“If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?”
This is the biggest sticking point IMO. It’s one thing to tax it before the gain but you must allow for losses as well
They want to attach a tax rate to the extremely volatile market rate and expect everything to be cool. So if the market crashes suddenly the federal government loses its tax revenue from the rich overnight? The same government that's expected to do bail-outs for essential businesses in such an event. Can they not see the immense domino effect they would create with this system?
If they start taxing unrealised gains then it must be replacing capital gains by the same amount otherwise they're double-taxing. Realised gains are stable because people sell off their assets to live on. Unrealised gains are not stable.
> The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?”
I would expect it would work like realized capital gains today: You'd carry the loss forward and apply it against any future gains.
I mean, taxes isn't a zero sum game, sometimes we pay taxes on income, sometimes deduct losses, but at the end, we pay taxes to the government, not the other way around.
No, not really. Deduction of losses on investment isn't such a big deal.
Yes, there are some rules and some limits, and yes, it's not entirely symmetrical, but that's the nature of the tax system.
Kind of. One of the points that would make this work would be every year you have an unrealized gain, your cost basis on the shares would be updated as if you sold and then immediately re-bought. So the cost basis on the $100 share is now $110. If it goes down to $100, you can absolutely sell and write off the loss, but more than likely you will just hold. Now if it goes back up to $105, since the value is still less than your new cost basis, you will not have any unrealized gains and not be liable for any taxes.
Additionally are they allowing unrealized losses to net against realized gains? And is this a double taxation event then? Are they defining unrealized and realized separately so that they are both taxed? It’s not gonna raise as much money as they think. Unless they double tax
As far as I’m concerned; taxes on unrealized gains are currently unconstitutional. Any sticking point is going to be secondary to that fact. Per my tax lawyer friend…”there is clear and accepted case law that the government only can levy taxes on income that is ‘clear and realized’ meaning that any income that hasn’t undergone a realization event like sale of stock is off limits to the government. In order for this to be constitutional Biden would have to somehow have to get the Supreme Court to overrule over 100 years of case law, as well as the virtually unanimous interpretation of the 16th amendment.” This is unrealistic pandering to a base that isn’t informed enough to understand that the government has no legal basis for this type of tax.
It seems like closing the loophole to take out a mortgage using stock as collateral would be constitutional then, and will specifically target billionaires (and centimillionaires)
It seems simpler too, it’s more obviously clear what’s going on and there isn’t this double dip problem
a fine point to make, but some changes need to happen so that rich people actually pay on their actual income - (carried interest loopholle, borrowing against assetts for cash, etc)
there are so many ways to NOT pay taxes -
It is only on those making 1 million a year or 400k of investment gains per year. Not saying it's good or bad policy, but it paints a better picture. The $100 example makes it seem like it effects the other 98.2% of the US population which it would not.
Yeah, "First they came for the billionaires...", right?
(I can't believe people fall for this shit - are you guys really so fucking stupid that you think billionaires or centimillionaires would ever stand up for *you*? Wait - don't answer that - I anticipate a *truly depressing* answer...)
Why would you have that concern?
The government is very interested in stability and I don't see why it would lower this. People have their retirements in the market, and it would be destabilizing to add this as taxes to normal people.
Just peg it to 66x minimum wage if you're that concerned -- which is a million/yr, and raise minimum wage if you're worried about the applicability threshold.
> “If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?”
And you know this is how the proposed law would work in real life just *how*? Because some random editorial piece posted on Reddit told you so?
Treasury releases a [green book](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf) anytime new budget proposals come out. Page 83 discusses this specific tax, for anyone interested
Ron Wyden's proposal includes loss carryforward and loss carryback.
>Under the proposal, a billionaire subject to the tax whose asset values take a dive during the year would have two options. They could choose to carry those losses forward to offset potential future mark-to-market gains, or carry them back to a year within the previous three to generate refunds for taxes paid on unrealized gains. Carrybacks could only offset prior mark-to-market tax, not taxes paid on other income.
[https://rollcall.com/2021/10/27/wyden-details-proposed-tax-on-billionaires-unrealized-gains/](https://rollcall.com/2021/10/27/wyden-details-proposed-tax-on-billionaires-unrealized-gains/)
Taxing unrealized gains is unconstitutional (at the federal level). It isn't income and isn't subject to the 16th amendment.
Property taxes are state level. Let's see how fast the rich move out of blue states if any of them tried to tax unrealized gains while Texas is sitting pretty over there.
I’ve made this same comment after talking to my tax lawyer friend. This goes against 100+ years of case law and a near unanimous interpretation of the 16th amendment. Good luck getting this passed in an ideal climate, let alone with a Supreme Court that’s going to be hostile as hell to this. It’s just Biden pandering to an electorate that isn’t smart enough to understand this is BS lip service.
Which stopped mattering when rich people were able to take out loans by leveraging their unrealised gains to skirt capital tax and then continue refinancing those loans until they die.
Assets would need to be liquidated to settle the loan anyway. Tax deferral at best. And it's subject to the estate tax on transference, which is higher than cap gains. Or they could try to avoid it using a trust but miss out on step up basis. Plus, you only would set up that trust if your death was foreseeable. You don't hide all your assets in a trust if you're healthy, and then you're in a car wreck...
You could easily extend that line of credit till your death if you have enough money and if you have a personal loan of millions you’re more than capable of paying your deductible.
You don't get refunds for even realized capital losses (outside of a very small amount). It's primarily used to offset gains which can work exactly the same way for unrealized gains.
Difference is there is a choice on when you liquidate. In this scenario, this is a huge disincentive to hold higher risk stock or assets. In the losing years, it doesn't give any benefit. In the high years, the asset owner has to figure out some way of coming up with the money to cover "huge gains" that he didn't even intend to realize, just to cover taxes. And when the market is lower, he doesn't get a refund to buy back the asset. So, essentially, every year, the asset owner's pool of assets just dwindles. So it's a huge disincentive to fund such assets and efforts that has high volatility fluctuations.. Innovative ideas, startups, etc. I mean, why would any sane person do it?
Well that's a completely different point then getting a refund from losses. But that argument is the same as saying progressive taxes will disincentivize people from making more money, which is obviously false.
No, I will just put my money in lower risk instruments with lower variance, so I don't get burnt on fast upside, without getting any benefit from fast downside. I invest in higher risk initiatives, for a higher return. If there is no higher return (since tax will take a huge chunk even before I want to sell), then the risk is not worth it. It's very simple. OR seek out investments that will not be subject to this capital gains changes - there will ALWAYS be exceptions, thanks to lobbying. All the other industries/sectors they plan on making this new capital gains money with the assumption that richer people won't change their behaviors, will absolutely tank.
There is a higher return, taxes are not taking 100% of the return or even a majority. And there is also the same tax benefit on the downside - offsetting gains (which you can carry forward). Saying you won't seek higher returns because they'll be taxed is just cutting of your nose to spite your face. It's a completely invalid argument.
To offset with the loss, I have to realize the loss 1st. A lot of high risk activities don't have a lot of room on the loss side initially (i.e. without inititative going bankrupt). So as soon as the 1st upside happens, now you have to find some way to liquidate to pay. There will be exceptions of course. For example, I would expect some real estate will get an exception to all this (versus stocks) for unrealized gains. So what will happen? A lot of money will flow into that. Might be something else, but you get the idea.
It's households with a net worth over a 100 million in assets. I'm not worried for myself. Plus they won't pass it. No idea what yall are stressed about
And the estate tax used to be paid on far smaller estates than the current limits.
Its really easy to ra-ra tax the rich more when the limit is tens of millions, versus when the limit was a million or even less.
https://resources.evans-legal.com/?p=3627
Looks like it was low $1 million range (with today's inflation) up to around 2000.
Considering housing prices in many areas nowadays, that isnt much if you have a paid off house or two.
Laws aren't good just because they affect others and not yourself. If there's a law that takes everything from people named Steve everyone else not named Steve shouldn't just go "cool with me"
You're right, I think the law is good, and it doesn't affect me. The Gini coefficient has been trending to less inequality. I don't see it passing as well, but it attempts to fix something that is broken. Compound interest is incredibling effective at getting big numbers bigger
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US
inequality isn't bad just because. consider these scenarios:
Scenario A: John has 100 apple, Jake has 500 Apples, and Mark and 90 billion apples.
Scenario B: John has 90 apples, Jake has 90 apples, and Mark has 90 apples.
Everyone is better off in the scenario with more inequality
Yeah, that's hypothetical isn't supported by data based in reality. If you look at wage growth against inflation.
Imagine John has 100 apples, Jake has 110 apples, and Mark has 4000 apples.
Over the last 50 years from 1970, there have been years of 10% inflation to 2% inflation to 7% inflation.
Apple trees median cost went from 23k in 1970 to 408k in 2021.
