A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You're "free" to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!
They shouldn't be taxed because they're just that, unrealized. They may be worth next to nothing one day. If you use them as collateral, you're still on the hook for the value you originally took out the loan for, regardless of the loss of the investment.
This argument applies to my wages too if I elect not to be paid in USD. Are you arguing that, say, Bitcoin income should be untaxable just because it could depreciate relative to the USD tax liability it generates.
How could you misunderstand his comment so completely?
Bitcoin is not money. You cannot file your tax return with a line-item with the number of Bitcoin you were paid. On a US tax return, you have to say how many USD you were paid. On a Canadian return, it is Canadian dollars. In the UK, it would be GBP.
If I demanded that my US employer paid me in GBP, they may do so. They would also track internally the dates they paid me, the value in USD that they paid me, and the exchange rate to GBP. The tax deducted from my check would be in USD.
This is part of the tax code in every country. You get paid in the currency of that jurisdiction ( regardless of how you choose to take payment ).
If you wanted to receive Bitcoin, it would be an investment. The taxable income would be the value on the day I received it. The value on the day that I sold is irrelevant. This is not “unrealized gains” by any stretch.
You cannot “elect” how to be paid for tax purposes. The currency on your return is a matter of law as are the rules about moving in and out of that currency. This is practically the definition of “realization”.
I know the 12 year olds will be upset but this is dumb.
Unrealized gains may never be realized. If they ever are, they may be worth less at that point than the tax you paid. It is like taxing everybody on income at the beginning of the year and then telling them tough luck if they get fired and never get that income.
Also, borrowing in assets does not make you wealthier. How much tax should we charge people when they get a mortgage ( not when they sell, when they first borrow ). I mean, somebody just gave you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why shouldn’t you have to pay tax on that? ( according to the OP at least ).
Anyway, I will stop there. We are not going to get back at the rich by saying a bunch of stupid things. If you don’t like generational wealth, fine. Have an estate tax. If you don’t like windfall wealth, fine. Have a super high progressive tax rate. I have no problem limiting extreme wealth ( it won’t hurt me ). But “tax people I don’t like on things that make no sense” just tells people you cannot think well and are not into math.
If you can buy shit with it, it has value and can be taxed. There’s no need for playing “Schrödinger’s Gains” where the value is simultaneously worthless because it may/may not be realized yet it’s leveraged into material wealth of every kind. It’s like saying rich people don’t have money because it’s all tied up in assets, but somehow they have multiple homes, a yacht, and private jet trips. That is an incredibly disingenuous argument that completely sidesteps how wealth works.
This is both a terrible strawman of advocates for this type of tax reform and a misrepresentation of what realization events are in the US tax code.
Sure "borrowing in assets does not make you wealthier" but it does provide an excellent basis for establishing increases in wealth that have already happened. Realization is a tool to avoid arguments and uncertainty around valuation, not a requirement that taxpayers have cash in a checking account to pay their liabilities. Posting collateral for borrowing inherently involves valuation so could very easily be made a realization event, it fits very neatly into existing law.
It may be a political impossibility but your dismissal doesn't suggest you've really thought about it.
Also "taxing everybody on income at the beginning of the year and then telling them tough luck if they get fired and never get that income". As someone in a high tax bracket (and state FML) who left the country mid tax year, bless you for thinking this doesn't happen.
Serious question - who here is in favor of taxing unrealized gains and has more than $20k in personal investments? (Outside of retirement/401k or other tax advantaged accounts)
This is legitimately the dumbest argument. You will just dismiss any commenters who disagree with you ("that's your opinion, donate it to the government!").
Besides, there are literal billionaires who will actually be affected by this clamoring for it. No one who has less than $100 million will be affected. No I don't need a history lesson about income tax. If you want to live in a country without taxes, Somalia will welcome you.
P.S.: I have more than $20K in personal investments.
Would a home count as unrealized gains? Because I'd be fucked if I got taxed on it more than I already do.
You probably do get taxed on it ( property tax? ). However I agree that taxing you on the “unrealized gains” from your home would be insane.
Think of how many seniors with a fixed income would be out on the street if this was to happen. Little old ladies in houses they bought decades before. Tax codes often defer even property taxes for seniors as they recognize that these people do not have actual “wealth” outside of these illiquid assets.
Of course, those houses will eventually be sold. If you want to collect more tax, increase the amount of tax you collect on those actual gains.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread"
-Anatole France
I'm sure the status quo is just dandy to the 10% of Americans that owns 87% of American stocks, and especially the 1% that owns 50%.
The beneficiaries of societal privilege, which ~~earning~~ making money without labor is, will always view anything that makes society more equitable as oppression. This is like seeking out the opinion of business owners on Jim Crow laws in the 50s. You're just looking to confirm your own biases.
I chose the number because it is attainable to the median household with 2 years of saving 20% of their after tax income, but also substantial enough to feel the burden of risk associated with investing. Stocks are not guaranteed income, they are not money for nothing, and changing the playing field affects a lot of regular people just trying their best to build a reasonable amount of wealth, whether to buy a house or secure their financial stability.
I am not close to being a top 10% wealtholder, nor am I related to anyone who is, and I certainly was not expecting to have my investment question compared to complicity in mass racial segregation.
Why does it feel like you pretend people with less than a billion dollars or something in that order of magnitude’s neighborhood in unrealized gains would ever be affected by this legislation?
Laws like these should never affect you unless you’re one of like (I’m guessing numbers) 15 people in your country, so I don’t understand the issue people so often have with them. From my point of view, if we don’t change anything to combat wealth inequality, the most likely outcome is civil unrest (esp. with more climate disasters looming on the horizon)… genuine question, please don’t take it with hostility – I would just like to understand “the other side” here: why would you personally oppose this?
P.S. about to hit 6 (euro)figures invested. ≈50/50 stock/ETF split. But I’m not sure if that truly counts toward your opening question since it’s basically the place for my long-term savings money, but there’s no such thing as regulation for a tax-advantaged “retirement investing” (401k etc.) account here, yet 🙃
We have defunded schools without enough teachers, school supplies, etc because the wealthy use the inane amount of capital they hoard to buy local government to cut their taxes. Then they set up Charter school escape hatches for some kids that they then profit from from publicly traded charter management companies. Those kids did nothing to deserve being caught up in their greed disease.
We have economic segregation from the cradle. That's no fucking better. Making more money should let you have a bigger car/house/TV/widgets, but we let some make so much that they use it as a cudgel to extract more from us to our detriment. Fuck their employee's kids, theirs goes to a private school so starve the commons your company operates on but doesn't want to pay for.
But believe the dream all you like. Not like there's hope since we're literally terraforming the planet against being hospitable to our very physically vulnerable species for millions of years.
Yup, but I don't see how taking away everyone's rights is going to help that situation. That's the way it is. People seem to think only ultra rich people have unrealized gains. I'm sorry, b but it makes no sense to tax an unknown number.
Lol. You are ignoring the fact that we already tax unrealized gains: property tax. And that's actually harder to value than something on a stock market.
An "unknown number"? When you open your Robinhood app, does it show numbers? Because if it doesn't I think you need to message their help desk.
The only proposals are for massive gains above $100 million. I think a 1% tax on that would be just fine.
LOL. I don't agree with property tax based on home values either.
What part of the stocks in a portfolio that you have not sold have no gain aren't you getting? Yes, there's a number in Robinhoid and tomorrow that number could be zero. Companies go bankrupt and when that happens, common stock goes to zero. Until you SELL the stock, there IS NO gain or loss.
The OP does not mention only gains over $100m.
The answer isn't to tax them. It's to not allow them to be used as collateral.