Author Topic: Janet Yellen reportedly said she would consider taxing UNREALIZED stock gains  (Read 2954 times)

xbdb

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/20/oaktrees-howard-marks-on-unrealized-capital-gains-tax-janet-yellen.html

"U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen reportedly said she would consider taxing unrealized capital gains."

I hope this is just a stupid idea being tossed around. Maybe it's only the "wealthy" whatever that means. What would the impact be on something like this?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 08:42:57 PM by xbdb »

AccidentialMustache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
It means tax professionals make a mint. And lawyers, because there will be lawsuits.

Also, it'd have to get through congress, because I'm pretty sure it is congress, not the president/secretary of X that sets federal tax policy.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7838
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
The fact that it's even being discussed at all is a backlash against the reckless tax cuts on the very wealthy and all the giveaways the Trump administration handed out.

If the very rich paid their fair share with grace this wouldn't happen.

Morning Glory

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Location: The Garden Path
Not going to worry about it. I couldn't find much about this besides the article posted, which looks like fearmongering clickbait.  It looks like the remarks might have been taken out of context.

 I could see this happening as part of a "wealth tax" on the ultrawealthy, like the 1% tax Warren proposed a few years ago on anyone with $100 million or more.  I highly doubt that it would apply to anyone except the very wealthiest.

It would work similarly to property tax on your house. You don't get money from your house until you sell it.

American GenX

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
Uhhh.... she has no power to tax anything.   Nonsense.

Steeze

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
  • Age: 33
  • Location: NYC Area of Earth
I watched the whole questioning before her being sworn in - she actually was not in favor of this idea and said there were other ways to accomplish the same thing. The goal being to prevent large portfolios from being transferred at death and never having taxes paid on that money.

She suggested that getting rid of the step up in basis at death would be more appropriate, and that taxing unrealized gains is probably not even possible due to many assets which are not easily priced until sale.

Basically trying to prevent all that old money from not being taxed for generations.

CNBC got this completely backward

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2572
Taken way out of context and never happening.

Icecreamarsenal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Burnt
The fact that it's even being discussed at all is a backlash against the reckless tax cuts on the very wealthy and all the giveaways the Trump administration handed out.

If the very rich paid their fair share with grace this wouldn't happen.
75% of Americans think they're middle class, which begs the questions:
Who's the very rich?
How much is a fair share?

Mr. Green

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2874
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
How would this work in principle? If they tax unrealized gains, then do you get to write off the full loss when you have to sell at a price lower than you've been taxed at? That sounds like a lot of complication that could be handled in easier ways.

bwall

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
The fact that it's even being discussed at all is a backlash against the reckless tax cuts on the very wealthy and all the giveaways the Trump administration handed out.

If the very rich paid their fair share with grace this wouldn't happen.
75% of Americans think they're middle class, which begs the questions:
Who's the very rich?
How much is a fair share?

For me, the very rich are the .5%, not the 1%.
Fair share, for me, is the same tax rate that the middle class pays.

Mr. Green

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2874
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
The fact that it's even being discussed at all is a backlash against the reckless tax cuts on the very wealthy and all the giveaways the Trump administration handed out.

If the very rich paid their fair share with grace this wouldn't happen.
75% of Americans think they're middle class, which begs the questions:
Who's the very rich?
How much is a fair share?

For me, the very rich are the .5%, not the 1%.
Fair share, for me, is the same tax rate that the middle class pays.
I guess it depends on one's definition of very rich. When I walked away from my job I was making 1%-er money. It was enough that we could have had the second vacation house and both be driving BMWs or a similar luxury brand but unless we wanted to spend every dollar we had coming in that's about as far as that would go. No 1%-er is buying a million dollar yachts or owns a private plane, routinely sits court side at Lakers games or anything like that. So I'm agreeing with you that "very rich" has to be more than that for me. I think $1 million a year would put you in the neighborhood for that kind of luxurious spending.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5389
  • Age: 13
  • Location: UTC-10:00
The rich are the ones who are about twice as wealthy as me. Tax those bastards.

bmjohnson35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
The rich are the ones who are about twice as wealthy as me. Tax those bastards.

Based on rule of 72, it only takes 8 years at a 9% return to double your money.

Gronnie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 35
  • Location: MN
The rich are the ones who are about twice as wealthy as me. Tax those bastards.

Based on rule of 72, it only takes 8 years at a 9% return to double your money.

Think about this one a little deeper.