Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!
I don’t agree with unrealized gains taxes in general, but the instant they are used as collateral, or if value in any way is extracted from them (even loan value), they become realized gains, and should be taxed.
How does this actually make any sense though? All collateral is, is a safety net to mitigate loss for a lender who lends to someone who then defaults on the loan. If the loan is not defaulted on, literally nothing happens to the collateral.
How then does it make any sense to consider the mere act of the loan being given as a realization of the collateral, in other words, equivalent to having sold the collateral, when literally nothing has happened to it?
This feels completely arbitrary. Using an asset as collateral is nothing like realizing it.
And WHAT gain exactly is being taxed? So you have a $1000 investment. The government decides, what, that you are a good investor and can make 20% so they’ll tax you on $200? So if you sell it at a loss, you get screwed. If you sell it for a 50% gain the government loses tax revenue? You know what, I’ll take that deal. I’ll invest money, pay the taxes on my unknown gain immediately, keep it for 20 years and boom, tax free, because I’ve already paid the taxes on the gain. You know I’m totally on board with this whole rich people suck idea, but this is just stupid.
ok, so I understand that you don’t quite get the issue, also your bad at taxes.
if I invest $50000 and make $100000 I don’t want to pay taxes on the $50000 I “made” (this normally would lead to the crime of not paying taxes) but if I use those $50000 as leverage on an extremely low interest loan for $50000 then I dodge having to pay anything in taxes while also, defacto, realizing my gains.
what OP is advocating for is taxing those $50000 you put up as collateral, making these $50000 similar to the original $50000 you invested, now should you again make another $20000 from said capital, and pull out, you would still have to pay capital gains on those $20000, or do you think you have to pay capital gains on money you put in? (hence why you’re bad at taxes) because tax is only levied on the positive difference
I love the way people on the internet have to insult to make a point.
I’m just glad you’re not the one making the tax laws.
I’m not insulting anyone, if you feel slighted about the fact that you didn’t understand OP, nor do you understand how taxes work, then I invite you to do some basic research about tax law in the US, because you don’t seem to know how taxes work
You know, I heard that rich people need air to live, we should totally tax the crap out of that. That would show them.
you’re lacking English or economic comprehension skills are no reason to start creating straw men, you’re wasting all that bedding for the rest of your fellow sheep
Realization is the establishment of value not sale for cash (it just happens that the most convenient establishment of value for any non-fungible asset is sale). There are already some realization events that don’t have associated cash flows, to do with overseas assets or certain financial instruments. Ordinary people don’t need to worry about this stuff, it’s not for them, and if you’re rich you can trivially figure out the cash flow issue.
But capital gains avoiding tax for the life of a wealthy person who lives off collateral zed borrowing, then being stepped up in basis for their heirs is just embarrassing for the US.
Realization is the establishment of value not sale for cash
Absolutely nonsensical massive straw-grasp. If that was true, that would mean that everything that HAS a widely-established market price is instantly and permanently to be considered realized by everyone who owns it.
Relevant case law: “While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/461/
It is in fact true, and clearly then doesn’t mean that at all. We can and do control what constitutes a realization event, and borrowing is a pretty sensible candidate. I don’t know why you’re losing you mind over this fairly prosaic idea.
You left out some pretty important context in that quote to make it seem like it’s saying that realization is arbitrarily decided. In truth, all this is saying is that realization is not confined to reception of cash itself:
While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer’s indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction.
As it says at the end there, the ways to realize gain all necessarily entail “profit”. A loan is not profit, nor is an already-owned asset transform into profit when used as collateral.
The above could absolutely not be used to support your argument, nor refute mine–not when you read it honestly and in context.
The capital gain is the profit, the collateralized lending is the transaction completed to realize that profit. It’s a logical extension of accepted understandings of those terms and easy to imagine coherent legislation to implement.
You don’t like the idea, that’s fine. But it’s simply not true to claim that it doesn’t make sense and you haven’t been able to articulate any inconsistency. Just saying “nuh uh that’s not profit” is pointless. We all know it doesn’t constitute realized gain in the existing system of laws, but OP and others are suggesting it would a be a sensible way to tax the extraordinary benefits that the ultra-wealthy take from their appreciated assets. It’s been explained to you politely and with sources, if you have nothing more serious to add to the conversation I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So you agree with the post then, given that that’s basically verbatim what the post is saying.
I think the key point in the post was “If ‘unrealized gains’ can buy stuff-then they’re realized. Tax them.”
