4 ms·

> "Yes, this is a big part of why there's now a common argument that unrealized (but very large) capital gains should be taxed." So how will the person pay for

> "Yes, this is a big part of why there's now a common argument that unrealized (but very large) capital gains should be taxed." So how will the person pay for those taxes WITHOUT selling the underlining asset. This is a huge problem in startup land with something called AMT. Where you "on paper" are a millionaire but have no ability to sell your paper shares since the company hasn't IPO yet. I'd hate to live in a word where you have to pay taxes on unrealized gains because it's not like you're going to get a tax break for unrealized losses.

owisd 5y ago
Do they need to sell to pay their taxes? Government could just accept the shares as payment in kind, plenty of uses for them without selling: sovereign wealth fund, state pension fund, employee owned trust.
Teknoman117 5y ago
I would imagine that what would end up being implemented would be more nuanced. If most of your on-paper net worth is unsellable assets, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say those wouldn't be subject to a hypothetical wealth tax. Tax law has plenty of examples of various assets having unaccessed value until it's sold. Publicly tradable shares have value because I can sell them to someone for a fairly visible price. If I can't sell it, you could make the argument it's really not worth anything. AMT also happens plenty to non-startup world people. Own a house and have a combined household income of >200k? You're probably dealing with AMT.
- alberth 5y ago
  Let's pull on this thread some more. So if I purchase a home and it's my primary dwelling, and the fair market value of my home goes way up (like more than what my homestead cap is) - I should pay INCOME taxes on this UNREALIZED gain? See why this is so bonkers. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the super rich to pay more in taxes ... but they are not using any "loop holes" here or getting preferential treatment. It's just that they have radically way more unrealized gains than ordinary people do. It'd be interesting if all those people who had huge unrealized Bitcoin gains had to start paying ordinary income taxes on it.
  - fogof 5y ago
    In the comment you replied to, the commenter says: > If most of your on-paper net worth is unsellable assets, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say those wouldn't be subject to a hypothetical wealth tax. Wouldn't a primary dwelling fall under this umbrella?
    - alberth 5y ago
      I don't think so. A home is a tangible asset easy to sell. Paper shares in a startup is totally different.
  - digianarchist 5y ago
    In the UK this is how they planned to fund social care. Taxes would be collected when you sell your home but "levied" earlier. It was labelled the Dementia Tax and was deeply unpopular.

owisd 5y ago

Do they need to sell to pay their taxes? Government could just accept the shares as payment in kind, plenty of uses for them without selling: sovereign wealth fund, state pension fund, employee owned trust.

Teknoman117 5y ago

I would imagine that what would end up being implemented would be more nuanced. If most of your on-paper net worth is unsellable assets, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say those wouldn't be subject to a hypothetical wealth tax. Tax law has plenty of examples of various assets having unaccessed value until it's sold. Publicly tradable shares have value because I can sell them to someone for a fairly visible price. If I can't sell it, you could make the argument it's really not worth anything. AMT also happens plenty to non-startup world people. Own a house and have a combined household income of >200k? You're probably dealing with AMT.

alberth 5y ago
Let's pull on this thread some more. So if I purchase a home and it's my primary dwelling, and the fair market value of my home goes way up (like more than what my homestead cap is) - I should pay INCOME taxes on this UNREALIZED gain? See why this is so bonkers. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of the super rich to pay more in taxes ... but they are not using any "loop holes" here or getting preferential treatment. It's just that they have radically way more unrealized gains than ordinary people do. It'd be interesting if all those people who had huge unrealized Bitcoin gains had to start paying ordinary income taxes on it.
- fogof 5y ago
  In the comment you replied to, the commenter says: > If most of your on-paper net worth is unsellable assets, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say those wouldn't be subject to a hypothetical wealth tax. Wouldn't a primary dwelling fall under this umbrella?
  - alberth 5y ago
    I don't think so. A home is a tangible asset easy to sell. Paper shares in a startup is totally different.
- digianarchist 5y ago
  In the UK this is how they planned to fund social care. Taxes would be collected when you sell your home but "levied" earlier. It was labelled the Dementia Tax and was deeply unpopular.