Taxing unrealized capital gains...

[dogmush]

So here's the thing though:  This will never pass.  It's a talking point to stir up the commie base.

Why? I defer to the genius of Dave Chapelle:

https://youtu.be/YAJCvt9tOYE?t=104

[zahc]

Taxes on "unrealized funds" means you would have to PAY those additional taxes without additional funding !
Or sell the assets to pay those taxes

This is how all taxes work.

[Bogie]

The death tax is already bad for family farms... You have to incorporate/trust/all sorts of hoops if you want to keep it in the family, and one sour apple can ruin the whole deal... This would just add something where if someone has a big piece of property, with the necessary improvements, that they would have to destroy a good chunk of a working business.

[K Frame]

American death taxes are nothing compared to what the British death duties used to be like -- at one time up to EIGHTY PERCENT of the value of the estate. Let that sink in. You build an empire, have the temerity to die, and the government takes 80% of the value of your estate BEFORE your heirs get *expletive deleted*it. That's what happens when *expletive deleted*ing socialists take over government.

Two deaths in a generation wiped out many landed families and resulted in the sale, abandonment, seizure, or destruction of many incredible country homes.

Death duties also resulted in some houses being outright given to National Trust, English/Scottish Heritage, etc., but some of the best ones were pulled apart and sold bit by bit to cover some of the death tax. That was, however, rarely accepted. Thank God, though, that Hardwick Hall was one of the ones accepted, otherwise the single greatest example of Tudor/Elizabethan architecture would have been lost.

[MechAg94]

American death taxes are nothing compared to what the British death duties used to be like -- at one time up to EIGHTY PERCENT of the value of the estate. Let that sink in. You build an empire, have the temerity to die, and the government takes 80% of the value of your estate BEFORE your heirs get *expletive deleted*it. That's what happens when *expletive deleted*ing socialists take over government.

Two deaths in a generation wiped out many landed families and resulted in the sale, abandonment, seizure, or destruction of many incredible country homes.

Death duties also resulted in some houses being outright given to National Trust, English/Scottish Heritage, etc., but some of the best ones were pulled apart and sold bit by bit to cover some of the death tax. That was, however, rarely accepted. Thank God, though, that Hardwick Hall was one of the ones accepted, otherwise the single greatest example of Tudor/Elizabethan architecture would have been lost.

I thought that was part of the plan some thought death tax would bring.  Break up aristocratic family empires. 

Of course, it would be better to just take away tax shelters and other benefits that let them protect their wealth in trust funds and like. Eventually, they all end up with incompetents in charge who can't maintain the wealth. 

[Unisaw]

This is how all taxes work.

That's not true.  When you are taxed on interest, dividends, etc., a tax liability is created but you also have the wherewithal to pay the tax.  It's a long-standing principle of taxation.  There are exceptions, such as being taxed on the inflation adjustment of a Treasury inflation-protected security, but violation of that principle affects retail demand for TIPS.  Do we really want to suppress investment in stocks, for example, just so the government has more money to spend?

[zahc]

That's not true.  When you are taxed on interest, dividends, etc., a tax liability is created but you also have the wherewithal to pay the tax.  It's a long-standing principle of taxation.  There are exceptions, such as being taxed on the inflation adjustment of a Treasury inflation-protected security, but violation of that principle affects retail demand for TIPS.  Do we really want to suppress investment in stocks, for example, just so the government has more money to spend?

I'm unfamiliar with this long-standing principal. When my property taxes are due, I have to pay them. Nobody cares if I have the "wherewithal". Nobody even cares about the value of my asset or whether it appreciated; I'm charged a wealth tax on its appraised value even if the value falls! By comparison, capital gains taxes are only due if your asset appreciates, and then only 15% of the appreciation amount (meaning you presumably have the wherewithal), and only THEN if your taxable income is over the threshold, and only THEN don't have any offsetting losses elsewhere.

Stocks and other securities are extremely liquid. Stocks can be sold with a mouse click nowadays, usually for free, and often in fractional shares.

Do we really want to suppress investment in stocks, for example, just so the government has more money to spend?

Why are stocks sacred? Why is it ok to suppress investment in real property? Why is it ok to tax labor at marginal rates far in excess of capital gains (typically 22-30+% marginal taxes on income). Why do we tax people who worked for a living 22% but if the money came from an investment it's less?

what you should be outraged about is property taxes arnd income taxes. If raising capital gains tax would allow lowering income tax it would be beneficial at least until the point parity was reached.

 Of course, we shouldn't be taxing (and do not need to tax) any sort of labor or capital. The government can raise all the money it needs by taxing only rents, but I've beaten that drum before. We are talking about the lesser of evils here. There is no justification for capital gains tax to be treated specially at all, it should just be income and subject to normal income tax rates.

[K Frame]

"I thought that was part of the plan some thought death tax would bring.  Break up aristocratic family empires."

Death duties have been in places in Britain since the 1600s, at least.

