phypon Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Pretty simple, do you support tax on unrealized gains? If so, why? If not, why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Only people with no unrealized gains, or basic understanding of economics, would fall into the envy trap and vote for something so moronic 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Will they allow me to deduct unrealized losses? 3 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 I haven’t read up on this, but how would it even work? Do you just report your gains/losses every year? What if I get taxed on unrealized gains this year and the investment turns into an unrealized loss the next year, do they refund the money? I’m in the camp that the tax code needs to be simplified more than it needs to be made more complex. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 So the county re asseses you for 80 grand increase. You gotta pay 25 grand right then? Isn't real estate taxes already a tax on unrealized gains? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said: So the county re asseses you for 80 grand increase. You gotta pay 25 grand right then? Isn't real estate taxes already a tax on unrealized gains? I don't think you own a home or you would realize how wrong this is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, phypon said: Pretty simple, do you support tax on unrealized gains? If so, why? If not, why? This is a stupid idea and extremely problematic to manage. First, let me say I'm not against taxes. In fact, in order to get our country's debt under control I think we need to cut expenditures AND raise taxes. Can't solve our debt problem otherwise. But taxing unrealized gains is stupid for numerous reasons, mostly measuring the unrealized gain. If we want to raise tax revenues, there are so many better ways to do it. Just now, The Frankish Reich said: I don't think you own a home or you would realize how wrong this is. explain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't think you own a home or you would realize how wrong this is. Home sales aren't subject to capital gains taxes? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't think you own a home or you would realize how wrong this is. It's all good. You like to be wrong judging by your posting. And here you are being wrong again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 3 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said: I haven’t read up on this, but how would it even work? Do you just report your gains/losses every year? What if I get taxed on unrealized gains this year and the investment turns into an unrealized loss the next year, do they refund the money? I’m in the camp that the tax code needs to be simplified more than it needs to be made more complex. I haven't looked into the details of a loss. I haven't seen anything about that, so at this point, it looks the Harris tax plan is only on gains, not losses. So when this fiscal year ends the brokerage firm that holds your 401k or other investment portfolio will report that to the IRS and you will have to pay taxes on an investment that made money even though you did not sell or directly make money on said investment. Meaning, you would have to either take that owed tax money out of your pocket or sell assets in order to pay the tax on that unrealized gain. If it was a gain on 12/31 and your asset went down on 01/01, you would still owe on the gain from 12/31. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: It's all good. You like to be wrong judging by your posting. And here you are being wrong again. First, even if your assessed value went up by $80,000, you would never pay 25% of that in increased property taxes. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/millrate.asp Second, any of these proposals would apply only to exceptionally high net worth individuals. 9 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Home sales aren't subject to capital gains taxes? Yes and no - if it's your principal residence for at least 2 years, no. 12 minutes ago, Pokebball said: This is a stupid idea and extremely problematic to manage. I disagree that it's a stupid idea, as a pure idea. We tax income a whole lot on wealth very little at all. So there's a conceptual appeal. But I've got to agree on problematic to manage. In fact, I'd say impossible to manage. And as with all things taxation, it would be another accountant/tax lawyer's full employment act as wealthy people find any and every loophole to exploit to shift wealth into non-taxable forms. A bad idea that will fortunately die a quiet death. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 First, even if your assessed value went up by $80,000, you would never pay 25% of that in increased property taxe. Not what I posted. If your assed value went up 80 grand. Would you have to pay 20 as unrealized gains. Of course every time your house is re assed up, you pay more real estate taxes Are real estate taxes a tax on unrealized gains? