• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kamala's Bizarre 'Unrealized Gains Tax'

SkyChief

SkyChief

USN Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
8,217
Reaction score
5,552
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's tough inventing new taxes, and it's even tougher to get Americans to support them.

But Komrade Kamala has proposed a tax oddity so unique, and so remarkably stupid, that it's actually historic, in my opinion.

The Unrealized Gains Tax would harm anyone investing for retirement, by depressing their asset values. The tax promises to only harm the very-rich, but that is false.

An "unrealized gain" occurs when the value of an asset increases, but the asset hasn't been sold yet. So the virtual "gains" are taxed in anticipation of possible future gains that may or may not occur - depending on various market and economic factors.

It's a classic example of why we shouldn't count the chickens before they hatch. It's really dumb , and it's classic Kamala nonsense.

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." - Ronald Reagan
 
Last edited:
Komrade Kamala?
Now I have to wonder where someone would have thought up that gem? From the sagacity and intellect of their own mind? Or from watching to much Fox or listening to rightwing media?

I mean - Komrade Kamala? - that sounds like such an original line of attack it smacks of pure genius, doesn't it?

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing_1f923.png
 
Eliminate all deductions and tax gross income, simplify the Income tax as I've suggested.
 
j brown's body said:
It affects Americans with net worths of $100 million or more.
Click to expand...

It affects nobody since congress won’t pass it. The danger is establishing the legal precedent that ‘unrealized’ (annual) income is federally taxable (based in the 16A). Of course, the initial low tax rate and high ‘net worth’ would be subject to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
See, everyone focuses on the idea that rich people will be taxed. If we used Warren's model, they would be taxed not only on stock, but also on luxury assets like paintings, etc. - things with "stored" value that, if you sold it, would make you money. And that's fine …

… until the market crashes like in 1929 or until people no longer see value in Vincent Van Gogh's paintings, etc., which in such a nightmare scenario would cause rich people to lose millions. Rich people already paid their taxes on billions the prior year, and now they've got a net loss -- which would entitle them to a refund. Are the same people who are okay with taxing millionaires and billionaires on unrealized gains also okay with issuing them huge refunds when and if the bottom falls out of their unrealized gains?
 
PoliSciPulse said:
See, everyone focuses on the idea that rich people will be taxed. If we used Warren's model, they would be taxed not only on stock, but also on luxury assets like paintings, etc. - things with "stored" value that, if you sold it, would make you money. And that's fine …

… until the market crashes like in 1929 or until people no longer see value in Vincent Van Gogh's paintings, etc., which in such a nightmare scenario would cause rich people to lose millions. Rich people already paid their taxes on billions the prior year, and now they've got a net loss -- which would entitle them to a refund. Are the same people who are okay with taxing millionaires and billionaires on unrealized gains also okay with issuing them huge refunds when and if the bottom falls out of their unrealized gains?
Click to expand...

There would have to be a refund for unrealized capital losses if there's a tax on unrealized capital gains.

Taking this to what I think would be a logical outcome multibillionaires could receive more in refunds than they paid in taxes if their portfolio declines enough.
 
Allan said:
There would have to be a refund for unrealized capital losses if there's a tax on unrealized capital gains.

Taking this to what I think would be a logical outcome multibillionaires could receive more in refunds than they paid in taxes if their portfolio declines enough.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And in a nightmare, down-trodden economy like the hypothetical situation I outlined, this harms government way more than the amount of money they could make from them in a given year. It's one of those ideas that sounds like a good plan until you stop and think about it a bit harder.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It affects nobody since congress won’t pass it. The danger is establishing the legal precedent that ‘unrealized’ (annual) income is federally taxable (based in the 16A). Of course, the initial low tax rate and high ‘net worth’ would be subject to change.
Click to expand...

Should unrealized value be allowed as collateral on loans?
 
SkyChief said:
It's tough inventing new taxes, and it's even tougher to get Americans to support them.

But Komrade Kamala has proposed a tax oddity so unique, and so remarkably stupid, that it's actually historic, in my opinion.

The Unrealized Gains Tax would harm anyone investing for retirement, by depressing their asset values. The tax promises to only harm the very-rich, but that is false.

An "unrealized gain" occurs when the value of an asset increases, but the asset hasn't been sold yet. So the virtual "gains" are taxed in anticipation of possible future gains that may or may not occur - depending on various market and economic factors.

It's a classic example of why we shouldn't count the chickens before they hatch. It's really dumb , and it's classic Kamala nonsense.

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." - Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...
377442_image.webp
 
BlueTex said:
Should unrealized value be allowed as collateral on loans?
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? Should (secured?) loans be limited to those with at least $100M in net worth?
 
SkyChief said:
It's tough inventing new taxes, and it's even tougher to get Americans to support them.

But Komrade Kamala has proposed a tax oddity so unique, and so remarkably stupid, that it's actually historic, in my opinion.

The Unrealized Gains Tax would harm anyone investing for retirement, by depressing their asset values. The tax promises to only harm the very-rich, but that is false.

An "unrealized gain" occurs when the value of an asset increases, but the asset hasn't been sold yet. So the virtual "gains" are taxed in anticipation of possible future gains that may or may not occur - depending on various market and economic factors.

It's a classic example of why we shouldn't count the chickens before they hatch. It's really dumb , and it's classic Kamala nonsense.

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." - Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...
Exactly when did she propose this?
 
BlueTex said:
Should unrealized value be allowed as collateral on loans?
Click to expand...
See, that's an interesting question. I would think that if you are going to used unrealized value as a collateral on loans, then it should be a one-time-only tax (not a recurring one) on the value you're putting up. So, to use Trevor Noah's example, Elon Musk used his Tesla stock as collateral to buy Twitter. Assuming the deal went through (which it did), you're no longer using the collateral as unrealized value but are instead using it as part of a transaction. That transaction should be taxed. But stock not being used in any transaction that is just gathering dust in the bank account shouldn't be taxed.
 
Yes, unrealized gains tax is a terrible idea.

If only Putin party offered us someone other than a lowlife traitor as an alternative, we'd have something to discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom