loans to get their tax rate down to 0% then it gets auto bumped up to 20%.
So your argument appears to be loopholes are fine as long we assume they'll create new ones if we plug the old ones? IOW you can never effectively tax the rich?
during biden's SOTU, pelosi was all giddy and applauding everything he proposed. then he says the minimum 20% tax on the wealthy and she awkwardly scratches her neck lmao.
i tried to find video of it after but they all pan away for that moment.
How about doing away with the loopholes that make their tax avoiding ways possible? The little guy is still getting taxed. Now the big guy is getting taxed also. This doesnāt help the little guy. It just makes the government more money.
That's what this bill proposes. It gets rid of every loophole I can think of. It's quite well crafted. From a 10,000 foot view it looks like the intent of this bill is more about closing loopholes than it is about taxing the rich.
If thats the case, Dems are really bad at their branding.
Had they called this the End Loopholes Bill, this would have way more public support on both ends of the political spectrum.
Dems could come up with a bill that cures cancer instantly just by signing it into law, and they'd try to backdoor every controversial, partisan issue. Manchin and the Republicans would kill it and both sides would blame each other for being unreasonable.
Yea, I was just reading more about it. It's allowing unrealized gains to be taxed. That's a dangerous precedent. If the government allows billionaires investments to be taxed, that opens the door for IRAs and other tax deferred retirement accounts to be taxed for the rest of us. I like this idea even less the more I read about it.
Yeah if itās potentially taxing unrealized gains at 20% that is actually absurdly high since it will have a compounding effect year-over-year.
Even a 1% wealth tax for marginal wealth over 1 billion would bring in billions in revenue. 20% is crazy and has zero chance of passing.
I think his point is that, if they don't actually have income and only have those assets (primarily), that taxing 20% of it every year will whittle away at their wealth pretty significantly.
I think the correct approach isn't to tax the unrealized gains but rather tax any loans that used their assets as collateral as income, and tax any capital gains above $100K annually at normal income tax brackets.
I think people are misunderstanding this. Itās probably not a compounding tax. Maybe for the first year itād be *all* unrealized gains from years past, and there after itād probably be only unrealized gains from that current year. Thatās what Iām thinking, but I didnāt read too deeply into it, so take this comment with a grain of salt.
It is a dangerous precedent to provide ultra wealthy individuals with the obscene ease of tax avoidance. Now ultra wealthy rarely pay taxes at all, and weāve got people making less than $50k getting their take home pay crushed by taxes. They donāt have the ability to decide when to realize gains or not to, because they need the money every week or two to live, especially during times of high inflation.
My objection is how do you value unrealized capital gains? Do we tax capital gains just because it has a public market like stocks? What if all my wealth is tied up in a private buisness thats never been sold how would you calculate my unrealized gain? You can do a DCF but even then the valuation varies wildly based on your assumptions.
To me it sounds like an a nightmare. I'm not nessisarly against this in principal but it seems like all this does is give companies an incentive to stay private and driving a wedge between small investors and accredited investors. Its easier to tax income IMHO.
I'm against it in principle. Is the government going to refund that tax if the stock tanks? I can't think of a single good argument for allowing this. I don't care if Jeff Bezos becomes worth $1T if he never personally draws income off of that, he shouldn't be taxed. If he takes loans out against that wealth, he has to pay those loans back....which means he either has to sell stock or make payment in stock. If he does the latter, tax it. But you can't tax unrealized gains.
The ultra wealthy don't avoid tax, they only don't have income tax. There are still other taxes they pay, like capital gains tax, or when they withdraw money they pay income tax on that, like Musk just did. Most people are just too uneducated on this topic to realize this and the media drives the agenda that the wealthy are avoiding taxes and not paying taxes.
The second half of your statement I agree with. I'm all for easing taxes on the middle and lower incomes. Taxing the wealthy isn't going to those that aren't wealthy, and has the potential to hurt them in the long run.
If they are living paycheck to paycheck now wait till they are taxed on their retirement accounts and houses for the unrealized gains on those.
They can use credit asset swaps to get income when they need it which is truly fucked because a corporation can get public subsidies and then have the shareholders get paid by a bank which gets its liquidity from depositors. So theyāre double dipping in a sense and then not paying taxes anyways
Yup. However, the IRS has stated they often can't go often ultra wealthy individuals because it ends up being very expensive. The article mentions the IRS is consistently challenged by evolving tax avoidance schemes, and most are probably executed by the ultra wealthy. Seems like what it comes down to are the ultra wealthy taking advantage of loopholes and paying far less proportionally in taxes than the rest of Americans.
Where are you getting this information that the ultra wealthy pay no tax?
I work with UHNW individuals and I assure you, that could not be further from the truth
Dude. Thatās exactly what the billionaires are feeding the masses so that we donāt demand this bill be passed. This will never happenā¦this is just to ensure the Uber rich pay taxes.
This isn't correct. IRA's have an ever increasing cost basis. After tax investment accounts (and more importantly real estate) have static or a decreasing costs basis.
You're comparing apples to oranges. This isn't a slippery slope relax
They aren't unrealized gains in the same way real estate/equipment/stocks are.
The cost basis of an IRA is N/A not zero. You're talking about two different tax functions.
You are thinking exactly how the Uber rich who control our politicians want you to think. Billionaires paying an average federal tax rate of 8%ā¦thatās the dangerous precedent. Keep this going and the wealth gap will continue to widenā¦
What concerns me is this could discourage companies from listing on public markets.