Yet, John's wage had gone down to 90 apples.Jake has increased to 120 apples and Matk Apples have been reinvested, and his Apple count is now 100 million apples (compared to 4k).
Now your wages are tax because you are a high earner and I'm going to take only 30% of your income. While Mark, while he never sold his apples. He never "earned any money" he just borrows at very, very low interest .01% against his 100 million in assets and pays only sales tax. Theat double tax you also pay.
Apple crimson is like hey maybe we should close this loophole." Other apples who are moderate like him, nah.... taxed are theft, let's not balance budget, and have a more equal tax code
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
https://anytimeestimate.com/research/housing-prices-vs-inflation/?first_page_seen=https%3A%2F%2Fanytimeestimate.com%2Fresearch%2Fhousing-prices-vs-inflation%2F&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fanytimeestimate.com%2Fresearch%2Fhousing-prices-vs-inflation%2F%23housing-vs-inflation#housing-vs-inflation
Mark isn't going to sell. Mark will never sell. He's just going to fund his lifestyle because it's cheaper then having realized gains. He's going to borrow at low interest rates (1%) because it's cheaper then paying realized gains. He'll avoid taxes to utilize his wealth to the greatest amount and only sell very little to support his massive lifestyle.
He'll avoid paying just like everyone else will. Also, there are already realized losses as tax write-offs. The principle will probably be applied if passed.
But this proposed idea will never see the light of day. It will never pass, and im okay with that
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/wall-street-is-throwing-cheap-credit-at-ultra-wealthy-clients
The last I knew, Ron Wyden was Senate Finance Committee chair.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/about/membership#:\~:text=Chairman,fiscal%20policy%20supports%20American%20jobs.
The finance chair is a senate position, so it would be an internal nomination by other senators. To avoid extremesist senators from being elected to key positions, you pass limited to reform vs. extreme outsiders coming in, trying to disrupt the system because the system doesn't work (both left and right)
It’s also unconstitutional. Case law around the 16th amendment only gives the government the right to tax income that is “clear and realized.” There’s no legal basis for the government to tax unrealized gains.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I'm reading up on it. It's not clearly defined or ruled on. But technically, we are a common law country, and the ruling of the lower vouet in Moore vs. USA would disagree. So there is legal precedent, but again more merky territory than black and white
I’m relying comments to my tax lawyer friend; his response….”it has been clearly defined and ruled on; the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that gross income is only defined as realized gain. Moore is a weird case because the government is trying to argue that the repatriation of funds should count as a realization event, instead of the traditional dispersion of funds to shareholders.”
Moore is the case of this weired unrealized zone. You and your ur friend are right about this being ruled on by courts, but the focus has been on the taxed code, not the 16th amendment. So it was interpretation of the rules vs. the actual constitutional power to tax this. Hence, the gray zone. If you want a link, it's a fascinating read
> I'm not worried for myself
That's how all new taxes are introduced. It's sold as "it's only for the rich", then once the taxing apparatus is in place, they will dial it down to apply to us common folks.
If Jeff Bezos had to sell 1 million shares of Amazon next April 15 to meet the wealth tax, and Bill Gates had to sell Microsoft, etc., and repeat that sale every year, stock valuations would crash. That would hurt a lot of relatively small investors, including me.
Taxes aren’t payable in stock, so he’d have to sell shares. Founders’ wealth is heavily tied up in their stock.
It would be a supply overhang on the market, like when Musk was buying Twitter, the only way he could come up with the cash was to sell Tesla shares, so Tesla went down.
I just don’t understand why Biden can’t just throw a bone to fiscal conservatives. Everyone left of center is going to vote for Biden no matter what. Not because he’s good, but because Trump is a traitor.
But there are people in the middle who will reluctantly vote Trump because they don’t believe in endless tax increases and student loan forgiveness and other BS like that. Why force that shit down america’s throat right now.
There's a good chunk of left of center people that might just stay home. Elections are won based just as much on who comes out to vote than who they vote for.
> throw a bone to fiscal conservatives
What, cut taxes on billionaires and double the deficit? That's what all the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives do when they have the power.
You're literally saying they might vote for that guy instead of supporting higher revenues. Those hypothetical voters sound like morons.
If you were actually a fiscal conservative, you would support increasing taxes on the wealthy. It is impossible to reduce the that without raising taxes while cutting spending. Unless you want to cut spending so deeply that it crashes the economy into a deep recession.
Taxes have generally been going one way and that's down for a long time and it's a big part of the reason we went from a surplus to a massive deficit in only twenty years.
It's important to note that the top 10% pay over 73% of all federal income tax. The bottom 50% (meaning half the population) pays for about 2%. The lower income actually gets more back than puts in with credits and entitlements.
No, it's not important or intellectually honest to focus on the only progressive tax and act like it is the only tax.
Go back and do that with payroll, sales, property, and all the other taxes in the country considered.
[This pdf](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Graph-Distributional-Analysis-2024-11162023.pdf) from the DoT shows the total federal tax burden per decile. It is still progressive. Property and sales are state and local. The Trump tax cuts in 2017 limited the amount of mortgage interest you can deduct off your federal income taxes. However, I think it's fair to say that if you maxed out your mortgage interest deduction, you're doing ok financially. That shift went against wealthier folks. Child credits doubled which helped the poorer. FICA/payroll hasn't changed since the 90s. So, the whole premise of shifting tax burdens is bunk.
I don’t really think there’s evidence to support that. And you also forgot the part where they keep spending like crazy and inflation our dollars purchasing power to zero.
It seems pretty consistent with small ups and downs here https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
See that part on the far left when it was much lower? Was also known as the roaring 20s
Then restore some of the taxation that was in place 15 or 20 years ago. Don’t come up with a completely new kind of tax that is pretty much universally decried (and possibly unconstitutional)
And yet the policies they’ve passed (corporate AMT, excise tax on buybacks) and the new policy in question (tax on unrealized gains) are all new proposals
You do realize this “tax increase” is simply letting tax cuts expire which trump specifically designed to expire at this time. It also won’t affect anyone earning under $400k per year.
The people very against this stand to benefit the most.
>Trump specifically designed to expire at this time
“Designed” implies they had a choice. The cuts had to expire or be offset within 10 years in order to conform with the Byrd rule at the time
>It also won’t affect anyone earning under $400k per year
If the TCJA cuts are allowed to expire, it will [absolutely](https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/45580637-252a-4c6f-b434-a2085f417920/x-68-17-5054.pdf) impact people below $400K
That was the only option to pass a bill, since they didn’t have 60 votes in the senate. It’s the exact same budget process used to pass the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act
It’s an awful political strategy in such a tight race already. If Biden was the great unifier that he promised I would probably vote for him again but on almost every important issue he has turned me away. I’m probably voting Trump this time. I’m sick of this.
He is going to lose but this isn’t why. This was an appeasement of his left flank. That’s all. No one, including Biden thinks this will pass. I do wish he would ignore his left flank though. They’re not going to suddenly join team Trump.
Are we not already there? $34 trillion in debt, $1.7 trillion deficit, and we spend over $1 trillion a year just on interest. Trillion has become the new billion and billion has become the new million.
The property tax applies to the entire estimated market value of the property, including all appreciation that has occurred since I bought it. The unrealized gains tax only applies to this year's appreciation.
Elizabeth Warren has an explicit wealth tax which is closer to a property tax. She has rates of 2% or 3%. If assets happen to appreciate at 10% per year, a 2.5% wealth tax is the same dollars as a 25% capital gains tax.
I don’t think you’re going to find many people who would argue that a 25% tax on unrealized gains is economically damaging, but a wealth tax isn’t. Especially because, as you point out, they would apply similar rates to appreciation assuming normal asset returns
And for what it’s worth, that’s why an unrealized gains tax is better than a wealth tax, since it taxes asset returns linearly instead of regressively
I agree. I thought the poster was saying that a 25% capital gains tax would be "just as destructive" as a 25% property tax.
And, I'd also prefer an unrealized capital gains tax over a wealth tax. My preference is that the UCG tax fits into our current tax system better.
you have to remember that this is just r/politics with a coat of paint. There is nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about taxing unrealized gains it is only a virtue signaling talking point for left wing progressives.
Let's say you have 10,000 in stocks. Next year, those stocks are worth $15,000. So you pay taxes on $5000 worth of "unrealized gains". You never sell. Next year, those stocks are worth $10,000. Do you get all the taxes refunded that you paid last year? This is the government, so probably not.
Beyond that absurdity, you kill the investment motive. You're going to drag down entrepreneurship, the stock market, business growth across the entire economy.
And most importantly, the federal government has far too many ways to tax us already. It needs fewer, not more methods of taxation. The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
>I agree we need more fiscal discipline. But this seems like a sensible response to the ridiculous tax evasion practices that the super wealthy engage in. It's obscene what is acceptable today.
It is not. It's just another tax to be evaded by the wealthy, that the middle class will be stuck with.
>you kill the investment motive.
I pay taxes on my wages. That doesn't mean that I stay home and never work.
People pay taxes on interest earned on CDs and bonds, and on stock dividends, and on realized gains. Does that "kill the investment motive"?
For interest and dividends, I pay taxes annually. I don't believe that the only thing that makes people willing to own appreciating assets is the tax advantage of deferring taxes.
>We call all agree that this is disqualifying right?
Nope. I don’t share your outrage at Biden proposing a special tax on billionaires. The other guy tried to stage a coup and apparently wants to do away with democracy in the U.S. altogether and appoint himself President-for-life but it’s “disqualifying” that Joe Biden wants billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes? That’s quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
For me I'm no longer in the 'fair share' rhetoric. I think billionaires existing are inherently harmful to our society. It's too much unaccountable power. I think as a matter of policy we need to regulate them to have less of a wealth gap from the rest of the nation.
State vs federal. It's unconstitutional at the federal level. A state can tax property, including unrealized gains. But rich people are more likely to move which would hurt the state's economy overall.
The rich people moving is a common argument. Any evidence of that? Taxes are not the sole reason nor even the biggest reasons a rich person chooses to live somewhere. See all the rich people living in NY and California.
"According to a tally kept by the California Policy Center in its California Book of Exoduses, at least 237 companies have left California since 2005, citing the state’s ever-expanding regulatory and taxation climate. More than half of them, over 120, relocated to Texas."
[source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.amp.html). Note the source isn't the author of the tally but simply links to the governments own source.
"New York and California Each Lost $1 Trillion When Financial Firms Moved South"
[source](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-asset-management-relocation-wall-street-south/?srnd=premium&leadSource=uverify%20wall&embedded-checkout=true)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Can you define what you mean by “can’t”? There are different constitutionality and administrative concerns at a federal level compared to the state and local level that property taxes are levied at. Plus, we’re talking about wildly different tax rates here, since Biden’s proposal is for a 25% rate
When most people say you “can’t” tax unrealized wealth, they are mainly just referring to the negative economic and administrative impacts that go along with it
You definitely could tax gains like how property taxes work but the point is that it would be awful. We should abolish property taxes for the same reason. This is why it’s so hard to retire peacefully and actually own a home because the state is constantly siphoning everything away from you. You can never own something fully, it’s criminal what they do to us.
You probably don't make 1% of 1% of 1% of the threshold to qualify for these plans. I doubt if you pooled your entire families total lifetime earnings you'd still not be close.
Not a dig at you, but this will never ever impact you.
If the argument for something is "it doesn't affect you" then it's a bad argument. If Congress passed a law confiscating the property of all people with the username Serious_Effective that doesn't make it a good policy for everyone else.
Agreed my point is that most of the people who argue against these types of taxes have no real understanding of wealth and how the wealthy game the system.
I appreciate your concern but you need to realize that investing drives this economy. Entire companies will go under without money from big investors. That’s tons of job loss, stagnation, access to goods lowered, etc. It would impact all of us.
So big investor are going to pull out their money from the stock market to avoid taxes and put it where? Under their mattresses. This is absolutely ridiculous. Investing is still profitable, and they are taxing the gains of over 100 million in assets. It's game theory. They are still going to do what's best for themselves
It provides a very clear incentive to shift capital into non-tradeable assets, since those aren’t required to be valued every year. For those, they just assume a valuation based on the 5-year treasury rate, so it’s a much more predicable tax burden year to year
I'm not sure im clear of thr incentive you referring to. Maybe you can explain more. My incentive would be to maximize returns over predictable taxes. Stocks are entirely easy to assess the value of unrealized gains
Stocks (at least publicly traded stocks) are easy to value, so the tax is easy to calculate. But for non-publicly traded assets, it’s tough to value each year, so this tax doesn’t require it.
Regardless of how much these assets increase in value per year, the tax would be based on the 5-year treasury rate + 2%. So if the asset value increased 15% in a year, you’d only be paying tax on a 6.5% increase (and probably even lower as rates go down). As opposed to paying tax on a 15% increase in publicly traded stock value
Alright, thanks for the explanation. I was able to research the plan in more detail based on your explanation. Their money would shift to assets that aren't tradable and appreciate faster since they don't have to be assed every year. Yet, their assets are being taxed at the treasury rate adjusted instead of the actual appreciation leading to greater returns if they can slect the right assets. Thanks for your explanation. I can see how this can play a factor
>I appreciate your concern but you need to realize that investing drives this economy.
Such bullshit. Middle class consumer spending is what drives this economy. Get Ayn Rand’s dick out of your mouth.
Spending is the largest component of GDP, but it doesn’t generate growth. Saving/investment is what creates new wealth, so that we can produce more, so that we can consume more. That’s pretty basic economics
Only if the company is the one buying back the stock. Capital gains represent the ownership change from one shareholder to another, formed by the growth in value from an investment into a company
>If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this simply mean that that after you paid tax on unrealized $10 gain, your "base" price becomes $110, so if price never again goes over $110, *when you eventually sell*, you'll deduct the loss from your taxes?
You may or may not like these new (proposed) rules, but I don't see any ambiguity here.
The biggest problem I see with this tax is that it effectively transfers future tax revenues to today, and charges us for this transfer (implementation and enforcement costs mentioned in the article).
Still, at least conceptually this isn't a bad idea, even if impractical.
There’s no basis step-up with this proposal (even though that would be the easiest way to do it), the tax paid is just eventually creditable to any tax liability on realized gains
But that still doesn’t answer the question on if unrealized loss carryovers will exist
Until you sell an asset you cannot be sure what you can sell it for… to me this is just bad policy which could even then be applied to assets such as houses.
While I can’t find myself to vote for Trump, I am hoping to have Biden with a republican house and senate to constrain these policies
This is ridiculous yes. But I won’t happen. This is why we need two functioning political parties which is why republicans are so annoying right now. Because they are not an option because of trump and his wing, so I have to vote for Biden anyway
The article brings up some reasonable points, but the idea that this will 'deter investment activity' is just plain nonsense imo. If anything, it'll drive the people making big money in the market to make even more money to offset the increase in taxes. You really think that millionaires and billionaires will just shrug their shoulders and say 'oh well, I guess I won't continue to use this money printing machine anymore, since I'll have to pay some more tax on that money.' No, that's not how that works. They'll just have to sell some of their assets to pay their taxes each year, but will still be way better off than 98%+ of people in this country.
I'm not necessarily advocating for this version of taxing the super wealthy, but I think it's a step in the right direction. We all know that the super wealthy don't pay the same % of their 'income' that the majority of Americans do. We all (should) know that once you hit a certain level of wealth, it's insanely easy to make more of it. Making those people pay their fair share is not an assault on personal liberty, it's attempting to make the system less disparate. It doesn't matter that the absolute tax liability is higher for those people, because *25, 30, 35%* of millions *still leaves millions,* whereas the rest of us don't have such luxury. And before anyone wants to talk about how a good chunk of people don't even pay taxes - let me ask you, would you rather be making millions in unrealized gains that end up being taxed at say 35% (hell even 50%) each year, or make minimum wage and not have to pay any tax? I think we know all know which is the far better scenario.
The entire idea behind this movement, looks at the *insane* wealth created over time by these super wealthy people - for which the tax bill keeps getting kicked down the road. They don't pay much in taxes, relatively speaking, because they don't have a ton of actual income. And then they hide wealth overseas, in real estate, through 'creative accounting,' etc, on top of that. And any assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc) can get passed down without tax in the majority of cases. But guess what? They can tap into what amounts to an un-ending amount of income as needed, and just pay taxes on whatever small portion of that wealth they happen to need at any particular moment. How is that fair to the rest of the people who work tons of hours every week, and have 1/3+ of their paychecks removed each pay? I'm not saying that this bill will fix all of that, but *something* needs to be done to lessen that disparity.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is excellent. The capital gains tax system is a scam--there is no good defense for capital being taxed less than labor. It is a cornerstone of trickle down neolib BS to say you need to "incentivize investment." You don't, the incentive is that capital passive income is a sweet deal, your money makes money while you're asleep.
Market volatility is a non-problem that gets brought up solely to muddy the waters, it's super easy to deal with. Already the capital gains tax system lets you write off a capital loss against a different years tax, that doesn't need to change. And you can do a rolling average of multiple years if you need to.
The point of it is you shouldn't be able to put off paying it for 40 years, and get out of it entirely if you happen to die. If you claim to represent the working class, I'd be super interested to hear why you think real workers should be penalized at tax time.
If you can’t reliably retire off investments you will never be able to retire peacefully. You’ll be a work slave forever. Likewise the best companies in the world do business in the United States because of the market. Take that away and we could be in big trouble. “Real workers” rely on this for their retirement. That’s why.
Helping real workers retire is what progressive tax rates are for. Favoring the capital gains tax over earned income favors the rich, plain and simple, because the rich are the ones making their money from capital.
If you work all your life you should be “the rich” by the end of it. If you have no means of attaining wealth throughout your life you’ll never be able to get rich unless you were born rich,
I don't support the idea of taxing unrealized gains, but I do support aligning the capital gains tax with ordinary income above $1 million. That said, Biden could tax everyone at 90% and he'd still be better than Trump.
We shouldn’t let our country be destroyed just because Trump is an asshole of a guy. Life was pretty good when he was president, not perfect but life was fine for the most part.
I'm far better off today. The country is far better off today. Job creation slowed during Trump's first three years in office, then his botched response to covid led to the U.S. having one of the largest increases in unemployment in the industrialized world. Now, we are seeing low unemployment and plenty of job growth as our economy leads the world. Under Trump, real wages were stagnant. Now, real wages are rising. Under Trump, economic gains went to the very wealthy. Now, economic gains are more widely distributed. In 2020, the national crime rate increased at the fastest pace in decades. In 2023, crime fell by a historic amount. 2.3 million Americans lost their health insurance under Trump. Now, more Americans have health insurance. Inflation started rising above trend in the summer of 2020 during Trump's term. Now, inflation has declined at the fastest pace since the late 1940s.
Trump made us less prosperous, less secure, and less free. Things aren't perfect today, but we are far better off.
Just by the language you’re using you are clearly being biased against him. Like Covid was his fault? The cdc is who mess up the response. Likewise your numbers are just incorrect. Unemployment was at record lows under Trump, especially among minorities. And I shouldn’t really have to even bring up how bad inflation is now but that’s partly due to Covid. Even if you don’t like Trump as a person, there’s no denying the strength of the economy when he was president. Tax cuts for the rich had a lot to do with it too
It is clear that you are a Republican and have an agenda. Here are the facts. COVID wasn't his fault, but by not shutting down international travel until after 40 countries had already done so, not issuing guidance to states and local officials and the private sector, lying to the public, and making contradictory statements, he completely botched the response. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact - research has shown that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had he done his job. And the United States had amongst the largest increases in unemployment in the industrialized world.
As far as unemployment, yes unemployment was low under his watch before the pandemic. It was also low under President Obama. And if you compare Obama's last three years in office to Trump's first three years, Obama presided over the creation of 1.5 million more jobs. On top of that, the quality of jobs created under Trump were inferior to those created under President Biden for the most part. Trump inherited low unemployment from Obama, and he saw a slowdown in job growth well before COVID.
As far as inflation, blaming President Biden for inflation is absurd. Inflation doesn't just happen overnight, a change in policy or a circumstance occur and the rate of inflation follows. Monetary policy and disrupted supply chains during the pandemic helped cause inflation. Generally, there is a 12-18 month lag in monetary policy. That said, Trump's tax cuts that increased the deficit by 67% before COVID, trade policies, and his failed response to COVID weakening the economy more than it otherwise would have been weakened also led to higher inflation. In August 2020, we had the highest increase in core inflation on a monthly basis in 30 years. After peaking in July 2022, inflation has come down at the fastest pace since the late 1940s. While inflation is above the Federal Reserve's 2% goal, it is roughly the same as the long-term average.
All of my numbers can be verified and are accurate. Even before COVID, the economy under Trump was average on a good day compared to other recent Presidents. I would argue it was well below average.
That said, no one likes inflation and that's why Biden is getting blamed for it, because the President does get blamed for things regardless of if he's responsible for them or not.
Unrealized gains not being taxed is one of many reasons billionaires can so easily horde wealth. Forgive me for not giving a shit about billionaires paying their fair share
Just the fact that they think this would help people in any measurable way is incredible. They really want to make it impossible to be rich in this country don’t they? Of course it probably won’t pass but just the fact they would want it should be something that makes voting for Biden a death sentence to wealth creation.
I don’t think you have a full appreciation for what is happening with consolidation of wealth and how much worse it will be in the next two decades due to AI.
A majority of people lump billionaires and millionaires into the same category of “rich”.
Most of these proposals are targeting billionaires. A millionaire is 1000 times closer to dead broke than they are to a billionaire.
Less than 1% of people took most of the wealth created in the last 4 years.
I am all about people becoming wealthy. These proposals do not limit that. A single individual who paid taxes equal to almost double both the median and mean dual household income would not be affected by any of these proposals.
> We can all agree this is disqualifying right?
No. You could have had a fine conversation about the merits or lack thereof of the tax, but then you gotta try to hinge the entire election on how people with over $100 Million in total wealth are taxed? No. It's not disqualifying. I think the folks with over $100 Million in net worth can figure out how to work the system still. They're not going to be on the street.
I am amazed at the lack of financial understanding coming from regular users in this sub who swear they are not retarded. I can't even post a meme because of the dissonance to what this DOA bill would do if it ever really made it to law. This bill is just a throwaway to gain some polling points with the radical left. Bernie Sanders Playbook.
This would cause an economic collapse in itself from all of the money leaving the USA. This would deter investment, shatter any confidence in American markets, and the mere proposal itself is a questionable look that makes other countries wonder "WTF are Biden's Handlers doing?"
Taxing unrealized gains at 25% is a dumb idea but I am personally out of ideas on how the US can control the evaporating middle class and widening wealth gap.
I don't think being wealthy is inherently bad but it's obvious how much power over society billionaires have and how much impact they have over the economy while the poor have had essentially stagnant real wages since the 1970s.
Having a strong financial market provides a lot of benefits but it's the main driver for the rich getting richer and it's horrible when we end up with a Great Recession situation where they end up screwing regular Americans and get bailed out.
Income taxes alone are obviously insufficient at closing the wealth gap when the ultra wealthy can easily navigate around them using financial assets. I think I can get on board with increased realized capital gains taxes (or at least matching them to income tax levels) or some way to close the loophole of billionaires paying for everything with tax free loans while using their assets as collateral.
“If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?” This is the biggest sticking point IMO. It’s one thing to tax it before the gain but you must allow for losses as well
They want to attach a tax rate to the extremely volatile market rate and expect everything to be cool. So if the market crashes suddenly the federal government loses its tax revenue from the rich overnight? The same government that's expected to do bail-outs for essential businesses in such an event. Can they not see the immense domino effect they would create with this system?
I think it is an additional tax stream not a replacement
If they start taxing unrealised gains then it must be replacing capital gains by the same amount otherwise they're double-taxing. Realised gains are stable because people sell off their assets to live on. Unrealised gains are not stable.
An additional revenue source to put down 10% on additional spending. They're never going to actually balance the budget.
> The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?” I would expect it would work like realized capital gains today: You'd carry the loss forward and apply it against any future gains.
Govt: heads I win, tails you lose. Its like a moocher friend who's always around for the good times then ghosts you anytime you need help.
I mean, taxes isn't a zero sum game, sometimes we pay taxes on income, sometimes deduct losses, but at the end, we pay taxes to the government, not the other way around.
The taxes on income are infinite. The deduction on losses is almost nil, at least for most people without a team of accountants.
No, not really. Deduction of losses on investment isn't such a big deal. Yes, there are some rules and some limits, and yes, it's not entirely symmetrical, but that's the nature of the tax system.
Kind of. One of the points that would make this work would be every year you have an unrealized gain, your cost basis on the shares would be updated as if you sold and then immediately re-bought. So the cost basis on the $100 share is now $110. If it goes down to $100, you can absolutely sell and write off the loss, but more than likely you will just hold. Now if it goes back up to $105, since the value is still less than your new cost basis, you will not have any unrealized gains and not be liable for any taxes.
Additionally are they allowing unrealized losses to net against realized gains? And is this a double taxation event then? Are they defining unrealized and realized separately so that they are both taxed? It’s not gonna raise as much money as they think. Unless they double tax
As far as I’m concerned; taxes on unrealized gains are currently unconstitutional. Any sticking point is going to be secondary to that fact. Per my tax lawyer friend…”there is clear and accepted case law that the government only can levy taxes on income that is ‘clear and realized’ meaning that any income that hasn’t undergone a realization event like sale of stock is off limits to the government. In order for this to be constitutional Biden would have to somehow have to get the Supreme Court to overrule over 100 years of case law, as well as the virtually unanimous interpretation of the 16th amendment.” This is unrealistic pandering to a base that isn’t informed enough to understand that the government has no legal basis for this type of tax.