Essentially, because the unrealized gains held in their stocks could be realized through a loan, all of their capital gains should be considered for taxation.
As opposed to just the assets used as collateral, that is now effectively liquid, should be taxed as realized.
I personally think we should do everything we can to disincentivize wealth hoarding, even if it’s an “unfair” or possibly somewhat broken system that does so, but it also doesn’t seem feasible as a kind of legislation you could convince anyone in the government to enact, since they’ll still be focusing on things like if it could possibly lead to a higher loss than the initial investment if they’re taxed on the gains for years, but it drops low enough to wipe out all the value they paid in tax and their gains, even if the actual price is higher than the purchase price.
Yeah, a bank isn’t going to give your a $500k mortgage on a $200k property, so if they give you a $500k loan on stock then that’s the value given to the stock at that point.
You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway
Actually… They made that illegal. You’re free to rot in prison for being homeless, though!
Sitting here, watching every town council around my area pass a homeless ban after that SCOTUS ruling. Even the newspaper suddenly switched and said popular opinion swung 180 degrees in the last six months.
What the fuck does one do at that point? It’s obviously manufactured consent. It’s blatantly unconstitutional to tell people they can’t exist on public land. It’s a human rights violation to be stuffed into a shelter that demands you be a better human than people who already have housing in order to get house money. At this point we’re just turning the homeless into the new scary minority.
The goal is extermination and genocide. There is nowhere for the homeless to go except into the ground as dead bones, where they won’t bother the privileged and rich anymore.
I know the 12 year olds will be upset but this is dumb.
Unrealized gains may never be realized. If they ever are, they may be worth less at that point than the tax you paid. It is like taxing everybody on income at the beginning of the year and then telling them tough luck if they get fired and never get that income.
Also, borrowing in assets does not make you wealthier. How much tax should we charge people when they get a mortgage ( not when they sell, when they first borrow ). I mean, somebody just gave you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why shouldn’t you have to pay tax on that? ( according to the OP at least ).
Anyway, I will stop there. We are not going to get back at the rich by saying a bunch of stupid things. If you don’t like generational wealth, fine. Have an estate tax. If you don’t like windfall wealth, fine. Have a super high progressive tax rate. I have no problem limiting extreme wealth ( it won’t hurt me ). But “tax people I don’t like on things that make no sense” just tells people you cannot think well and are not into math.
That’s all great but then why the fuck am I paying property tax on my house that is mostly unrealized gains. Before you go arguing to abolish property tax, I’m fine with it. My property tax goes to make my neighbor better, and provide services and schooling for my neighbors.
Billionaires become rich because their companies benefit from highways, regulated internet, a public educated work force, etc… so they should pay their fare share.
Taxing unrealized gains for 99% is ok, it should be the same for the 1%.
Property tax has nothing to do with unrealized gains. It is an attempt to charge a services tax in an equitable way. It is like putting road taxes in gasoline. Framing it as a crude consumption tax would be more appropriate.
The property tax you pay on your home is a tiny fraction of its value. If we were charging those kinds of tiny percentages to billionaires you would be up in arms.
I do not have to argue abolishing property taxes because they do not introduce the kinds of brain dead distortions that “unrealized gains” taxes would. Even still, there are actually carve outs for them in most countries. Where I live, as an example, seniors can defer property tax until the property is sold ( you know, until the wealth has been realized ). As I said above though, it is really a service tax and so, even when delayed, the amount is based on assessed value every year.
If property tax was a model for your unrealized gains tax it would have these features:
- quite a small percentage of the assessed value
- the ability to defer until value had been realized
Based on the discussion here, a tax like that is not going to satisfy the mob.
Like I said, tax the rich. Tax the hell out of them. Just don’t do it in such a broken way.
Stop acting like I am defending rich people or arguing against taxes. I have been very clear that I am not. It seems equally clear that you have no rational response to what I am saying which is why you keep pretending that I am arguing for wealth inequality instead of just math. The people hit hardest by bad tax policy are always the middle class. The same would be true of a wrong-headed unrealized gains tax, no matter how much shouting about billionaires was used to make it more popular.
Maybe we’re strawmaning each other. I would be fine with a 1-2% tax on billionaire wealth that’s sitting as unrealized gains.
Taxing me on the value of my house is absolutely similar to taxing unrealized gains. If my house gained value that doesn’t mean my income did. There is no guarantee that I can afford it. I can’t sell my house to pay the tax. The same arguments used to defend billionaires applies to me as well, but somehow we’re supposed to feel bad for them but we’re ok with the middle class paying essentially the same thing as unrealized gains on the asset they own that’s mostly likely 99% of their net worth.
Can you tell me what is broken with expecting someone that holds $100b in unrealized gains to pay %1 tax on it
They shouldn’t be taxed because they’re just that, unrealized. They may be worth next to nothing one day. If you use them as collateral, you’re still on the hook for the value you originally took out the loan for, regardless of the loss of the investment.
Except they are realized because they are being used to purchase things and/or make more money. It can do nearly all of the things that “realized gains” can do, without being taxed.
It’s bullshit and you know it.(Because apparently that sentence was too distracting for some people)
If they truly are “unrealized”, then sure don’t tax them. But I think we need to change the definition of that term to include the actions that OP mentioned.
“it’s bullshit & you know it” good argument. Go get an education.
That wasn’t the argument though? Look, I will give it a strikethrough and it will not change the point of my comment in the slightest.
You completely ignore the entire comment except one sentence, and then you tell me to get an education? Lol
Who’s got the shit argument again?
Definitely you. You ignore the way the financial system works.
Sure that perfectly works because salaries are so high, I don’t need any other form of income at all. I’ll just forego any other investments because some rich guy might use them. Seriously, this is your solution? You do know it’s THAT rich guy that sets your salary, right?
You do know it’s THAT rich guy that sets your salary, right?
Which is why they need to be reigned in in a hundred different ways including this one, to force…any… responsibility to the society that FACILITATED their accumulation of such ridiculous levels of wealth to begin with, from roads, to utilities, to the preliterate workforce Pool they utilize and tear up for private profit more than normal individuals but don’t want to pay for.
Unfortunately, the self-hating laborers that would waste their lives advocating we get comfortable attempting to satiate the insatiable greed of our oligarchs in perpetuity seem to keep forgetting their greed disease has us on an ever dwindling clock to ecological collapse/apocalypse, meaning no salaries, just death. As much as you may not want it to for the sake of your passive income
earnedmade without actual labor, this capitalist laborer hostage situation for basic survival will end, because the climate can’t be bribed, negotiated with, bought out, cut in, or outsourced.No one solution can solve the problem of our greed class, and the top economic 10% of Americans own 87% of American stocks, so your attempt to frame this as an everyman issue is hollow.
When we have conditionless housing available to everyone without shelter, when everyone has Healthcare, when no one goes to sleep hungry without enough to eat, then we can start talking about what people with asset portfolios are concerned about.
Maybe society should focus on getting Bezos’s support mega yacht a support support mega yacht instead though.
Oh brother. Talking about a high horse.
So if you tax unrealized gains, the rich will still be rich but everyone else will simply stop investing. They will have no option but to only earn money from the rich guy. Oh but we’ll all have collectives because everyone who works wants to be an owner. And the best way to make any decision is to have a whole bunch of people provide input.
Look I’m all for eliminating the unfair rules that allow people to become billionaires. This rule is not one of them. And I’m sorry, but there are millions of people in the US with 401k retirement plans and they all have unrealized gains. They would all be effected. So don’t pretend this is ONLY a rich person thing. This isn’t a tax on the rich. It’s a tax on trying to become rich.
High horse? How? By explaining basic issues with capitalism that anyone who has paid attention to anything in the last 100+ years has recognized?
What an easy way to completely disregard an argument that makes you uncomfortable. I’ll have to remember that one.
The URSS should have won the Cold War. There, I said it. Now downvote me.
The United Roviet Rocialist Sepublic?
That’s the spelling of the Soviet Union acronym in my native language LOL
I think the real solution is not to lend on fake money. Tax or no tax, it wasn’t taxes that caused the market crash in 2008.
Thank you. Even if they pass something it will be written by a bureaucratic bean counter and will be riddled with loopholes.
Simply don’t allow loans on stocks. Keep it simple.
I think a law stating you can’t borrow against unrealized gains would be sensible.
You can keep your unrealized gains forever, live of your dividends for all i care, and pay no tax. But realizing them, either through selling or borrowing against, triggers a taxation.
Are dividends taxed?
“Yes*”
*As with all rules, it can vary by country. As I understand it, the US tends to double tax dividends, which is a rabbit hole of why the US market chases valuation so hard
Dividends paid out to taxable accounts are taxed.
Dividends that pay into non-taxable accounts can accumulate until they are withdrawn.
