4 ms·

If the underlying asset is real (not speculative) and it grows, then it is income. So it should be taxed whether you spend it or not. But nobody wants this bec

If the underlying asset is real (not speculative) and it grows, then it is income. So it should be taxed whether you spend it or not. But nobody wants this because we all know it’s pure speculation. That is why we call it “unrealized gains”. If everyone tomorrow tries to cash out their Apple stock, except from the first few, all the rest will get 1 cent each. There is no value in these tickets, just the power of combined speculation.

rsj_hn 5y ago
The thing is, there is no need for people to be inventing their own accounting standards, particularly in the area of tax accounting. These debates about accrual versus cash based accounting have been hashed out long ago. Nothing material has changed just because there is a new tax initiative proposed. There is such great risk in that to create self-serving definitions that the industry as a whole decided these terms needed standardization and definition. Now we already have these standards, so let's just stick with them and all use the same meaning of "income" rather than switching to something based on personal intuition. If you want to change the tax code, change the tax code, don't try to redefine "income".
jollybean 5y ago
No, unrealized gains are not income. We 'don't want it' to be taxed because it doesn't make sense. Also, you'd have to provide a tax shield for the losses as well. There are so many things wrong with taxing on 'mark to market value'. We can barely get away with it in real estate, but that market acts more rationally, and most of it is about rent extraction.
- whatever1 5y ago
  “ Also, you'd have to provide a tax shield for the losses as well.” Not really. My car is losing 10% of its value each year but nobody is returning me the sales tax I paid for the full price. Let alone returning me some of lost value. Why if your stock depreciates do I have to compensate you?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    You are not paying taxes on the unrealized capital gains made from buying your car. Can you imagine if your Tesla was deemed to have a market value of 2x what you bought it for, because a few random idiots were trying to buy it up? And you had a gigantic tax bill on that? Unrealized gains are not gains. What 'someone else' is willing to pay for your property isn't necessarily very well related to how you value it. It might possibly work for real estate in controlled conditions but even then it's risky. For equities, it's really hard to have an asset tax.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Say you bought a vintage car -- do you have to pay more sales tax each time the car appreciates? I know some owners of FJ Cruisers that would be pretty upset.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      Depends on what you decide on the question I asked. Personally I believe that your claimed cars value is speculative since you don’t mass produce and sell it widely. As a result, it makes no sense to tax you for the unrealized gains. When you actually find a loser to buy it for the asking higher price then you should be taxed for your lottery earnings.
    - desdiv 5y ago
      >Say you bought a vintage car -- do you have to pay more sales tax each time the car appreciates? Some states and countries actually do tax personal property like cars. Virginia and Rhode Island, for example. In those jurisdictions, if you have a vintage car in 2021 worth $100k, then you pay $100k * TAX_RATE in 2021. If the value of your car jumps up to $200k in 2022 (due to a movie or something), then you pay $200k * TAX_RATE in 2022. As long as the property is still in your possession, you pay property tax on it.
      - bavell 5y ago
        How is the new value of the vintage car determined? Isn't that speculative? Do I get to decide every year how much I think it's appreciated?

rsj_hn 5y ago

The thing is, there is no need for people to be inventing their own accounting standards, particularly in the area of tax accounting. These debates about accrual versus cash based accounting have been hashed out long ago. Nothing material has changed just because there is a new tax initiative proposed. There is such great risk in that to create self-serving definitions that the industry as a whole decided these terms needed standardization and definition. Now we already have these standards, so let's just stick with them and all use the same meaning of "income" rather than switching to something based on personal intuition. If you want to change the tax code, change the tax code, don't try to redefine "income".

jollybean 5y ago

No, unrealized gains are not income. We 'don't want it' to be taxed because it doesn't make sense. Also, you'd have to provide a tax shield for the losses as well. There are so many things wrong with taxing on 'mark to market value'. We can barely get away with it in real estate, but that market acts more rationally, and most of it is about rent extraction.

whatever1 5y ago
“ Also, you'd have to provide a tax shield for the losses as well.” Not really. My car is losing 10% of its value each year but nobody is returning me the sales tax I paid for the full price. Let alone returning me some of lost value. Why if your stock depreciates do I have to compensate you?
- jollybean 5y ago
  You are not paying taxes on the unrealized capital gains made from buying your car. Can you imagine if your Tesla was deemed to have a market value of 2x what you bought it for, because a few random idiots were trying to buy it up? And you had a gigantic tax bill on that? Unrealized gains are not gains. What 'someone else' is willing to pay for your property isn't necessarily very well related to how you value it. It might possibly work for real estate in controlled conditions but even then it's risky. For equities, it's really hard to have an asset tax.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Say you bought a vintage car -- do you have to pay more sales tax each time the car appreciates? I know some owners of FJ Cruisers that would be pretty upset.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    Depends on what you decide on the question I asked. Personally I believe that your claimed cars value is speculative since you don’t mass produce and sell it widely. As a result, it makes no sense to tax you for the unrealized gains. When you actually find a loser to buy it for the asking higher price then you should be taxed for your lottery earnings.
  - desdiv 5y ago
    >Say you bought a vintage car -- do you have to pay more sales tax each time the car appreciates? Some states and countries actually do tax personal property like cars. Virginia and Rhode Island, for example. In those jurisdictions, if you have a vintage car in 2021 worth $100k, then you pay $100k * TAX_RATE in 2021. If the value of your car jumps up to $200k in 2022 (due to a movie or something), then you pay $200k * TAX_RATE in 2022. As long as the property is still in your possession, you pay property tax on it.
    - bavell 5y ago
      How is the new value of the vintage car determined? Isn't that speculative? Do I get to decide every year how much I think it's appreciated?