Unrealized Capital Gains Taxes

[colfax_m]

No need to impress me with your ignorance, that's just you.

Stop trolling.

 

[Blues Man]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

 

[colfax_m]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

Again, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the big problem is you assume the $600 saved a year in taxes is stuffed under the mattress and not invested. If you invest and get the same rate, that makes more than $200k at retirement. You can pay a lot of taxes with that money. In fact, if your distributions stay at the same 12% marginal rate that you had when you were working, it covers the EXACT amount of taxes you’ll owe.

 

[San Souci]

Biden’s treasury secretary, the kook that she is, is in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. How dumb can these folks be?

Mac1958 you voted for these geniuses. What do you think about this ridonkulous idea?

Oaktree's Howard Marks says this tax proposal in the U.S. makes investing less attractive

The filthy Democrats will also tax WEALTH. Which means Double dipping.

 

[Blues Man]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

Again, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the big problem is you assume the $600 saved a year in taxes is stuffed under the mattress and not invested. If you invest and get the same rate, that makes more than $200k at retirement. You can pay a lot of taxes with that money. In fact, if your distributions stay at the same 12% marginal rate that you had when you were working, it covers the EXACT amount of taxes you’ll owe.

So now you're telling me that a guy with a tradtional IRA has to invest more to beat a Roth.

I wish you would make up your mind

 

[San Souci]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

Again, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the big problem is you assume the $600 saved a year in taxes is stuffed under the mattress and not invested. If you invest and get the same rate, that makes more than $200k at retirement. You can pay a lot of taxes with that money. In fact, if your distributions stay at the same 12% marginal rate that you had when you were working, it covers the EXACT amount of taxes you’ll owe.

Don't try to 'Splain economics to a Lib. They have no capacity for learning.

 

[Blues Man]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

Again, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the big problem is you assume the $600 saved a year in taxes is stuffed under the mattress and not invested. If you invest and get the same rate, that makes more than $200k at retirement. You can pay a lot of taxes with that money. In fact, if your distributions stay at the same 12% marginal rate that you had when you were working, it covers the EXACT amount of taxes you’ll owe.

Don't try to 'Splain economics to a Lib. They have no capacity for learning.

So I'm a liberal now?

 

[Blues Man]

The cost in the aggregate is much lower. That's math.

And you are ignoring the taxes that a person will pay in retirement.

I’m definitely not ignoring any part of the equation. The taxes in retirement are paid for by the extra invested money that the person with a traditional IRA has.

You’re still not comparing apples to apples because you’re completely ignoring what happens to the money you save from not paying taxes on traditional IRA contributions.

This is as brilliant as saying that investing $7000 a year is better than investing $5000 a year.

And those taxes are far far more than the little extra paid by the guy investing in the Roth with the result being that the guy with the traditional IRA has less to spend in retirement.

And again the taxes paid are not an investment.

The 5000 is.

Who will have more money net the guy with 2 million in a Roth or the guy with 2 million in a traditional IRA?

Someone hasn’t heard of compound interest maybe. You save a few thousand in taxes each year, invest it and the amount will be considerable by the time you’re retirement.

Who has paid more? The guy with the 2 million Roth or the guy with the 2 million traditional IRA? Unless the costs are the same for each person, it’s not a fair question.

The answer to your question is that the person with the 2 million Roth will have more money but they paid a lot more up to that point. So yeah, the person who paid more money is going to have more in the end. No shit. That’s not the right question.

He will have not paid as much as the guy with the traditional IRA will.

So here.

50K a year income

5000 a year into a Roth and 5000 a year into Traditional for 40 years average ROR of 8.5%

The Roth guy pays 4315 in federal income taxes
The other guy pays 3715

Difference of 600 a year

over 40 years that's 24000

Year one of retirement at 70 both have 1,663,369 assume a 4% return after retirement

The RMD for year 1 is 67524 Taxes owed 7928
" " 2 70102 " 8484
" " 3 72718 " 9060

For a total 25472 in taxes and there will be taxes paid every year beyond that.

So the guy with the Roth paid 600 a year for 40 years in taxes and all his withdrawals are tax free

Are you still trying to tell me that paying 600 a year for 40 years and then nothing is not better than paying nothing for 40 years then paying 25472 in the first 3 years of retirement and then continuing to pay taxes until you die?

