| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 892 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
541 Posts |
I have been hearing some talk about the Government wanting to establish an unrealized capital gains tax. How in the heck could that work? At the same time there would not be any deductions for unrealized capital losses. Sounds like out right robbery to me.
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
It is very stupid and almost impossible to monitor. Not to mention it will also mean the collapse of certain assets.
What would be far better is a limitation on holding certain assets without paying capital gains.
For example if you own stock in something it may be a fair thing to limit holding periods to say 10 years without paying unrealized capital gains...
But yes in general these are ridiculous ideas but it is part of the plan to try to get as much money from the super rich as possible.
This is what happens when the debt burdens are so high.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
The less you tell the government the better.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
466 Posts |
Quote:
The less you tell the government the better.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6449 Posts |
Quote:
.it is part of the plan to try to get as much money from the super rich as possible. Bridges are exempt from the unrealized capital gains tax. It just so happens that I have one to sell!  Let's be real for a moment. There is no way that the government is going to pass a tax that specifically targets wealthy people and actually makes them pay. That approach works in countries like Switzerland. It will never happen here, because the congressional reps need rich donors to pay for their campaigns. Any rule about unrealized capital gains will squarely target the stock accounts of millions of small fry, and possibly their real estate, farms, land, commodities, Bitcoin, and other long term assets. The rich will shield their holdings behind a wall of holding companies and obfuscation, as always. I really doubt that such a bill could ever really be passed. Although I suppose it's a bureaucratic dream to make every citizen catalog everything they own for government inspection, and pay tax on gains they haven't even realized yet. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5391 Posts |
The new mantra all over the western world . " MAKE THE RICH PAY " . Sure that will work ! The super rich are that way for a simple reason . They have the uncanny ability to move , and move their money . Also they are a lot more intelligent than your average .. I know no politics !!  Edited by Pacificoin
05/28/2024 12:44 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3342 Posts |
This link is instructive, and summarizes my general understanding of bullion sales. https://amp.jmbullion.com/investing...1099b-forms/The IRS is only notified when a sale constitutes a minimum amount of metal. For instance a kilo gold bar or $1000 face of US 90% silver coins. The amount is variable by item, but generally in the $25,000 to $50,000 range at today's prices. As the price of bullion rises, the minimum reporting value rises too. A kilo gold bar has risen by 50% in the last five years. They currently sell for $77,000. "Two minutes ago I would have sold my chances for a tired dime." Fred Astaire
Edited by thq
05/28/2024 08:08 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1747 Posts |
Quote:
It is very stupid and almost impossible to monitor. Not to mention it will also mean the collapse of certain assets.
What would be far better is a limitation on holding certain assets without paying capital gains.
For example if you own stock in something it may be a fair thing to limit holding periods to say 10 years without paying unrealized capital gains...
But yes in general these are ridiculous ideas but it is part of the plan to try to get as much money from the super rich as possible.
This is what happens when the debt burdens are so high. This is as rediciulous as the rest. No capital gains until the item is sold. How would that have worked out for long tern holders of Intel? Coinfrog nailed it. I fact, let's stop taxing those that save! Stop government spending. |
|
Moderator
United States
54280 Posts |
The current proposals to tax unrealized gains apply only to those with at least $100 million in net worth. I have only $99 million, so I am not too worried.  Show your financial support of the Coin Community Family (click here)See my topic on Mexican Numismatic Medals (click here) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3342 Posts |
Here's a practical discussion of the matter. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-...ionaire-tax/First of all, this is a populist nostrum spotlighting somewhere around 700 billionaires. In its rosiest form it might extract a trillion dollars from Bezos, Musk etc. in a one-time event. They would have to liquidate a lot of their appreciated stock to pay the levy. It's a loaded campaigning statement, but the reality is little or no paydown on national debt, with the downside of market disruption as investors run away from the marquee stock liquidations. Second there's the matter of constitutionality. Congress has never passed anything like this before. The Constitution calls for apportionment of taxation by state. Where the billionaires live matters, as Kansas has to be treated equally with Florida. Every state has to pay for this regardless of how many billionaires they have. There are many other points in this article. Brennan discusses the fact that the 16th Amendment requires gains to be realized before they can be taxed. And he fully expects lawyers and loopholes. "Two minutes ago I would have sold my chances for a tired dime." Fred Astaire
Edited by thq
05/28/2024 11:58 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6449 Posts |
Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, and the Silicon Valley billionaires are solid blue. They make enormous campaign contributions and their high tech dominance translates almost directly into political clout. Harvard can march that talking point around as much as they want—it would be campaign suicide for any blue politician to advance such a law towards reality. Anyone who did would find the full force of those billionaires behind their primary election opponents. Take the talking point for what it really is: political kabuki that will never come to fruition.
That is ignoring the dubious constitutionality of specifically targeting a tiny subset of society (no matter how powerful), or the complete impracticality of deciding what the fair market price of illiquid assets would really be. We can't even properly enforce the current tax laws on these billionaires and mega-corporations, so adding a new and far more punitive law is not going to be any more effective.
That's just my 2˘, I have been wrong many times before, but I don't think this could possibly ever pass as a real law.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3342 Posts |
I agree brandmeister. The thing is so clumsy that it won't live up to expectations. But it sounds good. So easy for a politician to say the words and get amens.
I'm more concerned with small-time bullion sales. It interests me that the IRS reporting threshhold keeps rising because it depends on the weight of the metal. In the 1990's a kilo of gold was $12,000, now it's $77,000. The appreciation of holdings under a kilo of gold goes unnoticed by IRS simply because of the small size of the metal chunk.
"Two minutes ago I would have sold my chances for a tired dime." Fred Astaire
Edited by thq
05/28/2024 2:36 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
187446 Posts |
This topic is walking a fine line. Please keep away from politics and stay on topic. With regards to proposed legislation or policy, discuss right versus wrong, not right versus left.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3342 Posts |
I'm concerned with us, in the here and now, jbuck. Those of us who are small-holders are actually in an improving position because the IRS threshhold for reporting bullion purchases and sales keeps rising with metals price. In effect we are shielded due to indexing by metal weight. If we were locked into 1990's pricing, dealers would be reporting $10,000 sales to IRS and generating 1099's. Contrast that with currency transaction reporting to IRS which has a fixed trigger of $10,000 set in 1970.
"Two minutes ago I would have sold my chances for a tired dime." Fred Astaire
Edited by thq
05/28/2024 3:56 pm
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 892 |
|
Posted 05/27/2024 7:37 pm