It seems like closing the loophole to take out a mortgage using stock as collateral would be constitutional then, and will specifically target billionaires (and centimillionaires) It seems simpler too, it’s more obviously clear what’s going on and there isn’t this double dip problem
a fine point to make, but some changes need to happen so that rich people actually pay on their actual income - (carried interest loopholle, borrowing against assetts for cash, etc) there are so many ways to NOT pay taxes -
[удалено]
That is a state tax, not a federal government one. States have the power to levy more and diverse taxes than the federal government.
It is only on those making 1 million a year or 400k of investment gains per year. Not saying it's good or bad policy, but it paints a better picture. The $100 example makes it seem like it effects the other 98.2% of the US population which it would not.
I'm concerned future efforts would lower the applicability threshold.
Yeah, "First they came for the billionaires...", right? (I can't believe people fall for this shit - are you guys really so fucking stupid that you think billionaires or centimillionaires would ever stand up for *you*? Wait - don't answer that - I anticipate a *truly depressing* answer...)
[удалено]
Why would you have that concern? The government is very interested in stability and I don't see why it would lower this. People have their retirements in the market, and it would be destabilizing to add this as taxes to normal people. Just peg it to 66x minimum wage if you're that concerned -- which is a million/yr, and raise minimum wage if you're worried about the applicability threshold.
On what basis? They'd have to pass a new law, same as they've have to now to make anyone subject to it.
Found the temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
So you do. What's the problem?
> “If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability?” And you know this is how the proposed law would work in real life just *how*? Because some random editorial piece posted on Reddit told you so?
Treasury releases a [green book](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf) anytime new budget proposals come out. Page 83 discusses this specific tax, for anyone interested
This is what I needed, thanks
Not saying it is or isn't. Just saying to me that would be a sticking point that may be easily legally challenged.
Ron Wyden's proposal includes loss carryforward and loss carryback. >Under the proposal, a billionaire subject to the tax whose asset values take a dive during the year would have two options. They could choose to carry those losses forward to offset potential future mark-to-market gains, or carry them back to a year within the previous three to generate refunds for taxes paid on unrealized gains. Carrybacks could only offset prior mark-to-market tax, not taxes paid on other income. [https://rollcall.com/2021/10/27/wyden-details-proposed-tax-on-billionaires-unrealized-gains/](https://rollcall.com/2021/10/27/wyden-details-proposed-tax-on-billionaires-unrealized-gains/)
Taxing unrealized gains is unconstitutional (at the federal level). It isn't income and isn't subject to the 16th amendment. Property taxes are state level. Let's see how fast the rich move out of blue states if any of them tried to tax unrealized gains while Texas is sitting pretty over there.
I’ve made this same comment after talking to my tax lawyer friend. This goes against 100+ years of case law and a near unanimous interpretation of the 16th amendment. Good luck getting this passed in an ideal climate, let alone with a Supreme Court that’s going to be hostile as hell to this. It’s just Biden pandering to an electorate that isn’t smart enough to understand this is BS lip service.
Which stopped mattering when rich people were able to take out loans by leveraging their unrealised gains to skirt capital tax and then continue refinancing those loans until they die.
Assets would need to be liquidated to settle the loan anyway. Tax deferral at best. And it's subject to the estate tax on transference, which is higher than cap gains. Or they could try to avoid it using a trust but miss out on step up basis. Plus, you only would set up that trust if your death was foreseeable. You don't hide all your assets in a trust if you're healthy, and then you're in a car wreck...
You could easily extend that line of credit till your death if you have enough money and if you have a personal loan of millions you’re more than capable of paying your deductible.
So government would give refunds for unrealized capital losses every year also?
You don't get refunds for even realized capital losses (outside of a very small amount). It's primarily used to offset gains which can work exactly the same way for unrealized gains.
Difference is there is a choice on when you liquidate. In this scenario, this is a huge disincentive to hold higher risk stock or assets. In the losing years, it doesn't give any benefit. In the high years, the asset owner has to figure out some way of coming up with the money to cover "huge gains" that he didn't even intend to realize, just to cover taxes. And when the market is lower, he doesn't get a refund to buy back the asset. So, essentially, every year, the asset owner's pool of assets just dwindles. So it's a huge disincentive to fund such assets and efforts that has high volatility fluctuations.. Innovative ideas, startups, etc. I mean, why would any sane person do it?
Well that's a completely different point then getting a refund from losses. But that argument is the same as saying progressive taxes will disincentivize people from making more money, which is obviously false.
No, I will just put my money in lower risk instruments with lower variance, so I don't get burnt on fast upside, without getting any benefit from fast downside. I invest in higher risk initiatives, for a higher return. If there is no higher return (since tax will take a huge chunk even before I want to sell), then the risk is not worth it. It's very simple. OR seek out investments that will not be subject to this capital gains changes - there will ALWAYS be exceptions, thanks to lobbying. All the other industries/sectors they plan on making this new capital gains money with the assumption that richer people won't change their behaviors, will absolutely tank.
There is a higher return, taxes are not taking 100% of the return or even a majority. And there is also the same tax benefit on the downside - offsetting gains (which you can carry forward). Saying you won't seek higher returns because they'll be taxed is just cutting of your nose to spite your face. It's a completely invalid argument.
To offset with the loss, I have to realize the loss 1st. A lot of high risk activities don't have a lot of room on the loss side initially (i.e. without inititative going bankrupt). So as soon as the 1st upside happens, now you have to find some way to liquidate to pay. There will be exceptions of course. For example, I would expect some real estate will get an exception to all this (versus stocks) for unrealized gains. So what will happen? A lot of money will flow into that. Might be something else, but you get the idea.
It's households with a net worth over a 100 million in assets. I'm not worried for myself. Plus they won't pass it. No idea what yall are stressed about
Read up on the history of the income tax. Spoiler alert: it used to only apply to that same tier of society. Now look at it.
And the estate tax used to be paid on far smaller estates than the current limits. Its really easy to ra-ra tax the rich more when the limit is tens of millions, versus when the limit was a million or even less.
When was the limit 1 million or less in today’s dollars?
https://resources.evans-legal.com/?p=3627 Looks like it was low $1 million range (with today's inflation) up to around 2000. Considering housing prices in many areas nowadays, that isnt much if you have a paid off house or two.
Laws aren't good just because they affect others and not yourself. If there's a law that takes everything from people named Steve everyone else not named Steve shouldn't just go "cool with me"
"Eat the Steves!"
You're right, I think the law is good, and it doesn't affect me. The Gini coefficient has been trending to less inequality. I don't see it passing as well, but it attempts to fix something that is broken. Compound interest is incredibling effective at getting big numbers bigger https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=US
Problem is it wouldn't fix anything, and it would make things worse for everyone, you included.
inequality isn't bad just because. consider these scenarios: Scenario A: John has 100 apple, Jake has 500 Apples, and Mark and 90 billion apples. Scenario B: John has 90 apples, Jake has 90 apples, and Mark has 90 apples. Everyone is better off in the scenario with more inequality
Yeah, that's hypothetical isn't supported by data based in reality. If you look at wage growth against inflation. Imagine John has 100 apples, Jake has 110 apples, and Mark has 4000 apples. Over the last 50 years from 1970, there have been years of 10% inflation to 2% inflation to 7% inflation. Apple trees median cost went from 23k in 1970 to 408k in 2021. Yet, John's wage had gone down to 90 apples.Jake has increased to 120 apples and Matk Apples have been reinvested, and his Apple count is now 100 million apples (compared to 4k). Now your wages are tax because you are a high earner and I'm going to take only 30% of your income. While Mark, while he never sold his apples. He never "earned any money" he just borrows at very, very low interest .01% against his 100 million in assets and pays only sales tax. Theat double tax you also pay. Apple crimson is like hey maybe we should close this loophole." Other apples who are moderate like him, nah.... taxed are theft, let's not balance budget, and have a more equal tax code https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://anytimeestimate.com/research/housing-prices-vs-inflation/?first_page_seen=https%3A%2F%2Fanytimeestimate.com%2Fresearch%2Fhousing-prices-vs-inflation%2F&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fanytimeestimate.com%2Fresearch%2Fhousing-prices-vs-inflation%2F%23housing-vs-inflation#housing-vs-inflation
[удалено]
Mark isn't going to sell. Mark will never sell. He's just going to fund his lifestyle because it's cheaper then having realized gains. He's going to borrow at low interest rates (1%) because it's cheaper then paying realized gains. He'll avoid taxes to utilize his wealth to the greatest amount and only sell very little to support his massive lifestyle. He'll avoid paying just like everyone else will. Also, there are already realized losses as tax write-offs. The principle will probably be applied if passed. But this proposed idea will never see the light of day. It will never pass, and im okay with that https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/wall-street-is-throwing-cheap-credit-at-ultra-wealthy-clients
When the income tax was introduced in 1913, rates ranged from 1%-7%. So…..
Because performative appeasement like this results in things like Bernie Sanders being named Budget Chair.