Again, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but the big problem is you assume the $600 saved a year in taxes is stuffed under the mattress and not invested. If you invest and get the same rate, that makes more than $200k at retirement. You can pay a lot of taxes with that money. In fact, if your distributions stay at the same 12% marginal rate that you had when you were working, it covers the EXACT amount of taxes you’ll owe.

So now you're telling me that a guy with a tradtional IRA has to invest more to beat a Roth.

I wish you would make up your mind

And that extra 600 a year can't be put into an IRA since we assume those are maxed out. So it will be 600 a year after taxes.

So you get just shy of 200K extra with 30K of that tax free and then 15% CG tax on the rest

 

[colfax_m]

So now you're telling me that a guy with a tradtional IRA has to invest more to beat a Roth.

I wish you would make up your mind

I’ve been saying this all along. I can’t believe you haven’t absorbed this yet.

Paying less taxes upfront means you have more to invest. Having more to invest means your retirement accounts are bigger.

It’s true, the extra money needs to go into a tax deferred account like a 401k or have an income that falls under the threshold which this year is $40k or $80k depending on filing status. Not a bad bet.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Biden’s treasury secretary, the kook that she is, is in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. How dumb can these folks be?

Mac1958 you voted for these geniuses. What do you think about this ridonkulous idea?

Oaktree's Howard Marks says this tax proposal in the U.S. makes investing less attractive

Taxing capital gains as ordinary income would reduce tax avoidance and levels of speculation in the secondary market which, in the long run, would prove beneficial to society as a whole.

How might the taxation of capital gains be improved?

"Taxing capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income would simplify the tax system by removing major incentives for tax sheltering and other attempts to manipulate the system. This could be accomplished by taxing accrued capital gains on an annual basis."

Tax Policy Center - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Indeependent]

Biden’s treasury secretary, the kook that she is, is in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. How dumb can these folks be?

Mac1958 you voted for these geniuses. What do you think about this ridonkulous idea?

Oaktree's Howard Marks says this tax proposal in the U.S. makes investing less attractive

unrealized capital gains

Does the moron even knows they're unrealized?!

 

[DBA]

Biden’s treasury secretary, the kook that she is, is in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. How dumb can these folks be?

Mac1958 you voted for theve geniuses. What do you think about this ridonkulous idea?

Oaktree's Howard Marks says this tax proposal in the U.S. makes investing less attractive

That would be a shitty idea. But I've never heard her say that, so I'd need to know more. And I very much doubt that, if she did think it, it would go anywhere.

No reason to make assumptions on such thin evidence.

Virtually all of his appointee’s are kooks. Yes, Yellon thinks it is a good idea.

Biden’s treasury secretary, the kook that she is, is in favor of taxing unrealized capital gains. How dumb can these folks be?

Mac1958 you voted for theve geniuses. What do you think about this ridonkulous idea?

Oaktree's Howard Marks says this tax proposal in the U.S. makes investing less attractive

That would be a shitty idea. But I've never heard her say that, so I'd need to know more. And I very much doubt that, if she did think it, it would go anywhere.

No reason to make assumptions on such thin evidence.

It is not thin evidence.

She raised eyebrows of some senators and Wall Street when she said that Treasury would consider the possibility of taxing unrealized capital gains - through a “mark-to-market” mechanism - as well as other approaches to boost revenues.

Don’t kid yourself. She buys into all the left-wing kooky economic theories. The “pay their fair share” crowd and fixing “economic inequality” meaning playing Robin Hood. You voted for it and virtually all of us will pay for it.

Run a decent candidate and I'll be able to do what I prefer to do, and that's vote third party.

Run a dangerous, ignorant, destructive buffoon and I'll have to vote Democrat.

This idea won't go anywhere.

Why won't this go anywhere?

Taxing unrealized gains is ridiculous. It would put a huge dent in the financial motivation to invest. More importantly, it's not needed. We need to add two to four new, higher income tax brackets on the top end and more effectively regulate derivatives, not complicate the fundamental investing process itself.

Who's going to stop it?