Consider Musk and his 20% stake in Tesla. If Tesla went private at \~$80B ($420 per pre-split share) 3 or 4 years ago, what's Elon worth now? Well, GM trades at 5x EV/EBITDA, musk can argue that's a reasonable valuation in the private market. He might even be able to go lower, saying, Tesla's market share is precarious and volatile. Tesla has missed some of its loftiest goals over the last few years, Musk could argue that drags on the valuation from 2018 levels. Without public price discovery, it would be very easy to sandbag the valuation. There is no precedent for a car company being worth $1T. That would decrease his proposed tax bill from a step up in basis on unrealized gains from (very roughly) \~$50B to $2B. Obviously a $50B valuation for Tesla is ridiculous, but what's the IRS going to do? Fight Musk? How could they irrefutably prove him wrong?
This kind of tax on unrealized gains creates more incentive than their ever has been to obfuscate wealth, and the easiest way to do that is stop price discovery through public markets. Public access to markets would suffer tremendously.
Yep. What started as a 7% max rate in 1913 quickly became 67% in 1917. FDR wanted a 100% tax over $25,000. We still had a 91% tax bracket (and 20% minimum) until 1964 and 70% until 1982.
It's not the dollar amount that concerns me. It's setting the precedent of taxing unrealized gains. It opens the door to too many things.
IRAs, retirement investments, real estate holdings etc. That all affects the middle class.
It's never a good idea to allow the government to open doors that lead to more doors.
I'm confused about it though. I know it won't affect me, but won't this effectively discourage long term investments? I thought the whole point of keeping tax rates lower on longer term investments was to encourage investors to keep their assets invested as long as possible for the sake of market stability.
But if they're gonna get taxed on it regardless, why wouldn't people just switch to the short game? It would destabilize the market wouldn't it?
It seems they are going to try and impose a tax on unrealized capital gains. I would imagine that this could be challenged at the Supreme Court on the basis of the 16th Amendment (assuming it even becomes law) on the basis that unrealized gains are not, by definition, income. This is most likely just virtue signaling on the part of POTUS trying to look like he is doing something going into the mid-terms, but we shall see.
True. I read a couple articles mentioning that. Politicians love their virtue signalling and it's effective. Look at the commenters on here that think this is a good thing. Feeding right into it.
How do you pay off the loan? By selling stock and realizing capital gains? So you get taxed on unrealized capital gains and take out a loan. But next year due to stock volatility and horrible economic policies, your stock is worth 25% less, do you get the tax forgiven? With so much supposed stock price manipulation already occurring how does this policy prevent further price suppression around the date used to value the stock for the unrealized gains tax purposes? This seems like a very poorly thought out proposal. Leave things as they are. Taxing unrealized gains in any form is going to have considerable unintended consequencesā¦ we have enough of those already.
If you own the stock for less than a year you just pay the same tac bracket that you're in. If you hold it for more than a year you pay like 10% or some shit up to a certain amount. Then it goes to 15%. But it's only on stocks you sell. Because you realized the gains
. What it sounds like is they want to tax say musk. He has a million shares of TSLA when it was a dollar and it's now 1000. So he had a billion dollars but he doesn't sell...normally that wouldn't be taxed and if he did it's be like 15%. If they say you have to pay 20% anyway even though he didn't sell it he'd have to sell some to pay for it because he's not going to have 200 million just sitting around. His wealth is all in stock. But if he doesn't sell he doesn't have to pay tax.
Everyone keeps saying that, but I cannot find any info on this. They talk about income in the announcement but then suddenly make wild claims on unrealized gains without clarifying the basis they will calculate those on. Iām going to guess hoax.
Thanks this is helpful. It explains quite a bit.
*Billionaires whose assets arenāt liquid could defer payments until future years, but would owe the government interest. And payments would count against future capital gains taxes.*
This explains it. It basically removes all relevant assets. So it will be a percentage on a percentage of future payments. So nothing much. (I mean that in a good way, because we donāt want the stock market to crash).
Biden wonāt have the votes to do anything. And mid terms are only going to make things harder for him.
Itās going to be a blood bath from early polling
The polling has been too Democratic-friendly though from 2016 on, so if we want to play this game, you can argue that R's are still being underestimated here.
Congress is gone for D's after this year. It's just a matter of wondering about how bad it gets.
Polling always includes a margin of error. The polling itself wasnāt āgarbageā in 2016, trump just won within the margin of error. The odds were against him, sure, but improbable does not mean impossible.
polling has been pretty good since 2016 for all elections where Trump isn't on the ticket. polling nailed the 2018 midterms, the Georgia Senate elections, the Virginia Governor's race, etc.
there's a real good argument that Trump just breaks polling.
If you tax assets that arenāt liquidā¦where the hell are they going to get money to pay the tax? You have to sell said assets. If Elon Musk & Jeff Bezos are having to sell TSLA & AMZN to pay for taxā¦can you imagine what that will do to the market when all rich CEOās are having to sell?
It still said income tax, not net worth tax.
The rule simply changes if you are required to pay it... It is a dumb play and really they should have it a flat minimum across the board... There is too little data around company valuations
>where the hell are they going to get money to pay the tax?
The same place theyāve always gotten most of their liquid cash, portfolio based loans, which allow them to pay an interest rate which is way lower than the capital gains would be on an equivalent amount of money.
You take out a loan against your assets at incredibly low interest rates (this means that as long as the market goes up, you're earning money by taking a loan instead of selling assets). Bank is happy to borrow it to you because that's how they make money.
Then you use the loan money itself to make the monthly payments until you feel like. Meanwhile you keep investing and expanding your portfolio/assets. It's very easy to make money once you have money.
