You ready to pay Kama-Kama-Chameleon's 25% tax on the ultra-wealthy's unrealized capital gains?

[hadit]

True. But with something 7.8 trillion dollars in 401ks, its not inconceivable that a tax on unrealized gains would be applied to them as well.

Its unrealistic, unlikely, and politically unsound. But not inconceivable.

My concern is that it could be slipped in under cover of an emergency. I referenced 9/11 and how it opened the door to massive increases in government surveillance over private citizens. I can easily foresee an "emergency" need for immediate government revenue, say if our ability to borrow is compromised by a big credit rating loss, China and Japan refuse to buy our bonds anymore, the wealthy have already moved their money out of reach and a war breaks out. All of a sudden, that limit drops and trillions of dollars are sucked out of the economy, straight out of the middle class. And, once that's done, who imagines that it will ever revert back to "normal" again? In this reality, we HAVE to consider worst case scenarios, because the restrictions of the past are being removed.

 

[Skylar]

It’s pretty inconceivable since 401ks don’t have capital gains even when the gains are realized. It’s the entire purpose of the 401k.

They do. But they aren't subject to unrealized capital gains taxes now, or under the proposal we're discussing.

Hadit is arguing that the unrealized capital gains taxes being pitched now only to 100M plus net worth individuals would be expanded to encompass more, if not all of the people. He's not without historical precedent on this. But the circumstances supporting his concerns are very different than what we have today.

And with 7.8 trillion in 401k investment, there is a pool of capital assets to be taxed, held by a more general public, with the new unrealized gains tax proposals.

I think its quite unlikely that it would be. But its not inconceivable. There asset pool is there for the middle class, unlike with the poor. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. But you can from a 7.8 trillion dollar piece of prime rib.

 

[Skylar]

My concern is that it could be slipped in under cover of an emergency. I referenced 9/11 and how it opened the door to massive increases in government surveillance over private citizens.

That would certainly do it. But under the cover of emergency, they could just jack up the income tax as it stands now. Under emergency, they would expand the powers they already have.

I can easily foresee an "emergency" need for immediate government revenue, say if our ability to borrow is compromised by a big credit rating loss, China and Japan refuse to buy our bonds anymore, the wealthy have already moved their money out of reach and a war breaks out. All of a sudden, that limit drops and trillions of dollars are sucked out of the economy, straight out of the middle class. And, once that's done, who imagines that it will ever revert back to "normal" again? In this reality, we HAVE to consider worst case scenarios, because the restrictions of the past are being removed.

These are legitimate, well thought out concerns, in my opinion. And not inconceivable....especially with China and our current debt load.

But I don't think that rejecting this policy will have much, if any impact on the tax authority of congress. Or the funds they would draw in taxes in an emergency. You'll pay either way.

While in a non-emergency scenario with the unrealized capital gains taxes subject to the 100M cap, it could be an effective way of bringing in more tax revenue from the investment class.

 

[hadit]

That would certainly do it. But under the cover of emergency, they could just jack up the income tax as it stands now. Under emergency, they would expand the powers they already have.




These are legitimate, well thought out concerns, in my opinion. And not inconceivable....especially with China and our current debt load.

But I don't think that rejecting this policy will have much, if any impact on the tax authority of congress. Or the funds they would draw in taxes in an emergency.

Fair enough.

 

[Marener]

They do. But they aren't subject to unrealized capital gains taxes now, or under the proposal we're discussing.

Hadit is arguing that the unrealized capital gains taxes being pitched now only to 100M plus net worth individuals would be expanded to encompass more, if not all of the people. He's not without historical precedent on this. But the circumstances supporting his concerns are very different than what we have today.

And with 7.8 trillion in 401k investment, there is a pool of capital assets to be taxed, held by a more general public, with the new unrealized gains tax proposals.

I think its quite unlikely that it would be. But its not inconceivable. There asset pool is there for the middle class, unlike with the poor. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. But you can from a 7.8 trillion dollar piece of prime rib.

Again, 401ks aren’t subject to capital gains ever.

The way the very wealthy use their untaxed capital really does evade a lot of taxes and we should have a very serious conversation about it. It’s how you can be worth billions and billions and pay next to no taxes. It’s a bit crazy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Kamala Harris Unrealized Gains Tax Should Worry Voters​

The potential for Kamala Harris to push a 25% unrealized gains tax is worrisome, as it could drive wealth out of the U.S.

https://pro.thestreet.com/market-commentary/kamala-harris-unrealized-gains-tax-should-worry-voters

Here is how it will affect the average American.
The average ultra-wealthy bought 10,000 shares of Apple stock in 1980 for $22.00 a share or $220,000 cost buy 10,000 shares.
Today these shares would be worth $21,000,000.
Under Kama-kama-chameleon plan this "ultra-wealthy" will have to pay 25% on the $20,780,000 gain or $5,195,000 taxes.

