zlacker

[parent] [thread] 18 comments
1. andy_p+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:26:37
I love your consideration for the financial problems of some of the most privileged people in all of human history. I just don’t really care that much if they get a big tax bill (I’m sure they’ll find a way to pay) and for a variety of reasons it will be good for society.
replies(4): >>nomel+w5 >>foota+A5 >>crysta+Gp >>tracke+pN5
2. nomel+w5[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:48:12
>>andy_p+(OP)
I think it’s simpler than that. People here tend to enjoy, and have careers around, understanding complex systems. “Consideration” for rich people isn’t required for thinking about the possible impacts of this, especially when the government has a near perfect track record in eventually shifting policies down to the working class.
replies(1): >>andy_p+l9
3. foota+A5[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:48:27
>>andy_p+(OP)
They're not concerned about the wealthy, but the state of the economy. Bad things happen when the prices of things change dramatically. E.g., if you happen to own an asset that a billionaire now needs to fire sale, you'll lose out as well.
replies(2): >>andy_p+W8 >>yadaen+ou6
◧◩
4. andy_p+W8[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 17:00:44
>>foota+A5
That will only be temporary won’t it, hold your shares or buy more at a discount.
replies(1): >>jmb99+4v
◧◩
5. andy_p+l9[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 17:02:35
>>nomel+w5
The impacts could be extremely positive, some people are starting to believe the very richest having an optional tax system in the US is bad for everyone.
replies(2): >>SkyBel+pe >>buzzer+ci1
◧◩◪
6. SkyBel+pe[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 17:24:48
>>andy_p+l9
There seems to be a simpler fix though, that avoids the major negative effects of the larger changes.

They take out loans and aren't taxed on it. But they have to pay taxes when they pay off the loans, and at that time they'll owe even more money meaning more stocks will have to be sold.

But wait, how are they avoiding that tax even then? Well they take out another loan. But eventually that stops. They can't take out infinite loans, so what is happening? When they die, there is some tax trickery that involves resetting the cost basis of assets, then selling them with 0 capital gains to pay off the loans. The simple fix is to only reset the values after the estate pays out, meaning that any assets sold to pay off any loans will have to pay the real tax on their value, and only afterwards is the cost basis reset when inheritors receive those assets.

That seems a much more minimally invasive change, and also seems much more in line with the intent of the existing tax code to begin with, as the cost basis should only reset for those inheriting and not for paying off existing debts.

replies(1): >>greyco+381
7. crysta+Gp[view] [source] 2024-08-27 18:20:53
>>andy_p+(OP)
A large part of the United States' economic leadership is specifically concentrated in the tech startup sector.

Whether or not you think any of the companies funded by YCombinator[0] are actually worth their valuation, you have to realize that there will be fewer such startups if a tax on unrealized capital gains is passed, and that VC activity, along with the future startups chasing their money, absolutely will move to countries without such a tax.

Again, maybe you actually believe the startup scene in the US is worthless, in which case, go ahead and advocate for an unrealized gains tax Just be honest with yourself that it will entirely shut down sectors that others view as critical to the country's future dominance.

[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies

replies(1): >>kareem+gq1
◧◩◪
8. jmb99+4v[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 18:46:51
>>andy_p+W8
It’s not that simple. If hundreds of billions of dollars need to be liquidated across every asset class in every industry, the entire economy is going to tank. Not just “oh no the stock market’s down.” Asset prices would drop severely (housing being the most “regular-person” applicable), many business will fail meaning many people will lose their jobs, and mortgages will be foreclosed upon due to suddenly being incredibly underwater without jobs. Picture 2008, but worse.

“Hold your shares or buy more at a discount” is incredibly out of touch with the average person who will be affected by an economic depression.

replies(1): >>andy_p+dB
◧◩◪◨
9. andy_p+dB[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 19:12:17
>>jmb99+4v
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/23/kamala-harris-unrealized-ca...

“Payments can be spread out over subsequent years”

replies(1): >>bryan_+eE1
◧◩◪◨
10. greyco+381[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 22:08:11
>>SkyBel+pe
I feel you're missing the forest for the trees... You're advocating a policy of the ultra rich not having to pay tax during their lifetime because it's less complicated.

I understand you're viewing it as a tax increase as the estate pays less tax on death under the current system, but sometimes you need to realise you're stuck in the overton window.

replies(1): >>tracke+JN5
◧◩◪
11. buzzer+ci1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-27 23:17:34
>>andy_p+l9
The first order effects may be extremely positive, but what about the second and third order effects?
◧◩
12. kareem+gq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 00:29:11
>>crysta+Gp
> you have to realize that there will be fewer such startups if a tax on unrealized capital gains is passed, and that VC activity, along with the future startups chasing their money, absolutely will move to countries without such a tax.

That's a bold claim. The tax-averse amongst us say that, but in my experience investment flows to the best ideas / best distribution / best businesses. If those people are in the US because they're citizens, the capital will flow to the US, and investors will take the hit.

◧◩◪◨⬒
13. bryan_+eE1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 03:34:24
>>andy_p+dB
Then it becomes a question of selling the needed asset now during the fire sale or waiting and having to sell even more as the price fails to recover over the years.

SVB would still be around today if it was possible to convince people to not panic sell

replies(1): >>andy_p+xM1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. andy_p+xM1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 05:18:10
>>bryan_+eE1
You don’t know that the company will perform worse because of the owners having to pay their taxes.
replies(1): >>foota+Qi3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
15. foota+Qi3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-28 17:41:28
>>andy_p+xM1
Price shocks in anything are generally bad for the economy (maybe with the exception of some commodities like oil, but even this can be bad since the producers of that commodity will be in trouble). You're too focused on the rich people, and not enough on the economy.

Price shocks are bad because they can cascade and cause businesses to fail, resulting in layoffs, etc.,. Stability is one of the most important things in the economy.

16. tracke+pN5[view] [source] 2024-08-29 15:11:32
>>andy_p+(OP)
It's not just their financial problem... I'm concerned with triggering an event that could make the great depression look like a tropical vacation by comparison.

Just for a second, imagine seeing the sale of roughly 5% of all stocks across the board... what would the side effect of that be? Since all of the very wealthy would be doing the same, that means that the prices will likely go down by more than 5% triggering more downstream sales.

replies(1): >>yadaen+cu6
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. tracke+JN5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 15:14:12
>>greyco+381
My post suggested adding a tax to the leveraged loan at the top. Then they're actually paying taxes on effectively realized gains.
◧◩
18. yadaen+cu6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 19:08:14
>>tracke+pN5
We would see a redistribution of wealth as the middle class buys the new shares.

It’s a closed system at the end of the day so the wealth isn’t vanishing into thin air.

◧◩
19. yadaen+ou6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-08-29 19:10:00
>>foota+A5
It’s standard practice when dealing with huge volumes of shares to sell over a long period of time, we’re not forcing them to sell everything 10 mins before taxes are due.

They will be incentivized to do this otherwise they will get nothing for their shares.

[go to top]