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.