How can a government tax citizens on unrealized stock market gains? I mean what in the actual ____ is going on?

[shockedcanadian]

I heard that Harris/Walz wants to tax citizens for unrealized capital gains. How does this work? A stock goes up, you get taxed even though you didnt sell and then if the market goes down and you sell at a loss, you lose twice?

Also, if this is the case, how could buy and hold expert Warren Buffett support her in any fashion?

 

[Cellblock2429]

I heard that Harris/Walz wants to tax citizens for unrealized capital gains. How does this work? A stock goes up, you get taxed even though you didnt sell and then if the market goes down and you sell at a loss, you lose twice?

Also, if this is the case, how could buy and hold expert Warren Buffett support her in any fashion?

/——/ It’s just raw meat for their financially illiterate base. Too many rich democrat investors will make sure that commie tax will never see the light of day.
Can you imagine Nancy “Insider trader” Pelosi signing off on it?

 

[Lisa558]

I heard that Harris/Walz wants to tax citizens for unrealized capital gains. How does this work? A stock goes up, you get taxed even though you didnt sell and then if the market goes down and you sell at a loss, you lose twice?

Also, if this is the case, how could buy and hold expert Warren Buffett support her in any fashion?

And if the stock goes up one year and you are taxed on it, even though you didn’t sell it, do you get a tax credit if it goes down the next, even though you are still not selling it?

This is just another hare-brained proposal by the socialists, thinking it SOUNDS good - hey, we are going to make all those successful people pay “their fair share” - even though it’s not possible.

And think of all the responsible middle-earners, making sacrifices so they could dutifully contribute to their IRAs, only to be taxed on the funds as they increase in value. Toward the end of my career, when I had amassed a comfortable nest egg, my holdings (in a good year) went up by more than my annual salary!

 

[Lisa558]

Let’s do the math, using made-up but realistic numbers, for a middle-income professional in his or her 50s to show how disastrous this policy will be:

MEM (Middle Earner Mary) is now 57, and has contributed the maximum to her retirement fund for 35 years, since graduating from college. She now earns $100,000, and taxes eat up about 30% of her income (including fed, state, FICA, etc.), leaving her with $70,000 to live on. Even with that relatively modest amount, she saves $10,000 a year, thus leavng her with $60,000.

Now let’s say her retirement fund is….say…..$800,000. A good year rolls around, and her unrealized gain is 12%, or $96,000.

Now the Socialist/Marxist wants to tax THAT at regular tax rates, and she owes, just ballparking, $15,000 taxes on the unrealized gain. Subtract that from her $60,000, and MEM is left with $45,000 to live on for the year - or less than $4,000 a month!

What that means in the new socialist America is that a college-educated professional earning a comfortable $100,000 a year is left struggling to cover her expenses on just $4,000 a month - and more than half goes to rent or mortgage.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Let’s do the math, using made-up but realistic numbers, for a middle-income professional in his or her 50s to show how disastrous this policy will be:

MEM (Middle Earner Mary) is now 57, and has contributed the maximum to her retirement fund for 35 years, since graduating from college. She now earns $100,000, and taxes eat up about 30% of her income (including fed, state, FICA, etc.), leaving her with $70,000 to live on. Even with that relatively modest amount, she saves $10,000 a year, thus leavng her with $60,000.

Now let’s say her retirement fund is….say…..$800,000. A good year rolls around, and her unrealized gain is 12%, or $96,000.

Now the Socialist/Marxist wants to tax THAT at regular tax rates, and she owes, just ballparking, $15,000 taxes on the unrealized gain. Subtract that from her $60,000, and MEM is left with $45,000 to live on for the year - or less than $4,000 a month!

What that means in the new socialist America is that a college-educated professional earning a comfortable $100,000 a year is left struggling to cover her expenses on just $4,000 a month - and more than half goes to rent or mortgage.

/—-/ The average person will stop investing in the market. They lose one of the greatest wealth building tools in the free world which limits their options. This give socialist more control of our lives.

 

[Lisa558]

/—-/ The average person will stop investing in the market. They lose one of the greatest wealth building tools in the free world which limits their options. This give socialist more control of our lives.

exactly! These proposals are so destructive.

So instead of having th middle class save for retirement, they’ll give up investing…..and then they’ll be dependent on the USSA for their subsistence, just like the socialists want it.

Discouraging success, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility.

 

[Vastator]

/—-/ The average person will stop investing in the market. They lose one of the greatest wealth building tools in the free world which limits their options. This give socialist more control of our lives.

That's kinda the point...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let’s do the math, using made-up but realistic numbers, for a middle-income professional in his or her 50s to show how disastrous this policy will be:

MEM (Middle Earner Mary) is now 57, and has contributed the maximum to her retirement fund for 35 years, since graduating from college. She now earns $100,000, and taxes eat up about 30% of her income (including fed, state, FICA, etc.), leaving her with $70,000 to live on. Even with that relatively modest amount, she saves $10,000 a year, thus leavng her with $60,000.

Now let’s say her retirement fund is….say…..$800,000. A good year rolls around, and her unrealized gain is 12%, or $96,000.