I can't imagine it getting through Congress. On the other hand, I'm lousy at predicting political stuff.

You voted for it and the Democrats in Congress are as radical as ever. The only hope of it not passing would be Joe Manchin not voting for it. Even though he is the only Democrat with a shred of common sense left, he is still a Democrat so you can’t have too much confidence in him doing the right thing.

 

[Blues Man]

So now you're telling me that a guy with a tradtional IRA has to invest more to beat a Roth.

I wish you would make up your mind

I’ve been saying this all along. I can’t believe you haven’t absorbed this yet.

Paying less taxes upfront means you have more to invest. Having more to invest means your retirement accounts are bigger.

It’s true, the extra money needs to go into a tax deferred account like a 401k or have an income that falls under the threshold which this year is $40k or $80k depending on filing status. Not a bad bet.

No you've been saying that the guy with the Roth has to invest more. Go back and look.

I was comparing a fully funded Roth IRA to a fully funded traditional IRA but you keep moving the goal posts

 

[colfax_m]

No you've been saying that the guy with the Roth has to invest more. Go back and look.

I was comparing a fully funded Roth IRA to a fully funded traditional IRA but you keep moving the goal posts

No, I'm saying the guy with the Roth has to PAY more. To get a fully funded Roth, you have to PAY more. You can't compare these two since one definitely has a higher cost.

 

[Blues Man]

No you've been saying that the guy with the Roth has to invest more. Go back and look.

I was comparing a fully funded Roth IRA to a fully funded traditional IRA but you keep moving the goal posts

No, I'm saying the guy with the Roth has to PAY more. To get a fully funded Roth, you have to PAY more. You can't compare these two since one definitely has a higher cost.

He pays less in the long run. That's the whole point.

A traditional IRA will cost you far more during the distribution phase than the additional cost of a Roth during the accumulation phase.

 

[colfax_m]

He pays less in the long run. That's the whole point.

Only when you don't factor in the opportunity cost of all those taxes you're paying when working.

Failing to account for all costs is your problem.

 

[Blues Man]

He pays less in the long run. That's the whole point.

Only when you don't factor in the opportunity cost of all those taxes you're paying when working.

Failing to account for all costs is your problem.

So you say in order to pay the taxes you need to open another after tax account and pay capital gains taxes so your opportunity realization will be basically money you have to give to the government.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

I've really tried educating you, but every time you seem to start to get it, you slip back to same misconceptions.

A traditional 401(k) is better than a Roth 401(k) â except in this surprising situation

A traditional 401(k) has the advantage of more options later on, but a Roth may be the smarter choice for big savers.

www.marketwatch.com

Trust me, I've done the math on this.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

I've really tried educating you, but every time you seem to start to get it, you slip back to same misconceptions.

A traditional 401(k) is better than a Roth 401(k) â except in this surprising situation

A traditional 401(k) has the advantage of more options later on, but a Roth may be the smarter choice for big savers.

www.marketwatch.com

Trust me, I've done the math on this.

So you say in order to pay the taxes on your traditional IRA that you don't have to pay on Roth you need to open another after tax account and pay capital gains taxes so your opportunity realization will be basically money you have to give to the government.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

I've really tried educating you, but every time you seem to start to get it, you slip back to same misconceptions.

A traditional 401(k) is better than a Roth 401(k) â except in this surprising situation

A traditional 401(k) has the advantage of more options later on, but a Roth may be the smarter choice for big savers.

www.marketwatch.com

Trust me, I've done the math on this.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/deciding-between-a-roth-vs-traditional-ira

"Most people are better off taking a tax hit now," says Steve Frazier, president of financial firm Frazier Investment Management in Wakefield, Rhode Island. According to him, the gains earned by money in a Roth IRA should easily make up for paying taxes upfront.


The only reason to take a Traditional over a Roth is if you think you will be in a lower tax bracket but that's not going to be the case.

In my examples both people were making 50K a year and we can safely assume they had children or a mortgage so got additional tax breaks but in retirement the dependent tax write offs are gone and the mortgage should be paid off.

And the RMD in the first year of retirement was over 100,00 dollars that puts both of them into a higher tax bracket than they were during their working lives.

So the Roth is once again the best choice.