You didn't think ol poopy pants thought of this himeself, did you? No xhe had xhelp.

Gigem_94 said:

---

Imagine what happens to the market when people en masse have to sell a 1/3 of their stock to pay their taxes every April.

---

And then pay taxes on anything they made from selling 1/3 of their stock to pay their taxes from last year. Rinse. Repeat. This would be truly destructive.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The stupidity of wanting to tax unrealized gains.

"Unrealized" from Google: "not made real or actual"

To double down on the stupidity, a lot of your unrealized gain can be due simply to inflation. Why the hell should you pay taxes on inflation?

Leave it to Dems to set new records of stupidity and thievery in their ongoing quest to take from the makers to give to the takers.

---

If they can just get the dictionaries to change the definition of "unrealized" to be the same as "realized,"'then this will make perfect sense.

Yep, would crater the market from people selling to cover taxes. Then we won't have to worry about capital gain taxes anymore because there will be no capital gains

Taxing unrealized gains is a brazen, dangerous, confiscation ploy to go along with the many already in place.

We are beset by new-left/ post modernists impudently changing culture to fit their axioms; and still, we have old-left Marxists looking to take your wealth for class-based retribution.

Again, and again, the saying is true, yet millions of morons don't understand it: you talk your self into socialism but have to shoot your way out of it.

Do we miss mean tweets yet?

The tax on unrealized gains we have in place for real estate one too many.

The problem with taxing unrealized gains goes over and beyond paying it. It is the costs associated with determining how much gain there is. Stocks and bonds are easy, real estate is already valued (though not accurately) in most places, but most of those that would be subject to this proposed tax would own (wholly or in part) many interests in businesses that are not publicly held. When I was still in practice, I had several clients that owned 4 to 6 pass-through entities, and two that owned a dozen or more. I would guess they would have to have some sort of appraisal done annually which would be very costly.

Biden is past his sell by date and needs to go on to wherever he is destined to go.

Kraft Punk said:

---

Do we miss mean tweets yet?

---

Is the basis for "needing" this policy the fact that many wealthy people use those unrealized gains as collateral to gain access to cheap money that the average Joe can't get? I don't think anything should change, but if you wanted to change anything I think I should be the loan policy, not taxing. As many others have said, these people are going to have to sell a **** load of assets every year just to pay the note. It's idiotic.

Only a financially ignorant buffoon would think of such a thing. Throw the bums out.

The Banned said:

---

Is the basis for "needing" this policy the fact that many wealthy people use those unrealized gains as collateral to gain access to cheap money that the average Joe can't get? I don't think anything should change, but if you wanted to change anything I think I should be the loan policy, not taxing. As many others have said, these people are going to have to sell a **** load of assets every year just to pay the note. It's idiotic.

---

This is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. I think cheap loan money is the basis for this proposal. Classic example: you buy a commercial building for $1 million in cash and lease it out. Over the next 10 years it goes up to $5 million in value. You take out a loan for $4 million based on the new, higher value of the asset you bought, and you just let the asset cash flow to pay off the $4 million note. In that scenario, you've realized $4 million in cash, but it's not taxable because it's a loan, not income. This is obviously dumbed down, but that's the gist of it.

Under this new proposal, they still can't tax your loan dollars, but they can get to it by taxing the $4 million increase in value over that 10 years. Before, they couldn't tax either one.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that maybe that $4 million should be taxed somehow in that scenario, but I agree with you it needs to be addressed on the loan side, not on the equity side. In that same example, if the owner of the building doesn't take out a loan, then he has to pay taxes on $4 million he literally does not have, so he has to sell the asset.

A blanket proposal to tax all unrealized gains is just flat out insane and evil.

It's stupid and won't work... but it's **** like this that should lead to a revolution.

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Is the basis for "needing" this policy the fact that many wealthy people use those unrealized gains as collateral to gain access to cheap money that the average Joe can't get? I don't think anything should change, but if you wanted to change anything I think I should be the loan policy, not taxing. As many others have said, these people are going to have to sell a **** load of assets every year just to pay the note. It's idiotic.

---

This is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. I think cheap loan money is the basis for this proposal. Classic example: you buy a commercial building for $1 million in cash and lease it out. Over the next 10 years it goes up to $5 million in value. You take out a loan for $4 million based on the new, higher value of the asset you bought, and you just let the asset cash flow to pay off the $4 million note. In that scenario, you've realized $4 million in cash, but it's not taxable because it's a loan, not income. This is obviously dumbed down, but that's the gist of it.