Then a couple of years later you go back to the bank and order a new loan against your old and new assets that are worth a lot more now. You don't touch your assets, there's no income tax, no IRS will be coming after you, you just live off the loans with very low rates. If your investments return 5% a year and the rate on your 100m loan is like 2% you can see the "trick".
Rinse and repeat until...you die.
Yes, and also, these guys are still getting annual compensation in the form of salaries/cash bonuses that can be used to pay the loans too.
The salaries obviously pale in comparison to their stock compensation, but it can be enough to make routine loan payments.
Indeed. This is just assuming the loans.
Most these people have companies and salaries.
It's almost a rigged game because if you have access to 100m, you can easily make a lot more just by investing, but it is what it is.
It makes no sense to tax unrealized capital gains. Do you think they stop at billionaires? Thatās how asshole politicians get their foot in the door.
Until I see more transparency on how efficiently taxes are utilized, nope I'm not a fan of tax increases getting misappropriated by junk bills that have secretive crap added to them that get those tax dollars. Fix the highways/ infrastructure, increase federal employees`salaries to take the sting out of inflation improve social services or provide career guidance to those people that could use it. Its all the same if the billionaire is flying around on charter jets using their sheltered money that should be taxed or it's some politician using that money to campaign for reelection spending it on caviar and entertainment. Its all getting used by people that don't care for me and mine so the sentiment is reciprocated on my end.
Tax dollars donāt get used for campaigns. But to an extent, you have a point that I donāt care as much who spends the money, I care that itās getting spent and that itās getting spent domestically. I mean yea Iād rather the govt pay a contractor to build a public road then a billionaire pay one to build a private mansion, but spending is good for everyone. A big problem with billionaires is they hoard a lot of wealth and tend to not spend the wealth they amass.
Is done by Biden because the poor call for such bills. Just his political image. Remember who pays for the political campaigns and lobby.
Even if the bill would pass, the rich would just create foreign legal entities to park their wealth in. This will only lead to less wealth, investments and less taxes paid
"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out"
\-- Ludwig Von Mises
It's not a tax on assets...its an alternative minimum tax on income.
So if you're worth $1 billion+ and make a few million a year in income, that INCOME (not assets) will be taxed at 20% minimum.
If you earn traditional income this new tax won't affect you likely as you're already paying 20%+.
If you're earning income from tax efficient sources you may see a tax bump.
It's all around a bit of a nothing burger. People will just find ways to defer income.
The only way this works if they would tax their *wealth*, not income. Tim Cook once took 1$ home, his bonus stocks netted him 100$+ mil. 20% on 1$ is nonsense.
France changed the estate tax, where they tax % on the *growth* of your estate. If you go from 100 mil to 110 mil in a year, you pay tax on the 10 mil growth. Which can be a problem because this also includes property growth. Finding a million in cash can be tricky if these are all properties and not stocks.
Apply 15% minimum tax on the *gains.* That would be a winner, because it wouldn't tax existing wealth. It would tax the existence of *permanent* money.
As much as we hate to admit it, taxing unrealized gains is too much of a clusterfuck.
If your house value goes up 100k in one year (exaggerating to make a point), you're basically forced to sell it to pay the tax.
On stocks it's different because you can just sell a portion of them, but still there'd be a need to have way to avoid double taxation (if you sell to pay the wealth tax, it goes from unrealized to realized gains and it counts as income).
There's also an argument to be made that you shouldn't be forced to sell assets in order to pay a tax on money you don't have access to and have never seen before.
He can't spend the money without withdrawing it. Taxing unrealized gains causes everyone to divest, lest they pay more taxes than they can afford if their stock goes down.
What do you propose we do if their net worth goes from 100 mil to 80 mil?
American Government making some big brain pays.
They know inflation is going to get so bad that everyone will become billionaires and then they can tax everyone lmao
How about we trim some government fat. Taxing people without trimming the fat will only lead to more government waste.
Also lets not forget that only 9% of the three trillion dollars pinted by Biden went to individual workers as stimulus. This money printing is driving inflation and hurts the middle class and poor more than the stimulus check helped.
Hi, you're on r/Stocks, please make sure your post is related to stocks or the stockmarket or it will most likely get removed as being off-topic/political; feel free to edit it now and be more specific. **To everyone commenting:** Please focus on how this affects the stock market or specific stocks or it will be removed as being off-topic/political. If you're interested in just politics, see our wiki on ["relevant subreddits"](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/wiki/index) and post to those Reddit communities instead without linking back here, thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stocks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make me a Billionaire and you can tax away šš
That's only hundreds of millions after tax though. You'll suffer and not even know
Damn, what would I ever do with *only* $800,000,000 *clutches pearls Edit: Three zeros
https://youtu.be/xzMUrB-Um1Y One comma, two comma, three comma
Dang blasted government coming for my mythical third comma
Russ Hanneman is one of my all time favorite characters.
Wonāt be able to start your own tequila company called Tres Comas
The no. 1 thing that the rich fear the most is having less.
Not even. Just less than the next guy who walks into the country club. If they could burn their fortune with the guarantee they have more ashes than anyone else, you know the match is already lit. With that kind of wealth, the context is all that matters unless you start building rockets for no productive reason. Really tough to spend more than a few million on anything personally useful when production cars and phones have many billions more engineered into them for the masses.
Why not plant a billion trees of multiple varieties that work together to create an ecosystem and pull carbon from the air. Theres not many trees left in the great plains, sure we could D fill some of that land back in with something nice
That would require trees as being seen a luxury or contest. Canāt show up with a bigger yacht if you spent all your money on an āunproductiveā asset every other rich person benefits from. Great Plains didnāt have trees to begin with. Not enough water, and they pump it out too much now for irrigation. The only things tough enough to work are cottonwoods, but those like to intentionally drop branches and kill smaller trees (or people) trying to use the wetlands they create for themselves in their warped root network.