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Second, any of these proposals would apply only to exceptionally high net worth individuals. Yes and no - if it's your principal residence for at least 2 years, no. I disagree that it's a stupid idea, as a pure idea. We tax income a whole lot on wealth very little at all. So there's a conceptual appeal. But I've got to agree on problematic to manage. In fact, I'd say impossible to manage. And as with all things taxation, it would be another accountant/tax lawyer's full employment act as wealthy people find any and every loophole to exploit to shift wealth into non-taxable forms. A bad idea that will fortunately die a quiet death. What? "Second, any of these proposals would apply only to exceptionally high net worth individuals." "Yes and no - if it's your principal residence for at least 2 years, no." I think you are confusing a short term capital gain with a long term capital gain here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: First, even if your assessed value went up by $80,000, you would never pay 25% of that in increased property taxe. Not what I posted. If your assed value went up 80 grand. Would you have to pay 20 as unrealized gains. Of course every time your house is re assed up, you pay more real estate taxes Are real estate taxes a tax on unrealized gains? OK, thanks for explaining. I get what you're saying now. The two thoughts ran together in the initial post. I guess you could say property taxes do in general tax unrealized gains. That was the impetus behind the famous Prop 13 in California - property taxes could only go up by a certain small percentage until the property was sold, thereby allowing older folks to hold onto their homes. 2 minutes ago, phypon said: What? "Second, any of these proposals would apply only to exceptionally high net worth individuals." "Yes and no - if it's your principal residence for at least 2 years, no." I think you are confusing a short term capital gain with a long term capital gain here. Second point: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomesale.asp#:~:text=The seller must have owned,the capital gains tax exclusion. So yes and no = "it depends." As for the high net worth individuals: this is how I understand the Democratic proposal. Not for sale of a home, but for taxing unrealized cap gains. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 To throw this out there to stop speculation. This is the bill the idea is based on: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8558#:~:text=This bill imposes a minimum,gains for the taxable year. This bill imposes a minimum tax on individual taxpayers whose net worth for the taxable year exceeds $100 million. The tax is equal to 20% of the sum of a taxpayer's taxable income, plus net unrealized gains for the taxable year. The tax may not exceed 40% of the amount by which the taxpayer's net worth exceeds $100 million Full bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8558/text#toc-H922BF7C44E41471A87A50FF6638398F4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 It is an insane idea. Yes. Property taxes are absolutely a tax on unrealized gains. Yes, real estate is absolutely taxed as a capital gain, but there are conditions within the tax law that exempt some gains in certain circumstances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: OK, thanks for explaining. I get what you're saying now. The two thoughts ran together in the initial post. I guess you could say property taxes do in general tax unrealized gains. That was the impetus behind the famous Prop 13 in California - property taxes could only go up by a certain small percentage until the property was sold, thereby allowing older folks to hold onto their homes. Second point: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomesale.asp#:~:text=The seller must have owned,the capital gains tax exclusion. So yes and no = "it depends." As for the high net worth individuals: this is how I understand the Democratic proposal. Not for sale of a home, but for taxing unrealized cap gains. Those cap gains apply to everyone. If you have a 401k (which most people do), that counts as a capital gain. Any stocks you own, mutual funds, etc...fall under a capital tax umbrella. Commodities as well. 4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: To throw this out there to stop speculation. This is the bill the idea is based on: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8558#:~:text=This bill imposes a minimum,gains for the taxable year. This bill imposes a minimum tax on individual taxpayers whose net worth for the taxable year exceeds $100 million. The tax is equal to 20% of the sum of a taxpayer's taxable income, plus net unrealized gains for the taxable year. The tax may not exceed 40% of the amount by which the taxpayer's net worth exceeds $100 million Full bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8558/text#toc-H922BF7C44E41471A87A50FF6638398F4 No, there is no bill on this as of yet. This is the Harris policy that was introduced by Biden 2 months ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 What if you are the beneficiary of a life insurance. Capital gains? While the person is alive? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 It would be shocking to the equities market for the month of December. Stupid ideas from stupid people result in economic catastrophes. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 8 minutes ago, phypon said: Those cap gains apply to everyone. If you have a 401k (which most people do), that counts as a capital gain. Any stocks you own, mutual funds, etc...fall under a capital tax umbrella. Commodities as well. No, there is no bill on this as of yet. This is the Harris policy that was introduced by Biden 2 months ago. There’s no current bill. The idea was put in the 2025 budget by the Biden Admin but the policies mimic this bill. From the $100 million net worth to the 25 percent tax, so you can see how they would possibly define things like non-tradable assets (like a house). here’s Biden proposing the same thing in 2022, which is what this bill was drafted on; https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/ Edited August 21 by Backintheday544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts