A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness found that America’s richest families accumulated $8.5 trillion in untaxed capital gains in 2022

America’s wealthiest families held an astounding $8.5 trillion in untaxed profits in 2022. According to a report from the nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness, which analyzed Federal Reserve data, “one in every six dollars (18 percent of the nation’s unrealized gains is held by these roughly 64,000 ultra-wealthy households, who make up less than 0.05 percent of the population.” The report comes as the Supreme Court gears up to decide a case that could preemptively block any efforts to tax the wealth of billionaires.

The data looks at “quiet” income generated by “centi-millionaires,” Americans holding at least $100 million in wealth, and billionaires through unrealized capital gains. Those gains accumulate, untaxed, as assets and investments like stocks, real estate, bonds, and other investments increase in value. If those assets are not sold — or “realized” — they are not taxed, yet America’s wealthiest families can leverage that on-paper value increase to secure favorable loans with low-interest rates in lieu of using taxable income to finance their lifestyle.

“Of the $139 trillion in America’s national wealth, almost three-quarters (73 percent) is held by the richest 10 percent of households, over one-third (35 percent) by the richest 1 percent, and an astounding 11 percent — $15.2 trillion — is held by the handful of fortunate households that make up the billionaire and centi-millionaire class,” the report says. “The wealthiest 1 percent of households hold 44 percent of national unrealized gains ($21.2 trillion), with billionaires and centi-millionaires alone controlling 18 percent ($8.5 trillion).”

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I mean then there’s citizens united… Corporations have the same rights as people??

    … it doesn’t grant rights to the individual, so they can’t restrict it when it comes to other private entities …

    But SCOTUS can define entities (if existing law doesn’t already do so, though SCOTUS can also strike down those laws if it wants to), and what it comes down to is if SCOTUS defines a corporation as a citizen, vs a business entity, a construct.

    Then laws would be judged based on the entity they’re being applied to.

    For example, pets are considered property in the eyes of the law, so laws are applied to them as if they were property, and not citizens.

    A construct should not be a citizen, legally or otherwise. It’s not a restrictions issue, it’s an entity identification issue.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      We might be conflating two things here, or I just have no idea what you are talking about.

      Using your pet example, if the pets were to start spending money on politics, the court might still rule that, like with corporations, it does not have the right to limit how much pets donate to political causes.

      But this has never come up, so I can’t see how you would argue that the court would not rule this way.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well my understanding the conversation was about if SCOTUS could declare a corporation as a citizen/person or not.

        If I understood you correctly, you were talking from the point of view that’s SCOTUS doesn’t restrict things, so it was valid for them to do so.

        I’m speaking towards that it’s not a restriction, it’s a classification, which SCOTUS is allowed to do, so they could declare a corporation as not been a citizen/person.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          you were talking from the point of view that’s SCOTUS doesn’t restrict things,

          I’m not even sure how you got to this. WRT to restrictions, I was talking about the COTUS (the Constitution of the US), not the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US). And, more importantly, I was saying it is a restriction on the government, not that it doesn’t restrict things.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            you were talking from the point of view that’s SCOTUS doesn’t restrict things,

            I’m not even sure how you got to this. WRT to restrictions, I was talking about the COTUS (the Constitution of the US), not the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US).

            I got that opinion based on this comment from you…

            it doesn’t grant rights to the individual, so they can’t restrict it when it comes to other private entities …

            From my reading of your comment I’m assuming “it” was COTUS and “they” was SCOTUS.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Rereading it, I guess I can see how it might have been confusing. But by restrict in that sense I was referring to the state restricting spending on speech.