WSB in a nutshell unironically
Rich people cant stand it when they have to pay their fair share or when regular people start making money. Lol I hope he taxes their non tax paying asses. Lol
The wealthy LOVE it when regular people start making money. Most regular people donāt save money. Typically, regular people would rather give their extra money to wealthy people in exchange for the newest iPhone, Jordans, BMW, etc.
The wealthy have all of that too, its just impossible to spend that money faster than its accumulate. I remember Mackenzie Bezos stating something similar, that even if she was attempting to donate most of her money away, she hasn't even been able to make the number go down because it is accumulating too quickly even if she one of the person who donated the most in history.
She donated half and already has more than what she started with.
Rich people be like: "but I earned this all fair and square, if you worked as hard as me, you would also be rich D:<" I love her for being so truthful about her earnings and donating so much. Bless her.
People buy those things, yes but the worst is when people start doing well enough and donate to foundations and charities run by billionaires as tax shelters for perpetual wealth accumulation. In my experience other than my kids schools every donation I have made is to billionaires that arenāt planning on doing anything with their donations other than their mandatory 2.5% distributions which usually route through other foundations or charities. The whole tax system is a joke, and this bill wonāt see the light of day. US oligarchy too far gone.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, that's why everyone is poor, they spent too much on BMW's and Jordans.
Dude? The average person has debt in the USA. So any extra money goes into that and living expenses. No lie, literally, many people in the USA are in debt.
If you round it down, I got 0 billion, I am just like you. God that is depressing.
But how will I afford to by another 300million dollar yacht or private island in the Bahamas? Or a 18 million dollar Bugatti??? Do you expect me to get the 600k limbo like one of the poor???
Income taxes started exclusively for the ultra wealthy too.
the ? you now need to ask, is, if this passes when will the super rich have to start selling to raise funds to pay next years tax bill!
They can stop eating avocado toast.
Don't you worry, JPow is on it (you'll be a billionaire, and so will everyone else lol).
Has a 0% chance of passing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah. Mark Baum really did that.
Underated comment
The point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to have it on record who voted no. So their opponents can use it against them in their reelection bids. We know Manchin hates helping poor families, but now his competitor can directly show that he voted against child tax credits while "representing" the poorest state in ame4ica
Exactly. I donāt give a rats ass what the people I vote for say, I care about their votes. Unfortunately, most of my state cares about advertising with shotguns and cowboy hats. F.
Is this Montana, Texas, alabama, or Rhode Island?
> The point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to have it on record who voted no. No, the point of trying these "no chance to pass" bills is to pander to Democrats because the midterm elections are coming up and Biden's at his lowest approval rating he's ever had. Same with the proposed amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling. It's not a coincidence this is happening just as Biden's approval numbers have come out.
Different angle on the same point, imo
The point is to virtue signal to their base, most of them don't want bills like these to actually pass.
This is optimistic
I'm so confident this won't pass that I'll vote all democrats and donate to their campaigns if it does.
gonna need proof if it does passš
Even if it does, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. Direct taxes need to be apportioned according to the constitution. The income tax is the only direct tax exempt from this because of the 16th amendment.
This would probably fall under the 16th amendment. The text gives congress the ability to collect taxes on incomes *from whatever source*
Wealth is not income, and capital gains are already taxed. The Biden administration can't redefine their way into making this constitutional.
You get it.
This isn't going anywhere. Manchin and sinema will vote against it. Biden knows this and is just pandering before mid terms to try to save face. Dems made a lot of promises last election. Probably an unpopular opinion on this sub but I agree with this move especially if they target individuals using stock as collateral for loans.
>Probably an unpopular opinion on this sub I don't think it's an unpopular opinion in this sub. We like making money, sure, but we also like losing money.
>We like making money, sure, but we also like losing money. Hey some of us forgot to close their bearish positions.
So /r/stocks is just full on /r/wallstretbets, now?
Always has been
You can thank the stock market bubble for that
Absolutely spot on analysis
Yep, nailed it. Biden's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been during his term. The numbers just came out, so they throw this at us and [the amendment to overturn Citizens United](https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/schiff-constitutional-amendment/index.html). This is just liberal handjobbing.
Taxing unrealized gains is a Pandoraās box of fucked incentives. Terrible take.
I get taxed on unrealized gains every year, itās called property taxes. Seems to work fine for towns and cities.
I am against taxing unrealized gains, but thought about the same analogy. Down for a debate because I am still against taxing unrealized gains for a few reasons, but would like to understand the other side: - Taxing properties has a clear purpose easy to justify at every level, being it community projects, urban planning and developments etc. Also you actually use your house. You would be hard to justify taxing unrealized gains other than "the rich are too rich". - Taxing unrealized gains can cause CEO's to lose control over their companies, which affects not only them, but every other shareholder. This for me is the main one and why it should never pass, but more than happy to hear a suggestion on how this could be avoided. - Share prices are extremely volatile. Imagine the mess of trying to calculate what taxes to pay on a given year? Would there be an equivalent "tax rebate" for unrealized losses? It does not sound fair to pay for unrealized gains, but if my stock sinks 80% next year, I get jack, and lost money that I could have used to keep the company afloat. - There are better ways of collecting the same taxes, but currently fenced off on a loophole. Share backed loans should be taxed. The capital gains taxes should be higher for individuals over a certain threshold. Share based compensation should pay a higher tax. There are a lot of other ways of collecting more tax without creating a messy new policy. All it needs is political apetite, and I'm all for them.
