BIDEN is now backing- INCOME TAX ON UN-REALIZED GAINS......

What is the percentage of those working lower class and middle class have their jobs because the upper 1% invests in the companies where they work?

The top 1% currently pays 40.1% of all taxes collected by the US government. That does not even include the state and local taxes that they pay. Now, the thing that most liberal fail to acknowledge is that the top 1% are not all billionaires. They include individuals making as little as $540,000 annually. The top 1% earns 20.9% of the total AGI in this country, and pays 40.1% of all the taxes collected. That is hardly them not paying their fair share.

 

He wasn't talking about business, though, rather about investments. The truth is, his post didn't make any sense, and you know it. BTW: I am an investor, too. While I haven't had the need for tax loss harvesting, because I am buy and hold, I know about the practice.

Here is a good explanation:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax_loss_harvesting

I guess in his case, the $3,000 was the max he could deduct from the loss. However, he made it appear that the tax man got him on the loss, when in reality, the other tax payers covered part of his loss. He should be grateful. But, rather, he bitc%es.

 

If this is done fairly, it might hurt on one end, but equal out on the other. Yet the overall impact for the Federal Government, if done fairly would not have any impact on their overall government, and could hurt the stock markets in the long run.

How to apply this law fairly: Billionaires are required to file quarterly tax returns. For this law to apply fairly, they would have to be required to pay taxes on any stocks, dividends or assets that gain in value during that quarter. But they would also have to be allowed to file depreciation for losses on assets. So, if a stock goes up in one quarter, and then loses value in the next he would pay taxes in one quarter, and then claim the loss in the next. Hence breaking even.

How could it be applied unfairly: Require taxation of quarterly potential gains, and not allow to take credits for loses. In that case, I seriously doubt the law would survive a SCOTUS challenge.

Let me put an unfair application into prospective. It would be the same as a boss telling an employee that we are going to give him/her/it a pay raise in six months but start taxing him at the higher rate now. If the employee were to quit, get fired or laid off in the next six months, those extra taxes would not come back to him/her/it. They would just be lost. That would hardly be fair.

 

No. That happens because they unfairly benefit from the overly complicated tax code. You could get off tax free as well if you could afford to hire an entire law firm to comb through its 70,000 pages to find the loopholes that apply to you. That would of course cost you more than it would save you unless you make millions of dollars a year.

 

No need for a HS diploma to understand this,.

In this case, the question was having that 30K loss offset other personal income. They want to "depreciate" or amortize the investment loss over 10 years, which gained them more taxes on the overall personal side.

If you make $30 on one stock and lose $30 on another, that is a wash. This was in summary for personal income tax, where the market loss should have offset other taxable income.
You make $30K in the market, and they want tax on $30K. No postponement. This constitutes a double standard, depending on if they benefit or not. They get immediate tax on a realized gain, but the taxpayer has to take his loss over 10 years. At least- that's what I got stuck with. I rarely have market losses; this is the only time it happened this way

 

On the contrary- I have no objection to paying my fair taxes. I object to finding out I'm not dealing with a fair system. I object to not getting my money's worth for the taxes we may, meaning the incredible waste. I object to the terrible mismanagement and addiction to spending and waste, in total disregard for the finances of the people.

We owe the government a fair share of taxes. The government owes us- prudence in economics, to be good stewards of our money, accountability and fairness. We're not getting any of that.

 

If a capital gain is taxable, so too should be a capital loss. Also remember every dollar invested has already been taxed or will be taxed in the future. The "investor class" as you call it numbers around 140 million.

 

The time to take on the Democrats, on everything, including their tax breaks for the rich scheme, is right now!

"JOE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS": High noon for Biden and Democrats in Arizona.

​

 

To me your post doesn't make any sense.

 

In the U.S. businesses are taxed on net profit. If payment wasn't received, it didn't contribute to profit and, hence is not taxed. Accounts receivable are an asset, not considered taxable profit. Businesses are allowed to carry over the amount of a net loss for the year until future profits have covered the loss.

 

Why? If you sell you car for a loss, it is not tax deductible. Same goes for selling your house at a loss. Why are investments treated differently? Oh, I now why, because the wealthy have lobbied for special treatment.

Second, the proposed change doesn't affect 140 million people. Only <25% of all investments are in taxable accounts. That doesn't mean that 25% of investors have taxable accounts, the % is probably much less, I'd guess no more than 10%. That means that only <20 million Americans would be affected.

Now, I am against this proposal. Why? Because it would be hard to enforce and I don't believe it will pass congress. Just up the % tax on realized capital gains, and that's most of what I read about the tax proposal.

BTW: I personally own stock funds in a taxable account, so I would be affected by this proposal.

 

Fallacy, straw man: The state does not tax capital gains on simple property (yet).

Capital gains should not be taxed. We can start there. But if we are going to tax equity in real property or securities as income, then we should credit a loss in equity against an income tax liability.

Nor did I argue that it did.

Irrelevant.

Hard to enforce, will encourage investors to seek other avenues out side of the spectre of the taxing authority, likely offshore.

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: You are not the topic of this thread.

 

That's true- over half the adult population of the country has some kind of investment interest. 401k plans, many ways people are tied in; there's a lot of everyday people who's future finances depend on the health of the market and economy.

 

In my state, capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. No doubt it varies across the states, but I have little doubt that any government chooses not to grab a piece of any gains they can.

 

True!
What's more, most of us can't make the kind of donations that buy you some special accommodation tucked under cover in a bill regulating farming or that otherwise wont be looked at closely- and nearly every bill is like a drug mule, packing a load of stuff they don't want you to know about....

It doesn't have to be complicated; they have intentionally chosen to make these laws incomprehensible to those who they apply to.

 

Just short-term? Is that for long-term gains as well? And of course, the IRS doesn't care what state you live in .

 

What ever you report as taxable income on your federal, this state uses that number for your state income tax base. They don't care about short or long term.

 

This impacts everyone that trades! You don't have to be super wealthy for this stupid idea to hit. Unless I am missing some cap somewhere. If so, please advise where my investments would be not subjugated to this absolute tyrannical policy.

 

I'm fairly sure that taxing unrealized gains would be the easy part. Initiating a refund for unrealized losses would be secondary and the amount of auditors to manage such a task would surely outweigh any tax gains the government would get from this ridiculous policy!

 

How do you suppose America got to a place where anyone in government would even suggest such a despotic bolshevik / Chinese communist idea - or that anyone would support it?

 

I wish you spent more time on why that is such an absolutely horrible idea. This is simply a more narrowly target wealth tax that in the end will destroy home ownership in the country, end the Roth IRA, 401k, and many other successful retirement plans and all but set economic stratification in stone. It will become in the vastly easier to become poorer and vastly more difficult to become rich.

In short it is a short cut to the sort of distopian society seen in the 'Hunger Games'.

 

The national debt is the driver here. Obama started us on a policy of refinancing the debt with lower interest short term bonds. We have now hit the bottom of our ability to continue to do that and eek out a little more money to spend. The fed is also saturated with bonds. They also can only try to control inflation by raising interest rates but that throws our debt costs up as well. The only path forward with any new spending is to force the wealthy into the bond markets as to evade the draconian unrealized gains taxes. So you either lend Quid Pro Joe your money or he just comes in and takes it outright.

 

I should have been more concise - how did America get to a place, MORALLY, where our own government consists of the communist despots that did this?

 

Raising the cost of debt is actually a positive. Debt is bad. Your debt, my debt and the government's debt. Bad.

 

You pay your bills and you pay the government's bills. Thing is you can pay off your bills. The government is never going to pay off theirs.