Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!
Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!
Why does it feel like you pretend people with less than a billion dollars or something in that order of magnitude’s neighborhood in unrealized gains would ever be affected by this legislation?
Laws like these should never affect you unless you’re one of like (I’m guessing numbers) 15 people in your country, so I don’t understand the issue people so often have with them. From my point of view, if we don’t change anything to combat wealth inequality, the most likely outcome is civil unrest (esp. with more climate disasters looming on the horizon)… genuine question, please don’t take it with hostility – I would just like to understand “the other side” here: why would you personally oppose this?
P.S. about to hit 6 (euro)figures invested. ≈50/50 stock/ETF split. But I’m not sure if that truly counts toward your opening question since it’s basically the place for my long-term savings money, but there’s no such thing as regulation for a tax-advantaged “retirement investing” (401k etc.) account here, yet 🙃
Fair question, honestly I think it’s ‘hacky’ and there are cleaner approaches. Regulating unrealized gains stands to cause a headache and costs for those navigating an already very complicated tax system.
To work the implementation would require everyone’s assets to be monitored and reported - extra work for tax software, brokers and taxpayers. Plus the development costs to comply with these regulations will be passed onto taxpayers and investors. Yes additional taxes would be recovered but are a drop in the bucket on the scale of the US economy.
To a lesser extent it also discourages regular folk from financial planning since it creates a public perception of “why should I own stock if it’s all going to be taxed anyway?” further concentrating influence on institutional and super wealthy investors.
While I’m still undecided on it, the solution others have proposed of regulating borrowing against collateral seems fairer as it puts the onus on the borrower to carry the admin overhead - regular investors remain unaffected.
Now my hot take - I think this is all a distraction from the real problem with the tax system Step up in Basis. If it wasn’t for step up in basis the gains would at least be taxed on the investor’s death anyway, but right now those who inherit stock get to permanently avoid the taxes on the gains that occurred during the original owner’s lifetime (up to a certain limit). I suspect the politicians responsible for passing such legislation would be too directly affected to address that one.