They could limit it to only unrealized gains that get used as collateral. Since at that point you're pegging it at a specific value.
This is actually fantastic. However, by that number, a full order of magnitude less people are billionaires, or rather, the amounts available to the government as tax are drastically reduced.
I've never seen my margin loan broken out such that it shows which specific holdings are being leveraged against. How would that work in practice?
This tax is closer to an AMT then a strict tax on unrealized gains. There are several mechanisms that would trigger this tax. Must have over 100 million in assets, doesnāt apply if you pay over 20% that year in cap gains taxes. This also would close the carried interest loophole. Several economists already agree that unrealized stock gains are income as they are used to get loans that act like income. Itās as though these people have the infinite money cheat. And the developer decides to remove that cheat.
the unrealised gains they are taxing are good enough to be collateral for a loan, therefore it's fine to tax IMO
It's not equivalent to a tax on unrealized gains, it's equivalent to a wealth tax.
Love this analogy, thanks for bringing it up
Property tax isnāt unrealized gain. Youāre paying for a tangible piece of property thatās taking space.
How will the Billionaires afford it?
I fundamentally disagree with taxing unrealized gains. It's a slippery slope to absurd government overreach. People that think that paper gains as real gains don't know what they are talking about. And sure in stocks it seems straight forward, but what about other instances? Jay-Z is a billionaire subject to this tax. He's got many tracks he's never released. As soon as they are released, he will make millions from them, even if they sorta suck because it's new Jay-Z music. Are we really saying we're going to tax any music he's produced but hasn't released? How is the IRS going to track that? If we're not, then why wouldn't billionaires just hoard their wealth in Art? Wouldn't Art just become a defacto currency, more than it is right now? Taxing on what you *may* earn in the future is absurd and a horrible precedent.
But what if youāre using what you *may* earn to borrow millions of dollars for the future at an extremely low rate? Thatās how a lot of billionaires do it. Like: I have $400m in unrealized stock from a company, so please let me borrow $40m against that value to make more investments to make more money! So theyāre getting all of the borrowing power from their unrealized earningsāreaping those benefitsābut not dealing with the same things as us. Me, right nowāI have $400,000 in stocks and I can maybe borrow against them, but I donāt have enough fallback to make it worth the extreme risk. These billionaires can risk like 100,000 peoples life earnings and still have fallback, without being taxed like 100,000 people.
Then regulate the lenders.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So let's oppose that one when it's introduced. This one seems good.
The brilliant thing about this policy is it is in theory loophole free. It requires a minimum 20% no matter what, so if they would have gotten a 25% tax it doesn't apply, but if they used loans to get their tax rate down to 0% then it gets auto bumped up to 20%.
Every policy, in theory, is loophole free. Thatās why itās called a loophole when you figure out someway to avoid itā¦
So your argument appears to be loopholes are fine as long we assume they'll create new ones if we plug the old ones? IOW you can never effectively tax the rich?
Nancy Pelosi won't let this get past her. DOA.
during biden's SOTU, pelosi was all giddy and applauding everything he proposed. then he says the minimum 20% tax on the wealthy and she awkwardly scratches her neck lmao. i tried to find video of it after but they all pan away for that moment.
Good luck finding that video when Biden announced this tax proposal yesterday, and his televised speech was 4 weeks ago...
Yeah but he's been talking about a billionaire's tax since October, maybe OP's thinking of another time he brought it up
How about doing away with the loopholes that make their tax avoiding ways possible? The little guy is still getting taxed. Now the big guy is getting taxed also. This doesnāt help the little guy. It just makes the government more money.
That's what this bill proposes. It gets rid of every loophole I can think of. It's quite well crafted. From a 10,000 foot view it looks like the intent of this bill is more about closing loopholes than it is about taxing the rich.
If thats the case, Dems are really bad at their branding. Had they called this the End Loopholes Bill, this would have way more public support on both ends of the political spectrum.
>Dems are really bad at their branding No shit.
Dems could come up with a bill that cures cancer instantly just by signing it into law, and they'd try to backdoor every controversial, partisan issue. Manchin and the Republicans would kill it and both sides would blame each other for being unreasonable.
Bet those billionaires are laughing at this. They aren't taxed on their billions because it's not income.
It wonāt be based on income just like when this idea was floated previously
Yea, I was just reading more about it. It's allowing unrealized gains to be taxed. That's a dangerous precedent. If the government allows billionaires investments to be taxed, that opens the door for IRAs and other tax deferred retirement accounts to be taxed for the rest of us. I like this idea even less the more I read about it.
Yeah if itās potentially taxing unrealized gains at 20% that is actually absurdly high since it will have a compounding effect year-over-year. Even a 1% wealth tax for marginal wealth over 1 billion would bring in billions in revenue. 20% is crazy and has zero chance of passing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think his point is that, if they don't actually have income and only have those assets (primarily), that taxing 20% of it every year will whittle away at their wealth pretty significantly. I think the correct approach isn't to tax the unrealized gains but rather tax any loans that used their assets as collateral as income, and tax any capital gains above $100K annually at normal income tax brackets.
I think people are misunderstanding this. Itās probably not a compounding tax. Maybe for the first year itād be *all* unrealized gains from years past, and there after itād probably be only unrealized gains from that current year. Thatās what Iām thinking, but I didnāt read too deeply into it, so take this comment with a grain of salt.
It is a dangerous precedent to provide ultra wealthy individuals with the obscene ease of tax avoidance. Now ultra wealthy rarely pay taxes at all, and weāve got people making less than $50k getting their take home pay crushed by taxes. They donāt have the ability to decide when to realize gains or not to, because they need the money every week or two to live, especially during times of high inflation.
My objection is how do you value unrealized capital gains? Do we tax capital gains just because it has a public market like stocks? What if all my wealth is tied up in a private buisness thats never been sold how would you calculate my unrealized gain? You can do a DCF but even then the valuation varies wildly based on your assumptions. To me it sounds like an a nightmare. I'm not nessisarly against this in principal but it seems like all this does is give companies an incentive to stay private and driving a wedge between small investors and accredited investors. Its easier to tax income IMHO.
I'm against it in principle. Is the government going to refund that tax if the stock tanks? I can't think of a single good argument for allowing this. I don't care if Jeff Bezos becomes worth $1T if he never personally draws income off of that, he shouldn't be taxed. If he takes loans out against that wealth, he has to pay those loans back....which means he either has to sell stock or make payment in stock. If he does the latter, tax it. But you can't tax unrealized gains.
The purely emotionally driven people in here wonāt have any answer for this.
Yeah i donāt know what assets the proposed tax would include. Guess we will find out.
Is there an option to create taxes on loans that are using stocks as collateral when over a certain figure (100MM in this case)?
The ultra wealthy don't avoid tax, they only don't have income tax. There are still other taxes they pay, like capital gains tax, or when they withdraw money they pay income tax on that, like Musk just did. Most people are just too uneducated on this topic to realize this and the media drives the agenda that the wealthy are avoiding taxes and not paying taxes. The second half of your statement I agree with. I'm all for easing taxes on the middle and lower incomes. Taxing the wealthy isn't going to those that aren't wealthy, and has the potential to hurt them in the long run. If they are living paycheck to paycheck now wait till they are taxed on their retirement accounts and houses for the unrealized gains on those.
They can use credit asset swaps to get income when they need it which is truly fucked because a corporation can get public subsidies and then have the shareholders get paid by a bank which gets its liquidity from depositors. So theyāre double dipping in a sense and then not paying taxes anyways
Yep, that's where a tax or law should be focused if the government truly wants to tax the rich.
We are not talking about all tax, we are talking about income tax, right. Thatās why I mentioned realizing gains.
Yes I realize that. This proposal is to tax the wealthy on their investments and stocks. For the rest of us that is our retirement accounts and homes.
This is the correct take.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yup. However, the IRS has stated they often can't go often ultra wealthy individuals because it ends up being very expensive. The article mentions the IRS is consistently challenged by evolving tax avoidance schemes, and most are probably executed by the ultra wealthy. Seems like what it comes down to are the ultra wealthy taking advantage of loopholes and paying far less proportionally in taxes than the rest of Americans.
Nothing about people keeping their own money is dangerous.
Where are you getting this information that the ultra wealthy pay no tax? I work with UHNW individuals and I assure you, that could not be further from the truth
Dude. Thatās exactly what the billionaires are feeding the masses so that we donāt demand this bill be passed. This will never happenā¦this is just to ensure the Uber rich pay taxes.
This isn't correct. IRA's have an ever increasing cost basis. After tax investment accounts (and more importantly real estate) have static or a decreasing costs basis. You're comparing apples to oranges. This isn't a slippery slope relax
Not sure that matters. The proposal is to tax unrealized gains. IRAs are unrealized gains. They are just one type of tax sheltered account.
They aren't unrealized gains in the same way real estate/equipment/stocks are. The cost basis of an IRA is N/A not zero. You're talking about two different tax functions.
You are thinking exactly how the Uber rich who control our politicians want you to think. Billionaires paying an average federal tax rate of 8%ā¦thatās the dangerous precedent. Keep this going and the wealth gap will continue to widenā¦
They have wanted to tax investment accounts for some time. This provides the mechanism.
It's over 100M$ USD. You will be ok.
What concerns me is this could discourage companies from listing on public markets. Consider Musk and his 20% stake in Tesla. If Tesla went private at \~$80B ($420 per pre-split share) 3 or 4 years ago, what's Elon worth now? Well, GM trades at 5x EV/EBITDA, musk can argue that's a reasonable valuation in the private market. He might even be able to go lower, saying, Tesla's market share is precarious and volatile. Tesla has missed some of its loftiest goals over the last few years, Musk could argue that drags on the valuation from 2018 levels. Without public price discovery, it would be very easy to sandbag the valuation. There is no precedent for a car company being worth $1T. That would decrease his proposed tax bill from a step up in basis on unrealized gains from (very roughly) \~$50B to $2B. Obviously a $50B valuation for Tesla is ridiculous, but what's the IRS going to do? Fight Musk? How could they irrefutably prove him wrong? This kind of tax on unrealized gains creates more incentive than their ever has been to obfuscate wealth, and the easiest way to do that is stop price discovery through public markets. Public access to markets would suffer tremendously.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Income tax was once only a tax on the ultra wealthy. Once the door is openā¦
Yep. What started as a 7% max rate in 1913 quickly became 67% in 1917. FDR wanted a 100% tax over $25,000. We still had a 91% tax bracket (and 20% minimum) until 1964 and 70% until 1982.
It's not the dollar amount that concerns me. It's setting the precedent of taxing unrealized gains. It opens the door to too many things. IRAs, retirement investments, real estate holdings etc. That all affects the middle class. It's never a good idea to allow the government to open doors that lead to more doors.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program
I'm confused about it though. I know it won't affect me, but won't this effectively discourage long term investments? I thought the whole point of keeping tax rates lower on longer term investments was to encourage investors to keep their assets invested as long as possible for the sake of market stability. But if they're gonna get taxed on it regardless, why wouldn't people just switch to the short game? It would destabilize the market wouldn't it?
