zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
I wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios. Worth thinking about what people are willing to do to not pay billions of dollars worth of taxes.

>>andy_p+ex
I feel an exchange tax that included loans would probably be a much better approach. Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. So you have to sell, or leverage the property to pay taxes. What would trying to sell billions in stock at once, or leverage hundreds of thousands of rental properties look like to the larger economy, and what would the effect be? Also, who is going to be able to even buy the stuff, if everyone with enough money/credit is scrambling to make huge tax layouts. Will you be able to deduct the interest on loans taken out to pay these taxes?

It's not like the money is just sitting, liquid in a vault like Scrooge McDuck.

>>tracke+PP
> Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster.

Idea: tax loans taken out using assets as collateral at regular income tax rates. After all, that money gets used like regular income (living expenses).

The taxed amount can then be added to the basis when the asset is sold. It would be like reverse of depreciation calculations.

Set an asset and loan value floor so it only affects people with assets $10M+.

After all, regular people pay taxes on annuities, which are similar in structure.

Disclaimer: IANA-Accountant, but I am a taxpayer who tries to legally minimize my taxes.

>>danans+SU
Yes, but we have to be careful about double-taxing mortgages for ordinary home-buyers. Those home purchases are already taxed by local municipalities—and in many places that hits the SALT cap.

>>brians+B31
> Yes, but we have to be careful about double-taxing mortgages for ordinary home-buyers.

In the context of home ownership, a loan using an asset as collateral translates to a home-equity loan or reverse mortgage. If you want to protect ordinary home-buyers, set an asset value floor of say $20M.

However, I think most share "pledging" [1] by the uber-wealthy is done using company stock as collateral, so you could restrict the tax further by having it apply only to loans taken against stock holdings over some similarly high value floor.

1. https://aaahq.org/portals/0/documents/meetings/2024/ATA/Pape...