4 ms·
Why are you assuming that means you need to make 400k / yr, you could make 50k in salary and sell stock worth more than 350k
by dsugarman 5y ago
Why are you assuming that means you need to make 400k / yr, you could make 50k in salary and sell stock worth more than 350k
- Traster 5y agoMaybe I'm missing something about this - but the money you get from selling stock isn't income.
- bombcar 5y agoIt may not be earned income but it’s income. Capital gains.
- Traster 5y agoNo, only the gain is income, the value of the stock is not. In your example you would need your stock to have gained 350k and to sell it all. You could sell 349k this year and pay nothing, and 1k next year and pay nothing.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoIt is for the purpose of calculating your tax rate. Otherwise rich people who have 0 earned income and make all their money from stocks would pay literally 0%[1] [1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409
- Traster 5y agoAs I said in the other reply, this is wrong. Only the gain is accounted for as income, not the capital. So you basically have two scenarios - you have huge capital and a small gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. Or you have small capital and a massive gain, in which case you should pay your damn tax. And remember- this is only paid if you chose to sell that amount in a financial year. Oh, and afer you pay your tax, phone up all the people you've met that day and explain to them how you've still payed less tax than they pay on their income despite your income literally being unearned.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoMiscommunication, I took the gp's "stock worth more than 350k" to mean gains worth more than 350k. You only pay tax on gains anyway so it seems moot to talk about the original value in terms of thresholds.