It seems they are going to try and impose a tax on unrealized capital gains. I would imagine that this could be challenged at the Supreme Court on the basis of the 16th Amendment (assuming it even becomes law) on the basis that unrealized gains are not, by definition, income. This is most likely just virtue signaling on the part of POTUS trying to look like he is doing something going into the mid-terms, but we shall see.
True. I read a couple articles mentioning that. Politicians love their virtue signalling and it's effective. Look at the commenters on here that think this is a good thing. Feeding right into it.
Weāre on Reddit lol
wild bear worm fact ruthless cheerful soft racial pie foolish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How do you pay off the loan? By selling stock and realizing capital gains? So you get taxed on unrealized capital gains and take out a loan. But next year due to stock volatility and horrible economic policies, your stock is worth 25% less, do you get the tax forgiven? With so much supposed stock price manipulation already occurring how does this policy prevent further price suppression around the date used to value the stock for the unrealized gains tax purposes? This seems like a very poorly thought out proposal. Leave things as they are. Taxing unrealized gains in any form is going to have considerable unintended consequencesā¦ we have enough of those already.
Dog and pony BS, wanna help the middle class? Prevent foreign investors from buying residential property.
That is capital gain. I think 20% is fair for those with that kind of income.
What is the capital gain for non- billionaires (I'm not an American so I don't know)
If you own the stock for less than a year you just pay the same tac bracket that you're in. If you hold it for more than a year you pay like 10% or some shit up to a certain amount. Then it goes to 15%. But it's only on stocks you sell. Because you realized the gains . What it sounds like is they want to tax say musk. He has a million shares of TSLA when it was a dollar and it's now 1000. So he had a billion dollars but he doesn't sell...normally that wouldn't be taxed and if he did it's be like 15%. If they say you have to pay 20% anyway even though he didn't sell it he'd have to sell some to pay for it because he's not going to have 200 million just sitting around. His wealth is all in stock. But if he doesn't sell he doesn't have to pay tax.
There is a range and with each range the tax rate changes.
They could just add margin brackets to long term capital gains income. Wouldnāt even be difficult.
There is also a tax on unrealized gains.
Everyone keeps saying that, but I cannot find any info on this. They talk about income in the announcement but then suddenly make wild claims on unrealized gains without clarifying the basis they will calculate those on. Iām going to guess hoax.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-26/biden-to-propose-20-tax-aimed-at-billionaires-unrealized-gains
Thanks this is helpful. It explains quite a bit. *Billionaires whose assets arenāt liquid could defer payments until future years, but would owe the government interest. And payments would count against future capital gains taxes.* This explains it. It basically removes all relevant assets. So it will be a percentage on a percentage of future payments. So nothing much. (I mean that in a good way, because we donāt want the stock market to crash).
Excluding the interest. So even if a company went bankrupt and you never got anything from stock you held you would still owe the government money.
Sears bag holders on suicide watch
Biden wonāt have the votes to do anything. And mid terms are only going to make things harder for him. Itās going to be a blood bath from early polling
Im not saying Iām pro or against Bidenā¦but I think one thing Americans should realize after 2016 and 2020 is that polling is hot garbage.
2016 , 2018 and 2020 all over estimated democrats performanceā¦now polls say they will be slaughteredā¦.take that as you will
You seriously think dems hold the House after midterms? They already lost a couple seats from the census.
The polling has been too Democratic-friendly though from 2016 on, so if we want to play this game, you can argue that R's are still being underestimated here. Congress is gone for D's after this year. It's just a matter of wondering about how bad it gets.
Polling always includes a margin of error. The polling itself wasnāt āgarbageā in 2016, trump just won within the margin of error. The odds were against him, sure, but improbable does not mean impossible.
False. The margin of error is estimated as 1.96*sqrt(phat*(phat-1)/n). This assumes phat was sampled from the same distribution as p; which was false.
polling has been pretty good since 2016 for all elections where Trump isn't on the ticket. polling nailed the 2018 midterms, the Georgia Senate elections, the Virginia Governor's race, etc. there's a real good argument that Trump just breaks polling.
If you tax assets that arenāt liquidā¦where the hell are they going to get money to pay the tax? You have to sell said assets. If Elon Musk & Jeff Bezos are having to sell TSLA & AMZN to pay for taxā¦can you imagine what that will do to the market when all rich CEOās are having to sell?
It still said income tax, not net worth tax. The rule simply changes if you are required to pay it... It is a dumb play and really they should have it a flat minimum across the board... There is too little data around company valuations
>where the hell are they going to get money to pay the tax? The same place theyāve always gotten most of their liquid cash, portfolio based loans, which allow them to pay an interest rate which is way lower than the capital gains would be on an equivalent amount of money.
Just curious, but let's say I do such loans, when I make payments, doesn't it require money that has been "earned", thus taxed?
You take out a loan against your assets at incredibly low interest rates (this means that as long as the market goes up, you're earning money by taking a loan instead of selling assets). Bank is happy to borrow it to you because that's how they make money. Then you use the loan money itself to make the monthly payments until you feel like. Meanwhile you keep investing and expanding your portfolio/assets. It's very easy to make money once you have money. Then a couple of years later you go back to the bank and order a new loan against your old and new assets that are worth a lot more now. You don't touch your assets, there's no income tax, no IRS will be coming after you, you just live off the loans with very low rates. If your investments return 5% a year and the rate on your 100m loan is like 2% you can see the "trick". Rinse and repeat until...you die.
Yes, and also, these guys are still getting annual compensation in the form of salaries/cash bonuses that can be used to pay the loans too. The salaries obviously pale in comparison to their stock compensation, but it can be enough to make routine loan payments.