Things started to get really onerous when Liberal/Labor governments started to really roll out the social services state in the 1890s.

But *expletive deleted*it got REALLY real in the post WW II period. Britain was bankrupt and it was nothing more than a Labor socialist money grab that happened in conjunction with nationalization of much of Britain's industrial and commercial infrastructure. Because, as everyone knows, Government knows how to better run businesses than the people who ran the businesses for decades.

That's why the Winter of 1946-1947 was such a rousing success... for no one. Government "planning" left the nation with virtually no fuel stockpiles in the face of one of the worst winters in 200 years. Britons literally froze to death because government planning failed so miserably. There are some who claim that many Britons even starved to death because of the government's failure.

[MechAg94]

I'm unfamiliar with this long-standing principal. When my property taxes are due, I have to pay them. Nobody cares if I have the "wherewithal". Nobody even cares about the value of my asset or whether it appreciated; I'm charged a wealth tax on its appraised value even if the value falls! By comparison, capital gains taxes are only due if your asset appreciates, and then only 15% of the appreciation amount (meaning you presumably have the wherewithal), and only THEN if your taxable income is over the threshold, and only THEN don't have any offsetting losses elsewhere.

Stocks and other securities are extremely liquid. Stocks can be sold with a mouse click nowadays, usually for free, and often in fractional shares.


Why are stocks sacred? Why is it ok to suppress investment in real property? Why is it ok to tax labor at marginal rates far in excess of capital gains (typically 22-30+% marginal taxes on income). Why do we tax people who worked for a living 22% but if the money came from an investment it's less?

what you should be outraged about is property taxes arnd income taxes. If raising capital gains tax would allow lowering income tax it would be beneficial at least until the point parity was reached.

 Of course, we shouldn't be taxing (and do not need to tax) any sort of labor or capital. The government can raise all the money it needs by taxing only rents, but I've beaten that drum before. We are talking about the lesser of evils here. There is no justification for capital gains tax to be treated specially at all, it should just be income and subject to normal income tax rates.

I didn't think Unisaw was arguing any of that.   

[MechAg94]

"I thought that was part of the plan some thought death tax would bring.  Break up aristocratic family empires."

Death duties have been in places in Britain since the 1600s, at least.

Things started to get really onerous when Liberal/Labor governments started to really roll out the social services state in the 1890s.

But *expletive deleted*it got REALLY real in the post WW II period. Britain was bankrupt and it was nothing more than a Labor socialist money grab that happened in conjunction with nationalization of much of Britain's industrial and commercial infrastructure. Because, as everyone knows, Government knows how to better run businesses than the people who ran the businesses for decades.

That's why the Winter of 1946-1947 was such a rousing success... for no one. Government "planning" left the nation with virtually no fuel stockpiles in the face of one of the worst winters in 200 years. Britons literally froze to death because government planning failed so miserably. There are some who claim that many Britons even starved to death because of the government's failure.

So you are arguing leftists like the tax solely as another opportunity to take other people's money?  I can agree with that part.  Leftists usually don't have one reason for their policies though not all of them know all the reasons. 

The other side of it is most leftists are arrogant amateurs that think they know how to run other people's businesses better than they do.

[K Frame]

"The other side of it is most leftists are arrogant amateurs that think they know how to run other people's businesses better than they do. "

that's exactly what I said...

[Angel Eyes]

Courtesy of James Woods:

[Perd Hapley]

JFK is a dead white male. His argument is invalid.

[HankB]

"The other side of it is most leftists are arrogant amateurs that think they know how to run other people's businesses better than they do. "

that's exactly what I said...

Leftists^* claim the moral authority to redistribute wealth to people they believe are more deserving of it than those who merely worked for, earned, or created that wealth.


^* - a term which includes current liberals, progressives, and nearly all democrats.

[JTHunter]

By comparison, capital gains taxes are only due if your asset appreciates, and then only 15% of the appreciation amount (meaning you presumably have the wherewithal), and only THEN if your taxable income is over the threshold, and only THEN don't have any offsetting losses elsewhere.

Capital gains are - IIRC - only taxed when those appreciated items are sold, just like the appreciation (and exemptions) on real estate.

[K Frame]

Capital gains are - IIRC - only taxed when those appreciated items are sold, just like the appreciation (and exemptions) on real estate.

That's the entire point of this thread.

Democrats want to throw that away and levy taxes on "gains" that haven't actually been gained because the assets haven't been sold.

[Angel Eyes]

I will see your tax on unrealized gains and raise you ...

[HankB]

That's the entire point of this thread.

Democrats want to throw that away and levy taxes on "gains" that haven't actually been gained because the assets haven't been sold.

Camel's nose under the tent - in past years there have been proposals to tax "imputed income" as well. Example: Say you own a house. Homes like that rent for $2000 a month, but since you OWN the house, not paying monthly rent is like getting $2000 a month, $24,000 a year in "imputed income." Now pay income tax on that.