Pro
Related Posts
Any Deloitte people trade on robin hood?
Anyone have a recommended tax person in Chicago?
Conversation Starter
Off Topic :
1) When Does a software engineer start financial planning for retirement since the our Career span is only 15-20 years on average.
2) How much and which schemes to invest to mitigate the risk?
3) How much do we need for retirement?
Tata Consultancy Mindtree Infosys Cognizant Capgemini HCL Technologies Wipro
Is stock market surging tomorrow?
Anonymous User
Coach
Anonymous User
Enthusiast
More Posts
Additional Posts in Accounting
Pro
Rising Star
Had 2 hours of billable work today 💀
What skills lead to success in M&A?
What are you saving for?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I’m for taxing the “rich” more - however, I think it should be on the loans they take out against assets that they don’t repay within 12 months. That would be considered income and they’d get taxed as such.
Not sure it’d raise a ton of tax revenue, but it’s fair.
Additionally, consider strong inheritance taxes and taxes on changing of jurisdiction for ultra wealthy, who are trying to avoid taxes.
This makes a lot more sense. It’s ridiculous that someone could take out a 100m dollar loan against their stock holdings and spend it freely like income with no income tax. Simply make any amounts borrowed against assets that are spent for personal use taxable as income. With obvious exceptions for typical loans like mortgages, helocs and auto loans.
It will never become law. Just politician speak.
My theory is when a politician talks about taxing unrealized gains above 50m that’s them sending a signal to their financial backers say “get me to this number and I’ll shut up about it”. It’s astounding how much money people in congress make from their side hustles.
This law is never going to pass because it’s too impractical. Like Tax Partner 1 said, it’s just a political talking point that the politicians pushing it don’t even truly believe in themselves. They’re just trying to get votes in an election year.
You know it’s for people with >$100M right?
The ultra wealthy already have ways of obtaining cash against unrealized gains in a way that they never have to pay taxes.
Appraisers full employment act
Political rhetoric to fire up a base that don't understand accounting or business
Rising Star
I am all for taxing unrealized gains. Especially for HNI’s.
P1 up to tax on unrealized gains
Can cause a timing issue if someone is taxed on unrealized gains in year 1, then the investment drops in year 2, and they are then stuck with a capital loss carryforward. This could be especially bad if the investment never recovers. It also makes way more sense to be taxed when you have the cash.
Also, if you own 100% of a business that you never intend to sell that appreciates in value based on some valuation, should you be taxed on that?
Likely a provision that allows you to carry back that loss
If it were ever implemented I would guess it would work similar to property taxes where they tell you how much the tax is and you can challenge it if you disagree.
If this becomes law, there would likely be some sort of safe harbor to allow for a simplified calculation.
Exactly. It’s astonishing how little imagination accountants seem to have. I’m sure many people thought an income tax was an impractical nightmare in 1861. They found a way.
It would be impossible. The valuations on some items would be ridiculously expensive/contested. Plus, what happens when someone has to sell off assets in their private business to pay for an unrealized gain and then the value of the business drops? What kind of nightmare process would you have to go through to get cash back? And even if you do, think about all the value you lost while the government was holding your cash. It sounds like a fair if you don’t understand the system; it sounds impossible if you do.
This doesn’t solve the problem. One, it would make the cost of investing insanely high. A 15-30% premium on an initial investment is absurd. Second, it still has all the logistical issues I mentioned. How are you going to determine net worth? The valuation of estates is extremely complicated, especially when private assets are involved. Third, in the end this really wouldn’t generate much tax revenue and could potentially force high net worth individuals to only pay this tax when they actually have a loss. If you get a credit, just sell it when you have income and you’ll get your money back. If you have a loss and are above the net worth threshold in your scenario, then you wouldn’t get a refund. Even if they can carry the credit forward, you could still have a scenario where someone would never fully recover the tax paid on an investment that lost money. Fourth, this would grossly under tax the wealthiest people in the world with massive unrealized gains. If you taxed Elon Musk’s initial investment in Tesla at 15-30% of his initial outlay, that would capture a tiny, tiny fraction of his unrealized gain since his stock has grown exponentially since then.
I don’t think this solution simplifies anything.
Typical liberal bs
If they tax unrealized capital gains, would you be able to offset it with unrealized capital losses? If it affects me I'd just buy some stock I know will he a loser and hold it for life
LOL...you might be the perfect investor for Bank of Nigeria stock.