BUT the 25% taxes will come OUT of either selling the stock or out of the "ultra-wealthy" other income.
The "ultra-wealthy" Apple stock holder will be paying that $5.1 million every year!

Now for those of you truly ignorant people who think that is so great...

YOU have NO idea what that will do to the economy as these "ultra-wealthy" will be cutting back on their building businesses, hiring people, buying goods and services. This will be disastrous for the rest of us Americans.

The wealth effect is a behavioral economic theory suggesting that people spend more as the value of their assets rise.
The idea is that consumers feel more financially secure and confident about their wealth when their homes or investment portfolios increase in value.

The Wealth Effect: Definition and Examples

The wealth effect is a behavioral economic theory suggesting that consumers spend more when their wealth increases, even if their income does not.

www.investopedia.com

Absolutely! I say tax these fuckers and make them pay their fair share!

 

[Hollie]

The mistake you're making is in counting the total unrealized capital gains since 1980 as the annually taxable amount. That's incorrect. The proposed tax on unrealized capital gains would apply to the increases in value that year. Which you'd pay only once. Not the total change in valuation since the purchase in previous years, paid every year.

So a stock was purchased at $10.00 a share and during the year increased to $12.00 a share, the portion that would be subject to unrealized capital gains taxes would be $2.00 per share. At 25%, that would be fifty cents per share. You pay that once.

However, the next year if there is no increase and the shares remain at $12.00, there would be no unrealized gains and thus no taxes on those shares. You do not have to pay the fifty cents per share unrealized capital gains taxes AGAIN from the previous year. You pay them only once, on the increase in value for a given year.

However, if the 3rd year the price went up to $15.00 a share, the unrealized capital gains tax would be on the difference in value for that year: $12.00 increasing to $15.00, for a total of $3 per share being subject to unrealized capital gains taxes. And only once.

NOT the original purchase price of $10.00 increasing to $15.00, for a total of $5 per share being subject to taxation and every year, as your example above portrayed.

That was a long, tedious opinion piece but with Harris unable to provide any details on the capital gains tax. There is no way to know how the tax would be structured.

 

[Skylar]

Again, 401ks aren’t subject to capital gains ever.

You're missing my point. My point isn't that 401Ks are subject to capital gains taxes. My point is.....there is a 7.8 trillion dollar pool of capital assets that this unrealized capital gains proposal COULD be applied to. Unlike the poor, who have little of such an asset pool.

And that the idea that expansion of the unrealized capital gains proposal could be applied to the middle class through this tax being applied to 401ks is not irrational or inconceivable. The ingredients are there.

The political will is not. Which is why its ridiculously unlikely. But in any serious discussion of the proposal, at least acknowledging the possibility of such an expansion seems reasonable to me. I think Hadit is wrong in his assessment for several reasons. But I think his concerns are not unfounded, historically. I merely think his assessment of the risk in this situation is overstated.

The way the very wealthy use their untaxed capital really does evade a lot of taxes and we should have a very serious conversation about it. It’s how you can be worth billions and billions and pay next to no taxes. It’s a bit crazy.

I don't disagree. But we're addressing two different points.

 

[Hollie]

Again, 401ks aren’t subject to capital gains ever.

The way the very wealthy use their untaxed capital really does evade a lot of taxes and we should have a very serious conversation about it. It’s how you can be worth billions and billions and pay next to no taxes. It’s a bit crazy.

401's aren't subject to capital gains until they are.

Who are these "very wealthy who use their untaxed capital gains to evade a lot of taxes"?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Yes! What we need is an entire new ever growing government agency to enforce 2% Kammies plan. That will save taxpayers a bunch of money.

 

[Skylar]

That was a long, tedious opinion piece but with Harris unable to provide any details on the capital gains tax. There is no way to know how the tax would be structured.

So you're saying the entire OP is pointless.

Fair enough.

 

[Hollie]

So you're saying the entire OP is pointless.

Fair enough.

Did I write that? No. So your hurt feelings are causing you to lash out like a petulant child.

Fair enough.

 

[Skylar]

Did I write that? No. So your hurt feelings are causing you to lash out like a petulant child.

Fair enough.

