zlacker

[return to "Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content"]
1. andy_p+ex[view] [source] 2024-08-27 14:27:46
>>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.
◧◩
2. _heimd+Ry[view] [source] 2024-08-27 14:37:32
>>andy_p+ex
I'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system.

Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer.

We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.

◧◩◪
3. zelias+kN[view] [source] 2024-08-27 15:54:54
>>_heimd+Ry
Doesn't this "close" the tax loophole in which holders of tradable assets can take out loans against those assets in perpetuity, never paying taxes on any of it?
◧◩◪◨
4. nights+LQ[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:13:00
>>zelias+kN
I mean, you have to pay the loans back. Which requires income which is taxed. This would only work if you either don't spend any money (which then what is the point of the loan) or if your assets are always going up and increasing in value beyond that of the loan which inevitably will not be the case.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pkaedi+h21[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:58:48
>>nights+LQ
The actual loophole is the step-up basis for inheritance. This allows you to never realize gains, living off loans against them. Then, when you die, your heirs inherit the appeciated assets, and the liabilities. But, their cost basis for the assets is stepped up to the then-current fair value. So, they can sell off assets to pay the loans off, but have no realized gains.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. aether+p71[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:20:46
>>pkaedi+h21
However, there is the estate tax.

If you're a billionaire who does the "take out loans against your unrealized cap gains" trick, then you, you know... can't sell your stock. So then your stock passes to your kids -- who, due to the stepped up basis, yes, do not have to pay cap gains on that stock.

But there's a 40% estate tax.

Estate tax generally isn't very relevant even to the ordinarily-rich, because it has an extremely high deduction (about $27M for a married couple), but for a billionaire it's absolutely relevant.

Now, sure, if you paid both the cap gains and the estate tax you'd pay that much more taxes, but if you compare a normally-wealthy person (pays 15-20% cap gains and 0% estate tax) and a billionaire (pays 0% cap gains and 40% estate tax), it's obvious that the billionaire, eventually, pays a much higher tax rate.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. pkaedi+ED1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 19:50:31
>>aether+p71
Right. In my opinion, the 'fair' and 'simple' thing to do would be to eliminate the estate tax, and the step-up basis. Then there would be no loop hole to borrow against unrealized gains (and no real point to do so), while still allowing wealth to be enjoyed by the family that generated it, requiring them to pay taxes in the same way everyone else does (simplifying the tax code).
[go to top]