So, for instance, if you own $100 of Exxon in a regular brokerage account and $100 in an IRA, the $5 dividend you get from the first account is taxable but the $5 from the second is not.
This gets us to the idea of Trusts, Hedge Funds, and other tax-deferred vehicles. If you give $100 to a Hedge fund and it buys a stock in the fund that pays dividends, it never pays you the dividend on the stock so you never have to realize the dividend gain. You simply own “$100 worth of Citadel Investments” which becomes “$105 worth of Citadel Investments” when the dividend arrives.
I think dividends in a tax-exempt accounts, like a traditional IRA, are only not taxed if you reinvest the dividend or just leave it in your brokerage account. If you move money from your IRA account to, say, your checking account, that’s when you pay taxes (and there are generally fees for moving money out of tax exempt accounts without meeting certain conditions, like being of retirement age).
I think dividends in a tax-exempt accounts, like a traditional IRA, are only not taxed if you reinvest the dividend or just leave it in your brokerage account.
Right. Although, with a ROTH IRA, you pay taxes before you put the money in. Then you earn tax free even after you take it out. That makes it the preferable vehicle for long-term savings (you should expect your initial investment to double every 10 years, assuming a 7% ROI which is fairly modest - so over 30-40 years you’re saving 8x on the eventual withdrawal).
But this isn’t just limited to IRAs. Using investment funds, you can pull the same trick. Buy the fund, then allow the broker to shuffle the investments within the fund as they please. You only “earn” the money when you exit the fund, in the same way you only “earn” your retirement when you withdraw from your IRA.
Savings accounts and trusts can then be structured to be inheritable tax-free, with your heirs having access to withdraw from the fund without ever actually owning the money (and thus needing to pay taxes on the inheritance). And to make it even more squirrelly, you can borrow against these funds, which allows you to make large purchases without ever actually spending any money. This maneuver, plus a cagey use of declared loses, means you can avoid paying any tax on any investment income virtually indefinitely.
I largely agree with all the points made here however I think the overall message is a bit misleading. I would disagree that Roth investments are the preferred for long term investments. You aren’t accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year. Those taxes, while small compared to what you will withdraw tax free are also losing out on 8x-ing themselves (as you would have invested that amount in a traditional tax advantaged account).
What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement. However traditional is better if you are in a higher marginal rate than you expect to be in retirement. If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.
You aren’t accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year.
If you’re maxing out your contributions, it won’t matter, except in so far as what you can earn on taxed income outside of the IRA account. That’s going to be marginal relative to the contribution. And the compound returns inside the IRA make it meaningless.
What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement.
Unless you’re going straight into a white shoe law firm or extraordinary paying tech job after you graduate, that’s pretty much everyone. But even folks going into Fortune 500 companies typically start in the $60-80k/year range and climb up from there.
If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.
The amount of money you have in the fund is going to be much larger.
Say I invest $5000/year up front and get a 10% return for 40 years. I’m looking at putting in $200,000 over that time and taking out $2.2M.
Assuming the tax rate is 25% for each of those years, I paid $50k in taxes to invest that initial $200k. But I get the $2.2M back tax-free.
If I put the $200k in tax-deferred, I have to pay $550k to get my balance out again.
Now, we can argue that I could put the $400/year in deferred taxes into a taxable savings account. And maybe we get clever by shielding that investment from taxation annually because we just shove it all in Microsoft or Berkshire B and let it ride. That nets me another $177k over 40 years, assuming the same rate of return (for which I’m still on the hook at 15% long term gains rate - so really only $150k).
The ROTH is $350k better. That’s the whole reason the fund exists. It’s another accounting gimmick to give wealthy people a stealth tax cut. Only suckers put their money in Trad IRAs.
You seem to be using many different assumptions separately. In the first you assume you are maxing a Roth IRA (in my initial response I was also considering 401ks as many of them have Roth options nowadays). If you are maxing your Roth 401k and Roth IRA you are likely a high earner and therefore likely in a higher tax bracket than you will be in retirement. This means that kind of person will likely prefer traditional investments.
Your assumption there is someone maxing out their retirement options and in a relatively low tax bracket doesn’t seem like reality. So in your math example they wouldn’t be putting the extra in a taxable brokerage account but in the same tax advantaged account.
Quick edit: also I’m confused on the extra $400/year into taxable account. It should be $1,250 per year (25% of the 5,000) which would be closer to $600,000 before the capital gains tax.
