Taxing Unrealized Gains

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, it is about the Govt trying to tax money that was never received, and it is only possible due to the tax bill passed by the GOP and signed by Trump.

But, you cannot blame them as that would bring the ire of your tribe and that just would never do.

No, if they are liable for the tax then they must pay it. I’m not debating that the TCJA may have created this issue for the Moores, but, it does play into the lefts overall agenda.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, if they are liable for the tax then they must pay it. I’m not debating that the TCJA may have created this issue for the Moores, but, it does play into the lefts overall agenda.

It plays into both sides over all agenda, but you are just too blinded by your love of the GOP

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Supreme Court appears wary of repercussions of major case that could upend tax code

The case before the justices Tuesday could have sweeping implications for the U.S. tax system and derail proposals from some Democrats to create a wealth tax.

www.cbsnews.com

Case is being heard today in the Supreme Court.

I think this is a bad idea because, though they say it’s just to tax the rich, inevitably it will make its way to the common person as well. Doing so will remove a lot of the benefit of pre tax deductions.

In regards to taxing the rich, I still feel it’s not a good idea because it would be akin to taxing something that’s not benefiting anyone at the moment. Plus, you’ll end up getting double taxed on it. Once as an unrealized gain, and again when you cash it out.

Also, what about items that can fluctuate in value. If you have an item worth a lot of money today and they tax you on that value, if it decreases in value, do they give you a rebate?

Also, what about things like collectors items that you may never intend to sell? Such as rare comics or baseball cards and such. Is it right that one would be taxed on the value of those things if they never intend on selling them? Same goes with an investment, such as a house, or property, again, you may never want to sell these items, but you’ll be taxed on some estimated value that it could bring you if you were to sell it. It’s just extra money you’ll be paying for no reason.

What about the person who may inherit something, such as land, perhaps that land is very valuable…but maybe they dont have the money to pay the gains taxes they are wanting to assess in it, does that mean they will be forced to sell it?

Also, my question is..why? Why do they feel the need to tax unrealized gains? Is it because they just feel they are entitled to it? Is it because they just need more money?

It further emphasizes the need to cut spending rather than to keep finding ways to take more money from the people.

At the end of the day, this will solve nothing as if they manage to make this happen, all they are going to do is say “hey, we got more money, so that means we can just spend more”, which puts us right back at square one.

Cutting spending is the only answer, taxing unrealized gains (money you don’t have) is a bad idea.

We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a DC money laundering problem!! Keep your hands out of our pockets!!!

 

[ThisIsMe]

It plays into both sides over all agenda, but you are just too blinded by your love of the GOP

Really? When have the right advocated for taxing unrealized gains? I’m not aware of it but I’m sure you’ll show me.

If that’s the case, it doesn’t change my opinion that it’s wrong, I’ve just always seen it as a left wing agenda, I’ve never heard any righty’s say they wanted to do it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a DC money laundering problem!! Keep your hands out of our pockets!!!

We certainly have a spending problem, that’s for sure.

I still want to know why they feel they need to tax unrealized gains.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really? When have the right advocated for taxing unrealized gains? I’m not aware of it but I’m sure you’ll show me.

They put it in their damn bill, how much more can one advocate for something than that?

 

[Independentthinker]

One way this might work is to have a time limit on holding stocks, in a new law, like 5-years.
After 5-years the stock is sold and taxes paid, or a loss taken.
The stock can be repurchased if desired. After paying income tax and/or a transaction tax.

Don't like that idea. Many have gotten rich by buying stocks and holding onto them for decades. At some point, the gains are usually taxed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a DC money laundering problem!! Keep your hands out of our pockets!!!

and yet you folks keep sending the same people back to DC to do it some more

 

[ThisIsMe]

They put it in their damn bill, how much more can one advocate for something than that?

If you are talking about the MRT, then it’s a one time tax on income sourced outside the country, and yes, the fact that they want to tax it even if then company made no distributions, and that’s a problem, I’ll grant you that, but it’s a far cry from the desire to tax the common man of their assets, their retirement, and property.

ALL of it is a problem.

 

[hadit]

Supreme Court appears wary of repercussions of major case that could upend tax code

The case before the justices Tuesday could have sweeping implications for the U.S. tax system and derail proposals from some Democrats to create a wealth tax.

www.cbsnews.com

Case is being heard today in the Supreme Court.

I think this is a bad idea because, though they say it’s just to tax the rich, inevitably it will make its way to the common person as well. Doing so will remove a lot of the benefit of pre tax deductions.

In regards to taxing the rich, I still feel it’s not a good idea because it would be akin to taxing something that’s not benefiting anyone at the moment. Plus, you’ll end up getting double taxed on it. Once as an unrealized gain, and again when you cash it out.

Also, what about items that can fluctuate in value. If you have an item worth a lot of money today and they tax you on that value, if it decreases in value, do they give you a rebate?

Also, what about things like collectors items that you may never intend to sell? Such as rare comics or baseball cards and such. Is it right that one would be taxed on the value of those things if they never intend on selling them? Same goes with an investment, such as a house, or property, again, you may never want to sell these items, but you’ll be taxed on some estimated value that it could bring you if you were to sell it. It’s just extra money you’ll be paying for no reason.

What about the person who may inherit something, such as land, perhaps that land is very valuable…but maybe they dont have the money to pay the gains taxes they are wanting to assess in it, does that mean they will be forced to sell it?

Also, my question is..why? Why do they feel the need to tax unrealized gains? Is it because they just feel they are entitled to it? Is it because they just need more money?

It further emphasizes the need to cut spending rather than to keep finding ways to take more money from the people.

At the end of the day, this will solve nothing as if they manage to make this happen, all they are going to do is say “hey, we got more money, so that means we can just spend more”, which puts us right back at square one.

Cutting spending is the only answer, taxing unrealized gains (money you don’t have) is a bad idea.

I think we should all pay the new tax in unrealized payments that aren't real until we say they are.

 

[ThisIsMe]

and yet you folks keep sending the same people back to DC to do it some more

lol, you accuse me of pointing solely at the left and then do the same thing by saying “YOU keep sending the same people…”

It’s the lot of them, they all do it

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think we should all pay the new tax in unrealized payments that aren't real until we say they are.

There ya go. Tell the IRS “I paid your tax on unrealized gains with unrealized money”
I love it!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

ALL of it is a problem.

now this is something we can agree on

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One way this might work is to have a time limit on holding stocks, in a new law, like 5-years.
After 5-years the stock is sold and taxes paid, or a loss taken.
The stock can be repurchased if desired. After paying income tax and/or a transaction tax.

NFW!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

“YOU keep sending the same people…”

yep, I am talking about both sides when I say that

 

[jotathought]

One way this might work is to have a time limit on holding stocks, in a new law, like 5-years.
After 5-years the stock is sold and taxes paid, or a loss taken.
The stock can be repurchased if desired. After paying income tax and/or a transaction tax.

Why? There is no income to be taxed with holding / selling stocks. All this would lead to is reduced investments and / or selling with minimal gains.

A stupid idea altogether. Why would one invest if it didn't benefit them? What about 401K, HSA and other investment vehicles?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and yet you folks keep sending the same people back to DC to do it some more

Yeah, it’s my fault that both Parties suck

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, it’s my fault that both Parties suck

if you keep voting for them it is.