Under this new proposal, they still can't tax your loan dollars, but they can get to it by taxing the $4 million increase in value over that 10 years. Before, they couldn't tax either one.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that maybe that $4 million should be taxed somehow in that scenario, but I agree with you it needs to be addressed on the loan side, not on the equity side. In that same example, if the owner of the building doesn't take out a loan, then he has to pay taxes on $4 million he literally does not have, so he has to sell the asset.

A blanket proposal to tax all unrealized gains is just flat out insane and evil.

---

I'd oppose taxing the loan since the loan has to be paid back at some point. And yes, taxing unrealized gains is insane and evil and I think so every year when I pay all my property taxes which are based on unrealized gains.

Obviously any implementation of this is a really bad idea, but what is Biden's administration proposing as far as what income/asset level that this would begin?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

This is insanity. Along with the CG tax raise. Absolutely insane.

---

Biden Treasury Department says we need higher taxes on capital gains because it would hurt white people more and take away their wealth.

Whites own too many stocks and businesses, so they need to pay. pic.twitter.com/JVv9T4zL2q

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) April 25, 2024

WHITE PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY YOU NEED TO PAY REPARARIONS…I MEAN TAXES!

Make no mistake, they are coming for everything you have. You will either die broke as a slave or die fighting for your family. We will soon have few options.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Most people would have to sell assets to pay the tax. That would flood the market with assets, which would collapse prices, and crater the capital economy. That is why this is never done by any sane government.

---

You left out a step after prices crater. The truly mega wealthy buy everything very cheap, end up owning everything and have complete control over everyone.

Cromagnum said:

---

"It only affects the rich" is the biggest lie they can tell, but voters are too dumb to realize it will affect everyone.

---

. That was the line I think when the federal income tax was added as a constitutional amendment.

The unrealized gains tax will force people to trade assets for worthless fiat. This is a socialist takeover.

rgag12 said:

---

It's a trial balloon.

---

Exactly. So many people either don't understand that or don't want to admit it.

Biden's been around Washington forever. He knows how this works. Start out with something far higher than you really want, and then negotiate back towards your real goal.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It affects everyone when the "rich" start to rapidly divest from American investments to overseas investments.

---

Maybe their plot includes the idea that money has to flee the rest of the world like Peter Z. predicts.

I doubt that, but it would partially explain the plan.

America citizens will flee this country in droves just like they are fleeing blue states. Finding another country to live in better than old America is impossible. Finding another country to live in better than Biden's banana republic will be much easier.

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Is the basis for "needing" this policy the fact that many wealthy people use those unrealized gains as collateral to gain access to cheap money that the average Joe can't get? I don't think anything should change, but if you wanted to change anything I think I should be the loan policy, not taxing. As many others have said, these people are going to have to sell a **** load of assets every year just to pay the note. It's idiotic.

---

This is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. I think cheap loan money is the basis for this proposal. Classic example: you buy a commercial building for $1 million in cash and lease it out. Over the next 10 years it goes up to $5 million in value. You take out a loan for $4 million based on the new, higher value of the asset you bought, and you just let the asset cash flow to pay off the $4 million note. In that scenario, you've realized $4 million in cash, but it's not taxable because it's a loan, not income. This is obviously dumbed down, but that's the gist of it.

Under this new proposal, they still can't tax your loan dollars, but they can get to it by taxing the $4 million increase in value over that 10 years. Before, they couldn't tax either one.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that maybe that $4 million should be taxed somehow in that scenario, but I agree with you it needs to be addressed on the loan side, not on the equity side. In that same example, if the owner of the building doesn't take out a loan, then he has to pay taxes on $4 million he literally does not have, so he has to sell the asset.

A blanket proposal to tax all unrealized gains is just flat out insane and evil.

---

My thought as well. It would seem to me even something as simple as saying you can only use the purchase amount as collateral would work. If you'd like to sue the higher value, then pay the tax on it.

In your example, you buy a $1 million dollar building, that would be the only amount you can report for loan purposes. But if you want to use the $5 million amount, then pay taxes on it.

I I'm not sure that it's even necessary, but this would be a far wiser solution than the dumbass tax they're proposing.