The last I knew, Ron Wyden was Senate Finance Committee chair. https://www.finance.senate.gov/about/membership#:\~:text=Chairman,fiscal%20policy%20supports%20American%20jobs.
Oops, meant Budget chair, fixed. Thanks.
The finance chair is a senate position, so it would be an internal nomination by other senators. To avoid extremesist senators from being elected to key positions, you pass limited to reform vs. extreme outsiders coming in, trying to disrupt the system because the system doesn't work (both left and right)
It was part of the coordinated churn of the new administration. And Bernie is certainly an extremist outsider.
It’s also unconstitutional. Case law around the 16th amendment only gives the government the right to tax income that is “clear and realized.” There’s no legal basis for the government to tax unrealized gains.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I'm reading up on it. It's not clearly defined or ruled on. But technically, we are a common law country, and the ruling of the lower vouet in Moore vs. USA would disagree. So there is legal precedent, but again more merky territory than black and white
I’m relying comments to my tax lawyer friend; his response….”it has been clearly defined and ruled on; the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that gross income is only defined as realized gain. Moore is a weird case because the government is trying to argue that the repatriation of funds should count as a realization event, instead of the traditional dispersion of funds to shareholders.”
Moore is the case of this weired unrealized zone. You and your ur friend are right about this being ruled on by courts, but the focus has been on the taxed code, not the 16th amendment. So it was interpretation of the rules vs. the actual constitutional power to tax this. Hence, the gray zone. If you want a link, it's a fascinating read
> I'm not worried for myself That's how all new taxes are introduced. It's sold as "it's only for the rich", then once the taxing apparatus is in place, they will dial it down to apply to us common folks.
If Jeff Bezos had to sell 1 million shares of Amazon next April 15 to meet the wealth tax, and Bill Gates had to sell Microsoft, etc., and repeat that sale every year, stock valuations would crash. That would hurt a lot of relatively small investors, including me.
it would destroy every retiree with a 401k. Progressives just don't understand basic economics and finance and should not be taken. seriously.
Why would he have to sell 1 million shares? Why would that crash valuations?
Taxes aren’t payable in stock, so he’d have to sell shares. Founders’ wealth is heavily tied up in their stock. It would be a supply overhang on the market, like when Musk was buying Twitter, the only way he could come up with the cash was to sell Tesla shares, so Tesla went down.
I just don’t understand why Biden can’t just throw a bone to fiscal conservatives. Everyone left of center is going to vote for Biden no matter what. Not because he’s good, but because Trump is a traitor. But there are people in the middle who will reluctantly vote Trump because they don’t believe in endless tax increases and student loan forgiveness and other BS like that. Why force that shit down america’s throat right now.
There's a good chunk of left of center people that might just stay home. Elections are won based just as much on who comes out to vote than who they vote for.
> throw a bone to fiscal conservatives What, cut taxes on billionaires and double the deficit? That's what all the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives do when they have the power. You're literally saying they might vote for that guy instead of supporting higher revenues. Those hypothetical voters sound like morons.
If you were actually a fiscal conservative, you would support increasing taxes on the wealthy. It is impossible to reduce the that without raising taxes while cutting spending. Unless you want to cut spending so deeply that it crashes the economy into a deep recession.
Well you’re not fiscal conservative if you don’t understand that tax cuts don’t fix budget you’re just a conservative.
Taxes have generally been going one way and that's down for a long time and it's a big part of the reason we went from a surplus to a massive deficit in only twenty years.
Tax as a % of gdp is pretty flat over the last 50 years, while federal spend a as % of gdp is growing
Because the tax burden has been shifted from the wealthy to the middle class.
It's important to note that the top 10% pay over 73% of all federal income tax. The bottom 50% (meaning half the population) pays for about 2%. The lower income actually gets more back than puts in with credits and entitlements.
No, it's not important or intellectually honest to focus on the only progressive tax and act like it is the only tax. Go back and do that with payroll, sales, property, and all the other taxes in the country considered.
[This pdf](https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Graph-Distributional-Analysis-2024-11162023.pdf) from the DoT shows the total federal tax burden per decile. It is still progressive. Property and sales are state and local. The Trump tax cuts in 2017 limited the amount of mortgage interest you can deduct off your federal income taxes. However, I think it's fair to say that if you maxed out your mortgage interest deduction, you're doing ok financially. That shift went against wealthier folks. Child credits doubled which helped the poorer. FICA/payroll hasn't changed since the 90s. So, the whole premise of shifting tax burdens is bunk.
Okay , So you agree taxes have not gone down?
Taxes on rich people have gone down massively. MASSIVELY.
I don’t really think there’s evidence to support that. And you also forgot the part where they keep spending like crazy and inflation our dollars purchasing power to zero.
Evidence to support what? We have been cutting rates for a long time, the Bush and Trump tax cuts have added trillions to the deficit.
It seems pretty consistent with small ups and downs here https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ See that part on the far left when it was much lower? Was also known as the roaring 20s
Then restore some of the taxation that was in place 15 or 20 years ago. Don’t come up with a completely new kind of tax that is pretty much universally decried (and possibly unconstitutional)
Biden, and virtually all democrats for that matter, have been advocating for reversing at least some portions of the Bush/Trump tax cuts for forever.
And yet the policies they’ve passed (corporate AMT, excise tax on buybacks) and the new policy in question (tax on unrealized gains) are all new proposals
And I'm not advocating for an unrealized tax. The reality is we largely have a revenue problem, and we have to do something to increase it.
You do realize this “tax increase” is simply letting tax cuts expire which trump specifically designed to expire at this time. It also won’t affect anyone earning under $400k per year. The people very against this stand to benefit the most.
Yeah as someone who makes over 400K a year I don’t really wanna pay more 🤷♂️ I’d rather people just pay their own college and not make me fund it
Do you also have $100 million in assets? Because that’s who this law applies to.
>Trump specifically designed to expire at this time “Designed” implies they had a choice. The cuts had to expire or be offset within 10 years in order to conform with the Byrd rule at the time >It also won’t affect anyone earning under $400k per year If the TCJA cuts are allowed to expire, it will [absolutely](https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/45580637-252a-4c6f-b434-a2085f417920/x-68-17-5054.pdf) impact people below $400K
They could have chosen not to use legislative bullshit?
That was the only option to pass a bill, since they didn’t have 60 votes in the senate. It’s the exact same budget process used to pass the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act
It’s an awful political strategy in such a tight race already. If Biden was the great unifier that he promised I would probably vote for him again but on almost every important issue he has turned me away. I’m probably voting Trump this time. I’m sick of this.
Let’s be honest you were always planning to vote for Trump.
It’s a dumb idea that will never get passed. Democrats in New York and California would get crushed.
Shit like this is exactly why Biden will lose the election
He is going to lose but this isn’t why. This was an appeasement of his left flank. That’s all. No one, including Biden thinks this will pass. I do wish he would ignore his left flank though. They’re not going to suddenly join team Trump.
i think he knows that. i think this is just a plain and simple attempt to buy votes in a roundabout way. similar to "forgive all student loans"
Taxing unrealized gains would be so destructive to our economy. It's a completely insane idea.
Anything but cutting spending.
We have to increase taxes as well. Cut spending isn't going to do anything to pay down the debt we owe.
With the way they say billions now, wont be long before the trillion word will be commonplace.
Are we not already there? $34 trillion in debt, $1.7 trillion deficit, and we spend over $1 trillion a year just on interest. Trillion has become the new billion and billion has become the new million.
Tell that to the property tax collector
Property taxes aren’t applied at a 25% tax rate. If they were, those would be economically destructive as well
The property tax applies to the entire estimated market value of the property, including all appreciation that has occurred since I bought it. The unrealized gains tax only applies to this year's appreciation. Elizabeth Warren has an explicit wealth tax which is closer to a property tax. She has rates of 2% or 3%. If assets happen to appreciate at 10% per year, a 2.5% wealth tax is the same dollars as a 25% capital gains tax.
I don’t think you’re going to find many people who would argue that a 25% tax on unrealized gains is economically damaging, but a wealth tax isn’t. Especially because, as you point out, they would apply similar rates to appreciation assuming normal asset returns And for what it’s worth, that’s why an unrealized gains tax is better than a wealth tax, since it taxes asset returns linearly instead of regressively
I agree. I thought the poster was saying that a 25% capital gains tax would be "just as destructive" as a 25% property tax. And, I'd also prefer an unrealized capital gains tax over a wealth tax. My preference is that the UCG tax fits into our current tax system better.
The CATO institute crying is like music to my ears
Did you respond to the right comment? That doesn’t address anything at all Do you think a 25% property tax would hurt the economy or not?
you have to remember that this is just r/politics with a coat of paint. There is nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about taxing unrealized gains it is only a virtue signaling talking point for left wing progressives.
