President Biden says that 3,500,000,000,000 equals 0.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation

a home is one asset. what would
you do with an art collection?

there’s a reason why it’s never been tried.

nice guess why i’m in a cubicle, you’ve kept alive your impressive streak of being wrong in everything. i’m in a cubicle because my goal
was to find a job where i could
live the way i live now, but not have to work a ton of hours. i’ve had opportunities to move into an office, but i don’t want the extra work hours. i dont need more money, i need more time with my kids.

“tax capital gains at death”. which would force a huge number of people who inherited homes, to sell
them because they can’t afford the tax.

i would truly love all democrats to campaign on the promise of taxing unrealized capital gains.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

a home is one asset. what would
you do with an art collection?

there’s a reason why it’s never been tried.

Never been tried? Most countries in Europe have had a wealth tax at one point in time and some still do. Pros and cons, seems like they are very expansive to manage.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Never been tried? Most countries in Europe have had a wealth tax at one point in time and some still do. Pros and cons, seems like they are very expansive to manage.

Explain to me how youd begin to do it in a country of 330 million, when some people have their wealth in jewelry, baseball cards, rare coins, expensive wine, fine art, gold bars, etc. You'd send different kinds of appraisers to everyone's house, every single year? How would you know who sold what or who bought what?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Explain to me how youd begin to do it in a country of 330 million, when some people have their wealth in jewelry, baseball cards, rare coins, expensive wine, fine art, gold bars, etc. You'd send different kinds of appraisers to everyone's house, every single year? How would you know who sold what or who bought what?

Most wealth taxes I've read about only target the super rich so most Americans wouldn't need to bother with them. They also seem to apply to only certain types of assets. I'm guessing there would have to be some level of self disclosure with the government always having the option for an audit if appropriate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Most wealth taxes I've read about only target the super rich so most Americans wouldn't need to bother with them. They also seem to apply to only certain types of assets. I'm guessing there would have to be some level of self disclosure with the government always having the option for an audit if appropriate.

That would be manageable I guess, and the revenue it would generate would be a rounding error in terms of our annual budget and total debt. Wouldn't it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That would be manageable I guess, and the revenue it would generate would be a rounding error in terms of our annual budget and total debt. Wouldn't it?

Warren's plan reportedly would generate 2.75 T over ten years, that's not a rounding error.