(04-02-2019 02:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 01:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  What happens if/when the value of that assets drops? Are they getting their tax money back?

I'm assuming that when you sell the asset, the basis of it is adjusted by any of the gains you previously realized. So your income would be reduced by that amount.

So yes, you would get your "money" back in the form of lower income.

Except there are limits to your ability to take losses against income. You can only usually net losses against gains

unless you're a corporation

This is among the many ways that these sorts of rules 'work' for the wealthy and punish the 'not wealthy'

(04-02-2019 01:14 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 01:10 PM)appst89 Wrote:  My guess is they tax the incremental gains annually then tax the full amount of the realized gain when the asset is sold.

Wouldn't that be essentially paying the tax twice?

um.... yes

Yes, you can only take certain losses carried over at $3,000 a year, but you do eventually get them back...and I haven't seen this proposed law so it could exempt these losses from the limit.

But no, you would not get taxed twice because your basis in the asset would more than likely increase by the income you claimed thereby lowering any gain when sold.

Okay, let's talk about this for a moment... you're talking about someone worth hundreds of billions of dollars and a $3,000/yr limit on losses? gains you get taxed on every year but losses are limited to $3,000? You'll effectively never see it

You're correct that we can create new rules for this... but under current tax law, this is a non-starter.

as to the 'basis', that's not what the poster described... he described paying taxes on the unrealized gain annually, and then taxes on the WHOLE realized gain.... not the adjusted gain. We responded to the question
asked... and not some guess as to what the actual legislation might look like. The legislation would not look as he described, for the very reason we articulated.

so so far you've addressed an unrealistic hypothetical and a $3,000/yr limit ON THE DOWNSIDE ONLY for someone whose net worth could swing by billions per year...

The elephant in the room that even if you address the above.... is the bureaucracy necessary to a) somehow value assets held in foreign shell companies and also somehow to get the jurisdiction to tax them, otherwise face capital flight and b) to value every year the perhaps hundreds of thousands of assets and thousands of asset classes held by these people, plus the appeals or whatever process there might be to challenge the valuations

I'm honestly not sure that even a 10% projected annual return on these values, taxed at 100% would generate enough money to cover the bureaucracy necessary to enforce it. It certainly would make a meaningful dent in the revenues that should make one give pause.



The point is that you're right... you'd never see such legislation... so why do so many leaders on the left give credence to such things? Likely because they know it plays well to people who don't understand how the wealthy view money

(04-02-2019 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The point is that you're right... you'd never see such legislation... so why do so many leaders on the left give credence to such things? Likely because they know it plays well to people who don't understand how the wealthy view money

Because leaders on the right pass things like trumps tax cut that doesn't increase revenues, but rather explodes the deficit, and just shifts income to the wealthy.

D's blow up the deficit with spending.
R's blow up the deficit with tax cuts for the wealthy.

There is something to the idea, in theory. For the wealthy, "capital" is rarely actually "realized." They just roll it over into the next investment.

But in practice, this would be a nightmare. There is no fair way to determine the price of every asset.

The exception would be for real estate. There IS an established way to determine the value of real estate. I worked in real estate finance for awhile, and the big owners NEVER pay any income taxes. They're able to over-dpereciate it for 20-30 years, then sell the property and roll the funds over to a new property in a 1031 exchange.

(04-02-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The point is that you're right... you'd never see such legislation... so why do so many leaders on the left give credence to such things? Likely because they know it plays well to people who don't understand how the wealthy view money

Because leaders on the right pass things like trumps tax cut that doesn't increase revenues, but rather explodes the deficit, and just shifts income to the wealthy.

D's blow up the deficit with spending.
R's blow up the deficit with tax cuts for the wealthy.

Red, that's a false statement. The Bush and Trump tax cuts shifted the tax burden more heavily on wealthy people. That's an undeniable fact.

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the world because of the Bush & Trump tax cuts. That's a good thing that you should be supporting.

And back to the $3,000 loss limitation, not many rich people lose money in their investments, that's one of the reasons they're rich. So I don't know how likely they will be hit with limits on loss carryovers to begin with, even if this nonstarter were to pass and not exclude any losses from that carryover.

But again, if you have to report an unrealized gain in a tax year, your basis in that investment is undoubtedly going to increase which lowers your gain in future years. So this is more than likely just a way for the government to get money sooner rather than later, so in the end it's pretty much a wash, but it plays to the base. And no, that is not something one party does, which you're certainly aware.

(04-02-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The point is that you're right... you'd never see such legislation... so why do so many leaders on the left give credence to such things? Likely because they know it plays well to people who don't understand how the wealthy view money

Because leaders on the right pass things like trumps tax cut that doesn't increase revenues, but rather explodes the deficit, and just shifts income to the wealthy.

D's blow up the deficit with spending.
R's blow up the deficit with tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is a deflection. There have been plenty of threads about the other topic.

Are you saying that Democrats only support these stupid ideas because Republicans support other stupid ones? Hardly argues well that Democrats are any better then.... in ideas OR methods

(04-02-2019 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And back to the $3,000 loss limitation, not many rich people lose money in their investments, that's one of the reasons they're rich. So I don't know how likely they will be hit with limits on loss carryovers to begin with, even if this nonstarter were to pass and not exclude any losses from that carryover.

But again, if you have to report an unrealized gain in a tax year, your basis in that investment is undoubtedly going to increase which lowers your gain in future years. So this is more than likely just a way for the government to get money sooner rather than later, so in the end it's pretty much a wash, but it plays to the base. And no, that is not something one party does, which you're certainly aware.

How many?

Every single one of them loses money on their investments.... just not in aggregate. Tesla is STILL losing money on their investment... the only reason the people are making money is that they took the company public and others are willing to pay them for earnings that they hope will come many years from now, or perhaps just find a bigger sucker. If it weren't for the stock price, we would be valuing Tesla at a loss.

You don't become wealthy by diversifying. You become wealthy by making concentrated strategic investments... losing 100% in some, losing far less in others, making a little in some, and then making an absolute killing, like 1,000 times your investment in just a few investment. Look at every single member of the wealthiest people and you will see that they (or their ancestors) made most of their money through concentrated investment> Even the great investor, Buffett made most of his wealth in funeral homes.... often buying family run shops being taxed at high individual rates and rolling them up into a corporation where they are taxed at far more favorable corporate rates. Buffett therefore LOVES high individual tax rates.

And for someone who is worth 100byn... do the math... and let's use 50% tax just to make the math easy... $100byn grows to $110 byn, you pay 5byn in tax. next year it falls to 100byn. You pay no tax. The year after, it goes back to $110byn, you pay 5byn less $1,500 in tax (since you get to shelter $3,000 of that $10byn in gains). So far you've paid almost 100% in taxes on your gains with just a 50% rate.

It's not a wash. If it were a wash, then the value of pre-tax deductions for an IRA would be worthless in terms of compounding.

I worked in this industry and for these people for 25 years. The rules have changed a but, but the reality is still the same.

all I see is more tulips.....hell, they've even made a g'dammed commercial about that bs now...

what a shitepile of morons....

where do they grow these macaronis....

(04-02-2019 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And back to the $3,000 loss limitation, not many rich people lose money in their investments, that's one of the reasons they're rich. So I don't know how likely they will be hit with limits on loss carryovers to begin with, even if this nonstarter were to pass and not exclude any losses from that carryover.

But again, if you have to report an unrealized gain in a tax year, your basis in that investment is undoubtedly going to increase which lowers your gain in future years. So this is more than likely just a way for the government to get money sooner rather than later, so in the end it's pretty much a wash, but it plays to the base. And no, that is not something one party does, which you're certainly aware.

The problem is that no stock goes up forever. GE is the last remaining member of the original Dow 30, meaning that 29 of those 30 bluest of the blue chip companies no longer exist, and GE is doing pretty bad. Given that, you could pay tax year after year as a stock increases in value only to lose it all, all the value you paid taxes on, even though you never had use of the money.

(04-02-2019 10:25 PM)banker Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And back to the $3,000 loss limitation, not many rich people lose money in their investments, that's one of the reasons they're rich. So I don't know how likely they will be hit with limits on loss carryovers to begin with, even if this nonstarter were to pass and not exclude any losses from that carryover.

But again, if you have to report an unrealized gain in a tax year, your basis in that investment is undoubtedly going to increase which lowers your gain in future years. So this is more than likely just a way for the government to get money sooner rather than later, so in the end it's pretty much a wash, but it plays to the base. And no, that is not something one party does, which you're certainly aware.

The problem is that no stock goes up forever. GE is the last remaining member of the original Dow 30, meaning that 29 of those 30 bluest of the blue chip companies no longer exist, and GE is doing pretty bad. Given that, you could pay tax year after year as a stock increases in value only to lose it all, all the value you paid taxes on, even though you never had use of the money.

Of course.

You want to destroy the American economy, do this. I can't imagine why anyone would place another investment dollar here, nor can I imagine a reason why lots of those dollars would not leave as quickly as they could.

A hundred years ago, Argentina was the 7th most prosperous country in the world, and they dodged WWI so they were in position to prosper even more. They implemented socialist policies, capital said bye-bye, and look were they are today. Buenos Aires is a beautiful city, with many areas that look like Paris, from that period. But now there is a lot of poverty. We may be impervious to that far a fall, because our natural advantages are so great. But 100 years ago, people would have said the same about Argentina.

(04-02-2019 12:10 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Top Senate Democrat proposes tax on unrealized gains for the wealthy

Snippet

Quote:The top Democrat on the Senate’s tax-writing committee wants to tax long-term investments like other types of income, raising rates and requiring the wealthiest people to pay taxes on their unrealized gains each year. Wyden’s plan would tax the gains on long-term investments annually, rather than when someone decides to sell the asset, as is the case currently.

How would this work? At year end the cost versus market rate is recorded and tax calculated? Also, who is considered "wealthy"?

Local governments already do something similar....

Property Taxes.

I buy my house for $150k, the "value" goes up to $200k, local government taxes me at the "perceived" value, NOT what I actually paid for it. It isn't worth $299k unless I sell it, but who cares about such trivial points.

It's all a scam.

Actually—that’s not how it works. If you buy a house for 150K it is generally valued at that on the tax rolls (for a year two anyway). Your annual real estate taxes are the tax rate (say 1%) times the entire property value (150K) for a tax bill of $1,500. When the property is reappraised by the appraisal district in a few years for $200K—-you are “taxed” on the ENTIRE $200K—not just the profit. So, your new bill is $2,000. Frankly these sorts of annual taxes on accumulated wealth are much worse than a tax that only targets a percentage of an assets capital gain. I say this just to point out that it can get much worse than this proposal just the unrealized profit on an asset. Eventually, the tax and spend liberals will go for a wealth tax that is similar to a property tax which will target the biggest piles of money out there—-individual 401K’s, home equity, and savings/investment accounts.

Another poorly thought out proposal of which the unintended consequences would be devastating for America.

(04-02-2019 03:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  D's blow up the deficit with spending.
R's blow up the deficit with tax cuts for the wealthy.

Debatable.

What's not debatable is that Trump's tax cuts are a rounding error to the deficit and AOC's Green New Deal would multiply it.

Sort of like when you're trying to save money and your spouse buys a Ferrari and then beats you up for paying a kid to mow the lawn rather than doing it yourself