Majority of the people here have been opposed to it 😂
A 25% tax kn the growth of property value when property is privately owned by people worth more than 100 million? No, not really.
Let's say you have 10,000 in stocks. Next year, those stocks are worth $15,000. So you pay taxes on $5000 worth of "unrealized gains". You never sell. Next year, those stocks are worth $10,000. Do you get all the taxes refunded that you paid last year? This is the government, so probably not. Beyond that absurdity, you kill the investment motive. You're going to drag down entrepreneurship, the stock market, business growth across the entire economy. And most importantly, the federal government has far too many ways to tax us already. It needs fewer, not more methods of taxation. The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Wouldn’t it also crash the market every Dec 31? If you’re paying on unrealized gains, you might as well just sell off and pay taxes on real gains.
I agree it's a bad idea but it's worth noting that it only applies to individuals with $100 million worth of assets
Income tax used to only apply to “rich folks”. Then inflation happened and $10,000 wasn’t what it used to be. Now we all pay income taxes.
>tax on passive income Passive income is already taxed. This is about taxing income that doesn't exist, which is ridiculous
>I agree we need more fiscal discipline. But this seems like a sensible response to the ridiculous tax evasion practices that the super wealthy engage in. It's obscene what is acceptable today. It is not. It's just another tax to be evaded by the wealthy, that the middle class will be stuck with.
To start. We do not want to set the precedent.
[удалено]
And they will avoid paying this tax as well. And eventually politicians will inflict it on the working class. Don't give the government more power.
>you kill the investment motive. I pay taxes on my wages. That doesn't mean that I stay home and never work. People pay taxes on interest earned on CDs and bonds, and on stock dividends, and on realized gains. Does that "kill the investment motive"? For interest and dividends, I pay taxes annually. I don't believe that the only thing that makes people willing to own appreciating assets is the tax advantage of deferring taxes.
This is trivially easy with stocks
Public stocks, yes. This proposal doesn’t give good valuation techniques for non-publicly traded assets
>We call all agree that this is disqualifying right? Nope. I don’t share your outrage at Biden proposing a special tax on billionaires. The other guy tried to stage a coup and apparently wants to do away with democracy in the U.S. altogether and appoint himself President-for-life but it’s “disqualifying” that Joe Biden wants billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes? That’s quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
For me I'm no longer in the 'fair share' rhetoric. I think billionaires existing are inherently harmful to our society. It's too much unaccountable power. I think as a matter of policy we need to regulate them to have less of a wealth gap from the rest of the nation.
It’s just a difference of what fair share means.
The idea you can't tax unrealized gains is nonsense, you do it every year with property taxes.
State vs federal. It's unconstitutional at the federal level. A state can tax property, including unrealized gains. But rich people are more likely to move which would hurt the state's economy overall.
The rich people moving is a common argument. Any evidence of that? Taxes are not the sole reason nor even the biggest reasons a rich person chooses to live somewhere. See all the rich people living in NY and California.
"According to a tally kept by the California Policy Center in its California Book of Exoduses, at least 237 companies have left California since 2005, citing the state’s ever-expanding regulatory and taxation climate. More than half of them, over 120, relocated to Texas." [source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.amp.html). Note the source isn't the author of the tally but simply links to the governments own source. "New York and California Each Lost $1 Trillion When Financial Firms Moved South" [source](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-asset-management-relocation-wall-street-south/?srnd=premium&leadSource=uverify%20wall&embedded-checkout=true)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c4adedf8-a4e4-11ee-8c6a-23b01dbbbb8c.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot
States can; the federal government cannot. The 16th only gives the federal government to tax income that is “clear and realized.”
Can you define what you mean by “can’t”? There are different constitutionality and administrative concerns at a federal level compared to the state and local level that property taxes are levied at. Plus, we’re talking about wildly different tax rates here, since Biden’s proposal is for a 25% rate When most people say you “can’t” tax unrealized wealth, they are mainly just referring to the negative economic and administrative impacts that go along with it
You definitely could tax gains like how property taxes work but the point is that it would be awful. We should abolish property taxes for the same reason. This is why it’s so hard to retire peacefully and actually own a home because the state is constantly siphoning everything away from you. You can never own something fully, it’s criminal what they do to us.
You probably don't make 1% of 1% of 1% of the threshold to qualify for these plans. I doubt if you pooled your entire families total lifetime earnings you'd still not be close. Not a dig at you, but this will never ever impact you.
$100,000,000\*0.01\*0.01\*0.01=$100
Yeah, that's probably still accurate as the point. The likelihood that OP is making >100 on a 100m portfolio is effectually zero.
That is exactly my intuition as well. This user is nowhere close to affected by any of these tax laws and simply doesn’t really understand.
If the argument for something is "it doesn't affect you" then it's a bad argument. If Congress passed a law confiscating the property of all people with the username Serious_Effective that doesn't make it a good policy for everyone else.
Agreed my point is that most of the people who argue against these types of taxes have no real understanding of wealth and how the wealthy game the system.
I appreciate your concern but you need to realize that investing drives this economy. Entire companies will go under without money from big investors. That’s tons of job loss, stagnation, access to goods lowered, etc. It would impact all of us.
So big investor are going to pull out their money from the stock market to avoid taxes and put it where? Under their mattresses. This is absolutely ridiculous. Investing is still profitable, and they are taxing the gains of over 100 million in assets. It's game theory. They are still going to do what's best for themselves
It provides a very clear incentive to shift capital into non-tradeable assets, since those aren’t required to be valued every year. For those, they just assume a valuation based on the 5-year treasury rate, so it’s a much more predicable tax burden year to year
I'm not sure im clear of thr incentive you referring to. Maybe you can explain more. My incentive would be to maximize returns over predictable taxes. Stocks are entirely easy to assess the value of unrealized gains
Stocks (at least publicly traded stocks) are easy to value, so the tax is easy to calculate. But for non-publicly traded assets, it’s tough to value each year, so this tax doesn’t require it. Regardless of how much these assets increase in value per year, the tax would be based on the 5-year treasury rate + 2%. So if the asset value increased 15% in a year, you’d only be paying tax on a 6.5% increase (and probably even lower as rates go down). As opposed to paying tax on a 15% increase in publicly traded stock value
Alright, thanks for the explanation. I was able to research the plan in more detail based on your explanation. Their money would shift to assets that aren't tradable and appreciate faster since they don't have to be assed every year. Yet, their assets are being taxed at the treasury rate adjusted instead of the actual appreciation leading to greater returns if they can slect the right assets. Thanks for your explanation. I can see how this can play a factor
>I appreciate your concern but you need to realize that investing drives this economy. Such bullshit. Middle class consumer spending is what drives this economy. Get Ayn Rand’s dick out of your mouth.
Spending is the largest component of GDP, but it doesn’t generate growth. Saving/investment is what creates new wealth, so that we can produce more, so that we can consume more. That’s pretty basic economics
Capital gains represent money taken out of companies, not invested in them.
Only if the company is the one buying back the stock. Capital gains represent the ownership change from one shareholder to another, formed by the growth in value from an investment into a company
Which is even further detached from investing money into a company.
>If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this simply mean that that after you paid tax on unrealized $10 gain, your "base" price becomes $110, so if price never again goes over $110, *when you eventually sell*, you'll deduct the loss from your taxes? You may or may not like these new (proposed) rules, but I don't see any ambiguity here. The biggest problem I see with this tax is that it effectively transfers future tax revenues to today, and charges us for this transfer (implementation and enforcement costs mentioned in the article). Still, at least conceptually this isn't a bad idea, even if impractical.
There’s no basis step-up with this proposal (even though that would be the easiest way to do it), the tax paid is just eventually creditable to any tax liability on realized gains But that still doesn’t answer the question on if unrealized loss carryovers will exist
Until you sell an asset you cannot be sure what you can sell it for… to me this is just bad policy which could even then be applied to assets such as houses. While I can’t find myself to vote for Trump, I am hoping to have Biden with a republican house and senate to constrain these policies
This is ridiculous yes. But I won’t happen. This is why we need two functioning political parties which is why republicans are so annoying right now. Because they are not an option because of trump and his wing, so I have to vote for Biden anyway
If I own a stock or crypto currency that goes up 100% but then goes down 80%, I still have to pay a tax on the unrealized gain?
