Reply With Quote
So, does it work in reverse? Do we get write-off on unrealized losses? LOL
And when it trickles down to us ordinary folks (because it always does), do we sell our assets just to pay the tax on the UNREALIZED gains?
Agree. Nothing about taxes in the cons ution right? So if regular taxes are ok, anything is ok
Agree that this is just a BS show tho. As most super rich make money on Private Equity. Trust me I have worked on this field
So, does it work in reverse? Do we get write-off on unrealized losses? LOL
And when it trickles down to us ordinary folks (because it always does), do we sell our assets just to pay the tax on the UNREALIZED gains?
That's one of the dumbest things you have ever come up with Boukaki...a 15.3% tax (thats just SS and medicare) on unrealized gains when the average return on the S&P 500 over the last 20 years has been 5.3% adjusted for inflation would kill retirement accounts. Add the appropriate income tax on top of that? And taxing homeowners on the appreciation of their house every year would be insane if they don't sell it.
The 16th amendment says o.Agree. Nothing about taxes in the cons ution right? So if regular taxes are ok, anything is ok
Agree that this is just a BS show tho. As most super rich make money on Private Equity. Trust me I have worked on this field
Then you should be prepared to pay taxes on the $2000 you made when you bought bitcoin in the $1700+ and DIDN'T SELL before the end of the year.
edit: sorry, not bitcoin - ETH
Last edited by rmt; 10-28-2021 at 09:54 AM.
The math here isn't perfect, but for the sake of simplicity, 15.3% off 5.3% makes your S&P return 4.5%. How's that killing retirement accounts?
Add in normal federal tax rate on top of that. Now, assume you have to sell stock to pay the tax. Next year you have less investment earning returns. Compound this over your earning lifetime and it can be hundreds of thousands of dollars siphoned ff.
So, 3% earnings at worst, maybe? At no point in this scenario are you having to pay more in tax than you earned in value increase, not even by half. You should never have less investment earning returns vs. the beginning of the previous year unless you pulled money out for other purposes or unless your value went down (which would mean you don't pay any of the taxes we're discussing.)
Like I said, I'm not a fan of unrealized gains taxation but I think you're overstating the consequence. The value rises either way.
And if recent precedent is any indication, taxation probably wouldn't start until after a certain level of annual earnings anyway.
That is significant due to COMPOUNDING especially over decades. Makes the ROTH all the more attractive, but I'm sure they'd find a way to double tax that too.
Yeah, that's how it always starts out - tax those RICH people but due to the insatiable appe e for taxes - sooner or later, it comes down to our level.
You're going to think of any reduction in earnings as significant. If you're paying substantial compounding taxes over that time, that means you're earning even more substantial gains.
And as I'm sure you know, there are maximum contributions you can make into a Roth and that number isn't very high.
Sorry, but someone's got to pay for our bloated military and weapons contracts.
Ok thanks. So then these gains tax is cons utional.
a little slow?Ok thanks. So then these gains tax is cons utional.
Unrealized gains are not income. 16th amendment specifically say INCOME can be taxed.
They aren't gains until they are realized - stock could go down the next day and there are no gains. The key word is taxing of UNREALIZED gains.Ok thanks. So then these gains tax is cons utional.
Incomes would seem to be "gains". Therefore cons utional.
Same argument can be made for any tax. Since you are attempting to show this specific tax should not be enacted, it becomes irrelevant due to the necessary nature of taxes in general.
I reject your definition.
Now what?
lololol
“cons utionality” matters now?
If its considered a direct tax its cons utional
Tax it
Read my post above. Cheers
Two kinds of people defend billionaires from taxes.
Billionaires and suckers.
MF Biden has already given up 1/2 of it. Still doesn't have the $ for the half that's left.
ha, ha.
I actually agree with CC that using the plain meaning of income would make this uncons utional.
There's definitely valid arguments in the other direction but the common public understanding of the word income doesn't include an appreciation in the value of an asset you own. Income is when you receive money from labor/an investment, inherit money/assets, etc.
Fixing the stepped up basis loophole, increasing the cap gains tax & reforming the trust fund baby tax would solve for everything this "billionaires tax" would solve for only it'd be unquestionably better policy and it would be cons utional.
It wouldn't trickle down because taxing the unrealized gains of normal upper middle class Americans in the low six figures would be political suicide.
I agree with the part about unrealized losses though, that's what doesn't make sense. Is this just a "mark to market" tax billionaires pay every year? How do illiquid assets get valued? Everyone thinks of the stock Musk/Bezos owns and sure that's easy to value and determine the unrealized gain on, but I'll take the under on the IRS being able to accurately value a billionaires' real estate portfolio / private holdings.
This tax is just bad policy all around, and that's even before considering the fact the Roberts Court would never in a million years uphold it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions