4 ms·
That seems like a reasonable approach. That's much preferable to a tax on realized gains and a tax on unrealized gains. In the US when you buy a mutual fund you
by lateforwork 11mo ago
That seems like a reasonable approach. That's much preferable to a tax on realized gains and a tax on unrealized gains. In the US when you buy a mutual fund you're already paying a "tax", for example, Fidelity eats 0.83% if you invest in their FSLVX mutual fund [1].
[1] https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/316128602 https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31612...
- dwightgunning 11mo agoThat's not a tax, that's the expense ratio, which is basically describing fees captured by the fund manager. Funds accessible to Dutch investors involve similar ERs. It's not an alternative.
- lateforwork 11mo agoYes, the tax can be thought of an extra expense ratio. Same impact on you, at the end of the day.
- krageon 11mo agoIt can be thought of the same way, but not from the perspective that's under discussion. As such it doesn't really add anything except a new perspective. Why are you introducing it, what does it add?
- lateforwork 11mo agoYou don't have to worry about tax implications when timing stock sale.
- Volundr 11mo agoCalling the expense ratio a tax is like calling the labor cost of your car repair a tax. The expense ratio is what the fund manager is charging to cover their labor and expenses. It's not a tax on the transaction going to the government.
- lateforwork 11mo agoNo, I am saying the tax is like an additional expense ratio.
- Volundr 11mo agoAh, that makes more sense. Sorry I was not getting there from the original comment.