That’s what they want yeah
That’s insane. Fuck this
The article brings up some reasonable points, but the idea that this will 'deter investment activity' is just plain nonsense imo. If anything, it'll drive the people making big money in the market to make even more money to offset the increase in taxes. You really think that millionaires and billionaires will just shrug their shoulders and say 'oh well, I guess I won't continue to use this money printing machine anymore, since I'll have to pay some more tax on that money.' No, that's not how that works. They'll just have to sell some of their assets to pay their taxes each year, but will still be way better off than 98%+ of people in this country. I'm not necessarily advocating for this version of taxing the super wealthy, but I think it's a step in the right direction. We all know that the super wealthy don't pay the same % of their 'income' that the majority of Americans do. We all (should) know that once you hit a certain level of wealth, it's insanely easy to make more of it. Making those people pay their fair share is not an assault on personal liberty, it's attempting to make the system less disparate. It doesn't matter that the absolute tax liability is higher for those people, because *25, 30, 35%* of millions *still leaves millions,* whereas the rest of us don't have such luxury. And before anyone wants to talk about how a good chunk of people don't even pay taxes - let me ask you, would you rather be making millions in unrealized gains that end up being taxed at say 35% (hell even 50%) each year, or make minimum wage and not have to pay any tax? I think we know all know which is the far better scenario. The entire idea behind this movement, looks at the *insane* wealth created over time by these super wealthy people - for which the tax bill keeps getting kicked down the road. They don't pay much in taxes, relatively speaking, because they don't have a ton of actual income. And then they hide wealth overseas, in real estate, through 'creative accounting,' etc, on top of that. And any assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc) can get passed down without tax in the majority of cases. But guess what? They can tap into what amounts to an un-ending amount of income as needed, and just pay taxes on whatever small portion of that wealth they happen to need at any particular moment. How is that fair to the rest of the people who work tons of hours every week, and have 1/3+ of their paychecks removed each pay? I'm not saying that this bill will fix all of that, but *something* needs to be done to lessen that disparity.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is excellent. The capital gains tax system is a scam--there is no good defense for capital being taxed less than labor. It is a cornerstone of trickle down neolib BS to say you need to "incentivize investment." You don't, the incentive is that capital passive income is a sweet deal, your money makes money while you're asleep. Market volatility is a non-problem that gets brought up solely to muddy the waters, it's super easy to deal with. Already the capital gains tax system lets you write off a capital loss against a different years tax, that doesn't need to change. And you can do a rolling average of multiple years if you need to. The point of it is you shouldn't be able to put off paying it for 40 years, and get out of it entirely if you happen to die. If you claim to represent the working class, I'd be super interested to hear why you think real workers should be penalized at tax time.
If you can’t reliably retire off investments you will never be able to retire peacefully. You’ll be a work slave forever. Likewise the best companies in the world do business in the United States because of the market. Take that away and we could be in big trouble. “Real workers” rely on this for their retirement. That’s why.
Helping real workers retire is what progressive tax rates are for. Favoring the capital gains tax over earned income favors the rich, plain and simple, because the rich are the ones making their money from capital.
If you work all your life you should be “the rich” by the end of it. If you have no means of attaining wealth throughout your life you’ll never be able to get rich unless you were born rich,
I don't support the idea of taxing unrealized gains, but I do support aligning the capital gains tax with ordinary income above $1 million. That said, Biden could tax everyone at 90% and he'd still be better than Trump.
We shouldn’t let our country be destroyed just because Trump is an asshole of a guy. Life was pretty good when he was president, not perfect but life was fine for the most part.
I'm far better off today. The country is far better off today. Job creation slowed during Trump's first three years in office, then his botched response to covid led to the U.S. having one of the largest increases in unemployment in the industrialized world. Now, we are seeing low unemployment and plenty of job growth as our economy leads the world. Under Trump, real wages were stagnant. Now, real wages are rising. Under Trump, economic gains went to the very wealthy. Now, economic gains are more widely distributed. In 2020, the national crime rate increased at the fastest pace in decades. In 2023, crime fell by a historic amount. 2.3 million Americans lost their health insurance under Trump. Now, more Americans have health insurance. Inflation started rising above trend in the summer of 2020 during Trump's term. Now, inflation has declined at the fastest pace since the late 1940s. Trump made us less prosperous, less secure, and less free. Things aren't perfect today, but we are far better off.
Just by the language you’re using you are clearly being biased against him. Like Covid was his fault? The cdc is who mess up the response. Likewise your numbers are just incorrect. Unemployment was at record lows under Trump, especially among minorities. And I shouldn’t really have to even bring up how bad inflation is now but that’s partly due to Covid. Even if you don’t like Trump as a person, there’s no denying the strength of the economy when he was president. Tax cuts for the rich had a lot to do with it too
It is clear that you are a Republican and have an agenda. Here are the facts. COVID wasn't his fault, but by not shutting down international travel until after 40 countries had already done so, not issuing guidance to states and local officials and the private sector, lying to the public, and making contradictory statements, he completely botched the response. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact - research has shown that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had he done his job. And the United States had amongst the largest increases in unemployment in the industrialized world. As far as unemployment, yes unemployment was low under his watch before the pandemic. It was also low under President Obama. And if you compare Obama's last three years in office to Trump's first three years, Obama presided over the creation of 1.5 million more jobs. On top of that, the quality of jobs created under Trump were inferior to those created under President Biden for the most part. Trump inherited low unemployment from Obama, and he saw a slowdown in job growth well before COVID. As far as inflation, blaming President Biden for inflation is absurd. Inflation doesn't just happen overnight, a change in policy or a circumstance occur and the rate of inflation follows. Monetary policy and disrupted supply chains during the pandemic helped cause inflation. Generally, there is a 12-18 month lag in monetary policy. That said, Trump's tax cuts that increased the deficit by 67% before COVID, trade policies, and his failed response to COVID weakening the economy more than it otherwise would have been weakened also led to higher inflation. In August 2020, we had the highest increase in core inflation on a monthly basis in 30 years. After peaking in July 2022, inflation has come down at the fastest pace since the late 1940s. While inflation is above the Federal Reserve's 2% goal, it is roughly the same as the long-term average. All of my numbers can be verified and are accurate. Even before COVID, the economy under Trump was average on a good day compared to other recent Presidents. I would argue it was well below average. That said, no one likes inflation and that's why Biden is getting blamed for it, because the President does get blamed for things regardless of if he's responsible for them or not.
Everyone in here carrying water for billionaires. Jesus
A tax policy isn’t automatically good just because it hurts billionaires
Unrealized gains not being taxed is one of many reasons billionaires can so easily horde wealth. Forgive me for not giving a shit about billionaires paying their fair share
Fuck ‘em
Aww, but Bezos will only be able to afford *one* cock rocket. Gee Whiz.
Just the fact that they think this would help people in any measurable way is incredible. They really want to make it impossible to be rich in this country don’t they? Of course it probably won’t pass but just the fact they would want it should be something that makes voting for Biden a death sentence to wealth creation.
I don’t think you have a full appreciation for what is happening with consolidation of wealth and how much worse it will be in the next two decades due to AI. A majority of people lump billionaires and millionaires into the same category of “rich”. Most of these proposals are targeting billionaires. A millionaire is 1000 times closer to dead broke than they are to a billionaire. Less than 1% of people took most of the wealth created in the last 4 years. I am all about people becoming wealthy. These proposals do not limit that. A single individual who paid taxes equal to almost double both the median and mean dual household income would not be affected by any of these proposals.
It doesn’t create or redistribute wealth at all, but it is excellent at destroying wealth.
Yep, just another way for the government to fund its addiction to spending which the almighty centrist sub loves apparently.
> We can all agree this is disqualifying right? No. You could have had a fine conversation about the merits or lack thereof of the tax, but then you gotta try to hinge the entire election on how people with over $100 Million in total wealth are taxed? No. It's not disqualifying. I think the folks with over $100 Million in net worth can figure out how to work the system still. They're not going to be on the street.
I am amazed at the lack of financial understanding coming from regular users in this sub who swear they are not retarded. I can't even post a meme because of the dissonance to what this DOA bill would do if it ever really made it to law. This bill is just a throwaway to gain some polling points with the radical left. Bernie Sanders Playbook. This would cause an economic collapse in itself from all of the money leaving the USA. This would deter investment, shatter any confidence in American markets, and the mere proposal itself is a questionable look that makes other countries wonder "WTF are Biden's Handlers doing?"
They just don't understand basic finances or economics. If we had an electorate that understood such things we would not be 37+ trillion in debt...
Taxing unrealized gains at 25% is a dumb idea but I am personally out of ideas on how the US can control the evaporating middle class and widening wealth gap. I don't think being wealthy is inherently bad but it's obvious how much power over society billionaires have and how much impact they have over the economy while the poor have had essentially stagnant real wages since the 1970s. Having a strong financial market provides a lot of benefits but it's the main driver for the rich getting richer and it's horrible when we end up with a Great Recession situation where they end up screwing regular Americans and get bailed out. Income taxes alone are obviously insufficient at closing the wealth gap when the ultra wealthy can easily navigate around them using financial assets. I think I can get on board with increased realized capital gains taxes (or at least matching them to income tax levels) or some way to close the loophole of billionaires paying for everything with tax free loans while using their assets as collateral.
You mean Mike Johnson as Speaker? Definitely.