Now the Socialist/Marxist wants to tax THAT at regular tax rates, and she owes, just ballparking, $15,000 taxes on the unrealized gain. Subtract that from her $60,000, and MEM is left with $45,000 to live on for the year - or less than $4,000 a month!

What that means in the new socialist America is that a college-educated professional earning a comfortable $100,000 a year is left struggling to cover her expenses on just $4,000 a month - and more than half goes to rent or mortgage.

It would not apply to her unless she has incomes and assets exceeding $100 million.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I heard that Harris/Walz wants to tax citizens for unrealized capital gains. How does this work? A stock goes up, you get taxed even though you didnt sell and then if the market goes down and you sell at a loss, you lose twice?

Also, if this is the case, how could buy and hold expert Warren Buffett support her in any fashion?

It is a stupid idea and will never make it through congress, no matter which party holds it.

If they taxed the gain they would have to let your write off the loss if it went down the next year, another reason they will not do it.

 

[shockedcanadian]

It is a stupid idea and will never make it through congress, no matter which party holds it.

If they taxed the gain they would have to let your write off the loss if it went down the next year, another reason they will not do it.

I think this is what professional gamblers have to do.

They better hope that Trump doesn't start running with this idea and letting voters know that ALL of their pensions are going to get hit bigtime with such a policy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think this is what professional gamblers have to do.

They better hope that Trump doesn't start running with this idea and letting voters know that ALL of their pensions are going to get hit bigtime with such a policy.

Only if they have incomes and assets exceeding $100 million.

 

[Skylar]

I heard that Harris/Walz wants to tax citizens for unrealized capital gains. How does this work? A stock goes up, you get taxed even though you didnt sell and then if the market goes down and you sell at a loss, you lose twice?

Also, if this is the case, how could buy and hold expert Warren Buffett support her in any fashion?

I'm not sure how losses are handled. That's a big question.

If you bought shares at $10 a share, but then they went down to $8.00 a share, there are obviously no gains, realized or otherwise. So if the value the next year returns to $10 a share, do you have to pay fifty cents on 'unrealized gains', despite the fact that you haven't actually made money?

If no, then the original purchase price impacts your tax liability way past that first year. Which has its own implications.

What about options? Does having the option to purchase shares at a certain price represent unrealized gains, even if you've never exercised them? I'd say, maybe......as depending on the circumstance, you can take out loans on un-exercised options.

And what if you purchase options. Are those subject to unrealized capital gains taxes if you never exercise them, even if they're in the money?

I dunno. I'd need to know more about this before I could have an opinion.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I just posted something on this topic, and have just realised there’s a thread on that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'm not sure how losses are handled. That's a big question.

If you bought shares at $10 a share, but then they went down to $8.00 a share, there are obviously no gains, realized or otherwise. So if the value the next year returns to $10 a share, do you have to pay fifty cents on 'unrealized gains', despite the fact that you haven't actually made money?

If no, then the original purchase price impacts your tax liability way past that first year. Which has its own implications.

What about options? Does having the option to purchase shares at a certain price represent unrealized gains, even if you've never exercised them? I'd say, maybe......as depending on the circumstance, you can take out loans on un-exercised options.

And what if you purchase options. Are those subject to unrealized capital gains taxes if you never exercise them, even if they're in the money?

I dunno. I'd need to know more about this before I could have an opinion.

/——/ I’m an active option trader. What’s sad is that you need more information than we already have to know this is a bad idea and a confiscation of personal property that will only get worse.

 

[Winco]

/—-/ The average person will stop investing in the market. They lose one of the greatest wealth building tools in the free world which limits their options. This give socialist more control of our lives.

Why does everyone ignore the fact that it ONLY applies to over 100million
That is not your average investor

 

[JohnDB]

If the FTC was granted the authority, budget, and power to actually do their jobs effectively...

No economy destroying tax would be necessary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why does everyone ignore the fact that it ONLY applies to over 100million
That is not your average investor

/---/ Because it always trickles down to the middle class. That's where the money is.
Check the original income tax law and compare it to today. Wilson promised it would only affect the top 1%. How long did that last?

 

[task0778]

What we have here is a glimpse into the future where the democrats own the Congress and the WH. The 1st thing they'll do is abolish the filibuster and enact changes that ensure their perpetual control of gov't as much as possible, including changing election/voter rights laws, expanding the SCOTUS, and adding Puerto Rico and DC as new states. Then you can expect to see higher taxes, initially on the wealthy that will trickle down to the not so wealthy.

Taxing unrealized capital gains would be an extremely difficult thing to, even if you leave out the illiquid assets: houses, farms, ranches, businesses and the like. Don't think for a minute that the uber wealthy are going to take it in the shorts without complaint. No, they're going to shift their wealth into whatever assets will avoid the new tax, which generally means less investment in areas that lead to more jobs. Or in some cases their money will flow out of the country to places where they can make a higher net profit after taxes paid in the new location. One way or another, you can safely bet that the expected amount of new revenue will not be reached, not even close. And there will be negative economic consequences; less investment in the more liquid assets will be felt and GDP will suffer. How much? Nobody knows. It's kinda like passing legislation to find out what's in it. It might not be that bad, but it also might be a lot worse too. So - how many times and ways do you want to fuck the golden goose?