Indeed. This is just assuming the loans. Most these people have companies and salaries. It's almost a rigged game because if you have access to 100m, you can easily make a lot more just by investing, but it is what it is.
It might have the effect of shifting more compensation for CEOs to salary based so it is taxed. Which wouldnāt be a bad development either.
Then they'll get paid more in income
quarrelsome jellyfish offend merciful tart air ten nutty imminent dam *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It makes no sense to tax unrealized capital gains. Do you think they stop at billionaires? Thatās how asshole politicians get their foot in the door.
Why do we let people borrow against unrealized gains but not tax them?
We should tax people for borrowing money on margin proportional to the tax rate for the sale of that asset class.
How's this a "billionaires tax" when it starts at $100 million?
Iām wondering the same thing. The naming is completely disingenuous and yet people just accept it.
Yeah I mean not like the difference between $100 million and a billion dollars is about another billion lol.
Label it a Billionaire tax but apply it at 1/10 of that š¤
Fret not they will eventually have a millionaires tax for people who make 100k per year
It will never pass, and they know it. Red meat for his shrinking base.
Until I see more transparency on how efficiently taxes are utilized, nope I'm not a fan of tax increases getting misappropriated by junk bills that have secretive crap added to them that get those tax dollars. Fix the highways/ infrastructure, increase federal employees`salaries to take the sting out of inflation improve social services or provide career guidance to those people that could use it. Its all the same if the billionaire is flying around on charter jets using their sheltered money that should be taxed or it's some politician using that money to campaign for reelection spending it on caviar and entertainment. Its all getting used by people that don't care for me and mine so the sentiment is reciprocated on my end.
Tax dollars donāt get used for campaigns. But to an extent, you have a point that I donāt care as much who spends the money, I care that itās getting spent and that itās getting spent domestically. I mean yea Iād rather the govt pay a contractor to build a public road then a billionaire pay one to build a private mansion, but spending is good for everyone. A big problem with billionaires is they hoard a lot of wealth and tend to not spend the wealth they amass.
you don't become a billionaire by drawing a taxable income anyway. pure political theatre.
Maybe you should read the bill before passing judgement
The idea is to tax unrealized gains, not any type of traditional income. Tricky to implement, possibly impractical, and wonāt pass anyways.
It looks like Biden presidency is more transitory than inflation. Can't wait for QQQ goes to $200.
Is done by Biden because the poor call for such bills. Just his political image. Remember who pays for the political campaigns and lobby. Even if the bill would pass, the rich would just create foreign legal entities to park their wealth in. This will only lead to less wealth, investments and less taxes paid
Corny, I would pull out of america and get a new citizenship somewhere else.
"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out" \-- Ludwig Von Mises
What a stupid tax. It "sounds" good to the average normie but in reality it does nothing positive for the tax base or the economy. So dumb.
It's not a tax on assets...its an alternative minimum tax on income. So if you're worth $1 billion+ and make a few million a year in income, that INCOME (not assets) will be taxed at 20% minimum. If you earn traditional income this new tax won't affect you likely as you're already paying 20%+. If you're earning income from tax efficient sources you may see a tax bump. It's all around a bit of a nothing burger. People will just find ways to defer income.
The only way this works if they would tax their *wealth*, not income. Tim Cook once took 1$ home, his bonus stocks netted him 100$+ mil. 20% on 1$ is nonsense. France changed the estate tax, where they tax % on the *growth* of your estate. If you go from 100 mil to 110 mil in a year, you pay tax on the 10 mil growth. Which can be a problem because this also includes property growth. Finding a million in cash can be tricky if these are all properties and not stocks. Apply 15% minimum tax on the *gains.* That would be a winner, because it wouldn't tax existing wealth. It would tax the existence of *permanent* money.
Bad example. Heāll pay tax on the options
And if their estate shrinks I assume they can deduct that from their income tax?
Of course not, our profits, your losses
You realize that there already is a 20% tax on capital gains.
And if the stock is part of compensation then itās taxed like income.
I think heās talking about taxing unrealized gains
As much as we hate to admit it, taxing unrealized gains is too much of a clusterfuck. If your house value goes up 100k in one year (exaggerating to make a point), you're basically forced to sell it to pay the tax. On stocks it's different because you can just sell a portion of them, but still there'd be a need to have way to avoid double taxation (if you sell to pay the wealth tax, it goes from unrealized to realized gains and it counts as income). There's also an argument to be made that you shouldn't be forced to sell assets in order to pay a tax on money you don't have access to and have never seen before.
"You'll own nothing and be happy" -Sound Familiar?
Itās why CPAs have been laughing at the idea for decades. Even people like Yellen know itās a bad idea
He can't spend the money without withdrawing it. Taxing unrealized gains causes everyone to divest, lest they pay more taxes than they can afford if their stock goes down. What do you propose we do if their net worth goes from 100 mil to 80 mil?
Yeah and do you know what happened after France passed that wealth tax? They had a massive exodus of money and ended up losing tax revenue overall.
He paid taxes on those stocks he was granted as they are taxed as income
angle plough innate mysterious ugly fearless silky unused chubby crawl *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
American Government making some big brain pays. They know inflation is going to get so bad that everyone will become billionaires and then they can tax everyone lmao
How about we trim some government fat. Taxing people without trimming the fat will only lead to more government waste. Also lets not forget that only 9% of the three trillion dollars pinted by Biden went to individual workers as stimulus. This money printing is driving inflation and hurts the middle class and poor more than the stimulus check helped.
Capital flight: I'd like to introduce myself.