You said that there is no way to know how the tax is being structured. The OP is predicated on a very specific structure.

By your logic, the OP is pointless. As it makes claims that you insist there is no way to know.

That was easy.

 

[BackAgain]

Kamala Harris Unrealized Gains Tax Should Worry Voters​

The potential for Kamala Harris to push a 25% unrealized gains tax is worrisome, as it could drive wealth out of the U.S.

https://pro.thestreet.com/market-commentary/kamala-harris-unrealized-gains-tax-should-worry-voters

Here is how it will affect the average American.
The average ultra-wealthy bought 10,000 shares of Apple stock in 1980 for $22.00 a share or $220,000 cost buy 10,000 shares.
Today these shares would be worth $21,000,000.
Under Kama-kama-chameleon plan this "ultra-wealthy" will have to pay 25% on the $20,780,000 gain or $5,195,000 taxes.

BUT the 25% taxes will come OUT of either selling the stock or out of the "ultra-wealthy" other income.
The "ultra-wealthy" Apple stock holder will be paying that $5.1 million every year!

Now for those of you truly ignorant people who think that is so great...

YOU have NO idea what that will do to the economy as these "ultra-wealthy" will be cutting back on their building businesses, hiring people, buying goods and services. This will be disastrous for the rest of us Americans.

The wealth effect is a behavioral economic theory suggesting that people spend more as the value of their assets rise.
The idea is that consumers feel more financially secure and confident about their wealth when their homes or investment portfolios increase in value.

The Wealth Effect: Definition and Examples

The wealth effect is a behavioral economic theory suggesting that consumers spend more when their wealth increases, even if their income does not.

www.investopedia.com

Even a proposal to tax unrealized gains is unAmerican.

It also advocates for a massive and coordinated violation of the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Even a proposal to tax unrealized gains is unAmerican.

It also advocates for a massive and coordinated violation of the Constitution.

What violation?

 

[Marener]

401's aren't subject to capital gains until they are.

Who are these "very wealthy who use their untaxed capital gains to evade a lot of taxes"?

How The Rich Use The Buy, Borrow Die Strategy To Avoid Large Tax Bills

"Buy, Borrow, Die" and has become a way for the uber-wealthy, with tax planning experts by their sides, to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their taxes along the way.

www.forbes.com

Harris isn’t talking about capital gains for 401ks so it’s all just fear mongering.

 

[Skylar]

How The Rich Use The Buy, Borrow Die Strategy To Avoid Large Tax Bills

"Buy, Borrow, Die" and has become a way for the uber-wealthy, with tax planning experts by their sides, to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their taxes along the way.

www.forbes.com

Harris isn’t talking about capital gains for 401ks so it’s all just fear mongering.

Its not fear mongering. Its a recognition that you can't draw blood from a stone. But you can draw blood from a 7.8 trillion dollar piece of ribeye

We agree that there is no proposal to do this. And I think its highly unlikely that it ever would. But its not inconceivable. And I think its reasonable to discuss the risk of it when discussing this proposal.

 

[BackAgain]

What violation?

Try this. Think for yourself. I’ll even offer you a hint or hints. Ready?

How may taxation be imposed according to the Constitution?

Second hint: look to the Amendments.

Third hint: try to come to terms with the meaning of “income.”

Bonus hint: the number you want is somewhere between 15 and 17.

 

[Marener]

Its not fear mongering. Its a recognition that you can't draw blood from a stone. But you can draw blood from a 7.8 trillion dollar piece of ribeye

We agree that there is no proposal to do this. And I think it’s highly unlikely that it ever would. But it’s not inconceivable. And I think it’s reasonable to discuss the risk of it when discussing this proposal.

401ks are subject to income tax and have RMDs for a reason. As the boomers continue thru retirement, they’ll see that big chunk of that asset be taxes.

There’s a big difference between talking about when to incur capital gains and talking about applying capital gains to a program specifically designed to not be taxed by capital gains.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to discuss the “risk” as the “risk” is so minuscule that it does not bear worrying about.

 

[Hollie]

How The Rich Use The Buy, Borrow Die Strategy To Avoid Large Tax Bills

"Buy, Borrow, Die" and has become a way for the uber-wealthy, with tax planning experts by their sides, to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their taxes along the way.

www.forbes.com

Harris isn’t talking about capital gains for 401ks so it’s all just fear mongering.

We agree that without a policy platform from Harris, you obviously don't know what the plans are.

We agree you never did tell us about the "very wealthy who use their untaxed capital gains to evade a lot of taxes"?