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
Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.

>>chrisc+fX
Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive.

>>kjkjad+5Y
How do you know you have over 100m in assets? One never really knows the worth of something until it's sold. (i.e. try selling a used car. there's what you think it's worth and what you get...)

And once the asset is sold, that's a taxable event.

>>rv3909+211
Easy. Share price x number of shares.

>>kjkjad+4b1
Few things are easy. Some problems with your proposal:

1. Assumes the asset in question is publicly traded.

2. Assumes the publicly traded asset has a non trivial amount of trade volume 3. Assumes asset price is relatively stable, moving in a narrow band along a clear trend-line

4. Assumes you have defined the price from the stock information (last trade before close. Daily average, etc)

5. Assumes holder's position is small enough not to affect stock price were they to sell.

And stocks are the easiest to do this with!

Look at the Trump vs NY court case for the value of his house in FL. Unlike the valuation imposed by government fiat, the valuation was agreed to freely by the parties. The courts found it excessive (and it might be) and proposed a valuation so ridiculously low it alone gives Trump grounds to appeal that the judge is either incompetent on the matter or has a personal bias and should anyway have recused himself.

>>sbsudb+Ot1
> the value of his house in FL

Are we talking about Mar-a-Lago here?

> the valuation was agreed to freely by the parties

Which valuation is that? The one from Lawrence Moens?

>>zimpen+702
I do believe it was the Mar a Lago, yes. Trump's valuation was eye watering, I still can't believe it, but the market players agreed to it.

The banks agreed to the valuation and under no coercion agreed to lend money with it as collateral. Trump pays off that loan and the banks are made whole.

By contrast my school board telling me my house is worth 600 k instead of 400 k scares the shit out of me. I can't agree to it and my only recourse are the courts. The school board has lawyers on staff so it costs them nothing if I sue.