An unrealized gain is an increase in the value of an asset or investment that an investor has not sold, such as an open stock position. A proposal in the Biden-Harris Administration’s 2025 budget would require households with more than $100 million in wealth to pay income taxes of at least 25 percent of their annual income, including their unrealized capital gains — gains in the value of assets that they have not yet sold. Critics argue that unrealized capital gains, which are a primary source of income for many extremely wealthy households, are mere “paper” gains that do not constitute real income (though they meet a textbook definition of income). Proponents argue that unrealized gains make asset owners (such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk) rich unless they sell their companies’ stock.
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
No
@9TZHQCB9mos9MO
Those who argue that stems from the position of the bourgeois, aka not of the working class. Their opinion has no validity, as they are in the minority.
@9TYJFHK9mos9MO
That's not how truth works. Truth cares not for majority.
As a prole myself, I believe that taxing "unrealised gains" will cause far more harm to lower-class and middle-class people, who put their savings and resources into investments (and investment-taxed things with real use, such as homes).
@B34H6XBIndependent4mos4MO
many of the top 1% in the United States utilize an existing loophole where they take out a massive loan instead of taking out their investment with a 20% capital gains tax. by taxing those unrealized gains, the top 1% will lose a loophole.
If the goal is to make the government more efficient, why does my property tax go up due to my land price going up but the same cannot be said for Unrealized Gains?
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
Yes
@B34H6XBIndependent4mos4MO
many of the top 1% in the United States utilize loopholes to prevent themselves from getting taxes on this.
@n35w101Independent 9mos9MO
Yes, real estate is already taxed annually based on their current valuation, even when not sold. I see no reason why other assets shouldn't be treated similarly.
@B5XR3Q65 days5D
Not true in all regions. See California prop 13. The areas where it is true it contributes to gentrification (forced homelessness of lower income people).
Tax on unrealized gains is a disincentive to investment. It may also force persons to depart with investments early, making it more difficult to save and prepare for the future.
@9TRLW9J10mos10MO
The value of an asset is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. If the item has not sold then there is only speculation on the value. It’s not fair to tax anyone on someone else’s speculation of value.
@9LF6MD2Independent6mos6MO
Property tax should be abolished with this reasoning. Also renters do not pay property tax as property is an asset just as stocks are. Some states only tax on income, some states only tax on property, some tax on both.
How the tax code is written does seem fair. The issue is the compensation CEOs are paid compared to the workers of the company is unfair. There should be an indexed compensation implemented to restrict the compensation from the lowest paid worker all the way up the chain. Something does need to be done. People talk about taxes fixing the issue but maybe it should be compensation ratio to entire workforce of the individual company. The more successful the company the more successful everyone working for the company.
@9TSHCBZ10mos10MO
Only if two criteria are met: 1. it would only apply to individuals with net unrealized gains in a given year of $100 million + 2. they would be able to take unrealized losses against the unrealized gains.
Instead increase taxes on real income of large corporations, and impeach Trump for gutting social welfare to cut taxes for the billionaires
@9TSRQSW10mos10MO
25% is way to much to tax anybody, just because they are making more money than others doesn't mean that they should get a quarter of their annual income taken from them
@9TSHJQ210mos10MO
No, unrealized gains can drop due to the nature of them not being sold. Only realized gains should be taxed because they are locked in. Unrealized gains can become a loss quickly.
@9TTFYGH10mos10MO
I can swallow my pride and acknowledge that I'm not educated enough to give a nuanced answer on this topic. If you're asking "should we tax Bezos' 38 trillion Amazon shares he hasn't sold yet" then sure, why not
Yes, but only for households above a certain amount (ie households with more than $100 million in wealth)
If it means the super wealthy don't have to pay as much taxes as the poor then yes they should be taxed.
@B4BQNLZ3mos3MO
No, instead increase the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for large corporations
@9TQPYWFRepublican10mos10MO
you shouldnt be taxed on an asset that you don't have yet. I think it's extremely stupid that you would get taxed on an investment that you haven't cashed in on yet. If you cash in on the investment then you should be taxed but not 25 % that is ridiculous. You are being punished for doing good for yourself. I feel like it disincentivizes people from investing and making money.
@9TV5QNF9mos9MO
Unrealized gains for people who make a certain amount of money that use said gains to evade taxation should be taxed.
@9TTNNWD9mos9MO
The government should tax unrealized gains over a certain amount, buy the current proposal to assess individuals' net worth is clumsy policy
@9TRW9DQ10mos10MO
I think unrealized gains in excess of 10Million USD should absolutely be taxed. That money should be in circulation
@9TY5QLNProgressive9mos9MO
The government should only tax the unrealized gains of the upper class who make more than the average citizen.
@9TRGFKQ10mos10MO
We won’t need taxes after wealth is redistributed and it becomes impossible to amass wealth to the point than one individual can exploit another.
@9TWTGPT9mos9MO
Yes. There needs to be some way to do it that is fair to all meaning it does harm lower income people.
@9TVFKTT9mos9MO
it shouldn't be raised at all for poor or rich its unfair to everyone to be priced different to their class
@9RR8Q95 10mos10MO
No, this goes against the 1920 Supreme Court decision (Eisner v. Macomber) and would be unrealistic to implement. Instead, tax loan proceeds for those with over $100M in assets.
@9TRHHBS10mos10MO
No, unless there is going to be a suitable replacement option for retirement plans since 401Ks and the stock market as a whole will be extremely negatively impacted when the ultra-rich inevitably liquidate those assets.
@9TVPRS99mos9MO
unrealized gains should be taxed after the user has put the allotted money into said project and whatever they make back from the project you then take 25% of that money to make it fair
@9TTQH589mos9MO
Taxing unrealized gains is like taxing a person for things they think about but might not actually do (I.e it’s preposterous).
@9TSH5MC10mos10MO
I don't want to get into Biden-Harris. They had 3.5 YEARS to do what they say they are gonna do. Where is that?
@WolfMaster88Independent10mos10MO
Yes, and they already do in the form of property taxes.
@B5WHWHX1wk1W
A very small amount possibly something like 2% annually for people with a certain amount like 10 million plus
No, but households with more than $100 million in wealth should still have to pay income taxes of at least 25 percent of their annual income.
@B5TH5YW3wks3W
After a certain gain threshold, it would trigger a owed realized gains tax. If gains are significant and they investor is opening to borrow against the unrealized gain.
Yes, but only in situations of incredible wealth like the 1% where they are living off the loans taken on unrealized gains.
@B5NJBMJ1mo1MO
Instead, increase taxes on real income of large corporations, and impeach Trump for gutting social welfare programs to fund huge tax cuts for billionaires
@B5M2ZKJProgressive1mo1MO
Depends on how much you make. If you are making less than 300,000- then no. Any more then yes, tax ten percent each 100,000 more one makes.
@B5C9RJ3 2mos2MO
Yes, but at a discounted rate that can substitute for the total tax burden upon realizing gains down the road
@B5C3R3G2mos2MO
The government should tax businesses that have a 100% mark up and not allow them to have tax exemptions
@B54ZRRS2mos2MO
Definitely, what if someones main source of income is the distribution/manufacturing of illegal narcotics without the IRS knowing?
@B4TBQFLLibertarian2mos2MO
Redefine "realized" so that the use of assets as collateral for loans realizes them and thus subject to a tax
@9RKZTJY 3mos3MO
Yes, but only with a certain amount of owned stock as this is a common way the ultra-rich avoid income tax
Yes if they have over a certain amount of income. I think it should be annually or gains averaged over a certain amount of time as these gains fluctuate. Not on lower income families or families counting on these stock Investments for retirement. They already get hit hard enough
@9FZPSHS 3mos3MO
No, as a straight wealth tax would be more effective and easier to implement; currently loopholes exist that allow multi-millionaires and billionaires to largely escape taxation their entire lives
@B484DKC3mos3MO
Yes, if we can implement annual property taxes, we can implement annual taxes on the value adjustments of held investment assets. But if we tax unrealized gains, we cannot tax realized gains, as that'd be double taxing the same assets.
@B47J7W23mos3MO
No, wealth taxes are useless One Weird Trick nonsense. It's too hard to tax non-liquid assets. Do a land value tax instead if you're gonna go that route
@B43HWK2Constitution3mos3MO
No, but limit banks to only lend on the book value of securities rather than the market value. Wealthy persons abuse unrealized gains by taking out loans against the appreciated value of securities and use the debt to fund their lifestyle while avoiding taxes.
@B3ZYM5D4mos4MO
No, for the sake of preventing paycuts, preventing inflation, preserving capitalism, checks and balances, a weak-central government, and federalism, the government should not do so
@B3V2H774mos4MO
Unfair because the wealthy people wont have to pay taxes on gains before selling assets. However revenue made can help government fund other things.
@B3N7S484mos4MO
No, we should not tax unrealized gains, but we should increase the taxes on the sale of stocks and real estate instead.
@9992HTR 4mos4MO
Yes, I support a progressive version of that, in order to tax the rich. In addition, I would cut taxes for the poor.
@B3DPRMP4mos4MO
How am I supposed to know what these hyper specific things are? They don’t teach you this in school!
@B3C9CD3 4mos4MO
Yes, given that they already have more than 100 million dollars of wealth as proposed by the Biden-Harris administration.
@B33VTWD5mos5MO
No, but tax largescale transaction over an established industry cap to not penalize those at the lower echelons of introduction to financial stability, and only focus on those of high income trade portfolios and totals.
@B32FJVWIndependent5mos5MO
No, but remove the ability for unrealized gains to be used as though they are realized e.g. using them to obtain low-interest loans
Yes on the rich at 40% to 70% but not at all on the poor, working poor, working, middle and high middle class.
@B2VQ46H5mos5MO
In certain cases yes because of loopholes utilized by rich individuals, however, for those in the lower class it could be crippling.
@B2SSDTD5mos5MO
It shouldn't, although stocks and other assets which aren't technically assets although are, should be taxed.
Yes on the rich at 99% but not at all on the poor, working poor, working, middle and high middle class.
@B2S5B9P5mos5MO
No, but when assets are sold, they should have to pay the taxes they would have had to pay on them while they had them
Yes, but the stocks should not be taxed themselves; the money gained from putting up these assets should be taxed at the income tax rate.
@B2QYR285mos5MO
No, taxing a property somebody already owns will cause financial hardship unnecessarily on people who are already struggling
@B29CLLC6mos6MO
not on famlily houses but when its more like a investment, it totaly should, people buying houses they dont live in should pay tax on those houses but it be illogical to say a citicen should pay more tax to keep there property becouse its made of matterials that have become more expensive due to a very exploited market, it sounds retarded to hear the senario that on year bricks go up in cost 600% and then stabalise the year after to its original price but that the brickhouse ownere would need to pay tax for that? nothing happend in there perspective after all. but to a investor sesing the moment there should be these taxes so it isnt free to hold so many assets thats happen to be essential.
@B22YV237mos7MO
Rather than tax unrealized gains, there should be a fee placed when unrealized assets are used as collateral on a loan. There needs to be a system in place to prevent the buy borrow die strategy utilized by the ultra wealthy. This should only apply to those with a networth of $100M+.
@9ZXSM9P 7mos7MO
If cash flow is not available then the money isn’t real until it’s sold, then it should be taxed when it’s real.
@9ZS5VQG 7mos7MO
Yes, because unrealized are treated as an asset for collateral and give a disproportionate advantage to those using it this way.
@9ZQPHSH7mos7MO
No, if stocks are kept and not sold then the unrealized gain is still invested. If cashed out that income is taxed immediately even if a reinvestment is made. Income tax should not cover investment that is kept in stocks.
@9ZM63F68mos8MO
No, but eliminate step up basis upon death, and require selling of stocks/bonds before they are counted towards estate tax
@9ZLHFMH8mos8MO
Depends if the gains are personal or company, i argue this because unrealized gains can be tips earned from work, but if it is from a company you work for accidentally giving your too much money, i can see it being taxed.
@9ZDS3HZRepublican8mos8MO
Yes, if it doesn’t tax the actual unrealized gains but the income based on individuals with over $100 million in unrealized gains.
@5QXSKLVRepublican 8mos8MO
"Yes, but only for individuals with a net worth of $100 million or more": The government should consider taxing unrealized gains, but this tax should apply exclusively to individuals with a net worth of $100 million or more, affecting less than 1% of taxpayers. This approach would target the ultra-wealthy who often accumulate significant wealth through investments that appreciate in value but remain untaxed until sold. By focusing on this group, the tax would aim to generate substantial revenue without impacting the financial stability of average investors or smaller-scale asset holders. This targeted tax could help address wealth inequality and fund public services, while minimizing disruption to the broader economy.
@9YFHGW48mos8MO
Yes, but it should be substantially lower per year and can be considered part of taxes paid upon sale
@9Y93KP98mos8MO
No, taxes should only occur on realized gains, not on the possibility of a gain, especially as the market fluctuates yearly and who determines the "unrealized" gain for everything each year? The best way is original cost subtracted from sale price to get gain, when you add in yearly fluctuations based on a market not actual occurrence it becomes too cumbersome to support.
@9MGKS4XConstitution 8mos8MO
Yes, once they reach beyond a reasonable level, to prevent multi-millionaires and billionaires from using this loophole to avoid paying taxes. For most average citizens, let them grow some wealth and independence.
@9Y45DZH8mos8MO
Depends on the gain, like if you win the lottery you shouldn't be taxed too much higher to the point where you lose half of your winnings.
@4ZPG52K 8mos8MO
Households at that wealth level should have restrictions on borrowing money to increase pressure on turning these gains into realized gains, which should then be taxed at their normal rate..
@9XXD4RW8mos8MO
no, non capisco la tassa sui guadagni ad una persona e un concetto marxista che non può essere attuato. il guadagno è personale
@9XWPH7V8mos8MO
Yes, but for exorbitant amounts that impact the top 10% of those who have wealth and continue to gain wealth in this aspect.
@9XSR8FM8mos8MO
Yes, but only as part of a holistic wealth tax, and only when all other methods of taxation have been exhausted.
@9XNZ2XK8mos8MO
We should all be taxed the same based. Just because you make more money should not mean less tax. We need to tax corporations also not give.them free land, discounts, water ways just to build in or cities
@9XGHQW28mos8MO
Yes, above a certain threshold. It could be a means of prudent spending for individuals. Taxing unrealized gains should only go against wealthy individuals.
@9X5VLQP8mos8MO
Yes but only at a certain level of annual income. No unrealized gains for individuals or funds with less than $2.5m in assets held
@9X3TTS68mos8MO
No, but the government should tax funds received via loans that are "backed" by unrealized assets/investments
@JcawolfsonGreen 7mos7MO
No, as it could unfairly burden individuals, especially if market fluctuations cause asset values to drop. Tax gains only when they are realized!
@9WRH3WYProgressive8mos8MO
We should tax any loans taken out using unrealized gains as collateral such as how the billionaires avoid paying taxes.
@9WQRV6M8mos8MO
Yes, but only if these unrealized gains are utilized in some fashion that allows the owner to extract any level of value, such as using an asset with unrealized gains as collateral for personal loans.
@9WM62NK8mos8MO
If unrealized gains can’t be taxed, they should also not be allowed to be used as leverage for loans and other untaxable monetary access.
@9WKBKF68mos8MO
They should be taxed whenever they are used in some capacity to secure a large loan. As collateral, they are recognizing its value without using it. In instances like that, tax it.
@9WJ8SXMIndependent8mos8MO
If those unrealized gains are used as collateral for loans, they should be taxed. Unrealized gains that don't provide financial benefit should not. The problem to solve is wealthy people funding their lifestyle through debt, and maintaining most of their assets in unrealized gains which they borrow against.
@9WBZLML8mos8MO
Only for the very wealthy, as for the less wealthy this prevents people from improving their lives outside of traditional jobs, which typically cannot change one's life who doesn't already have economic access to a high level of education and resources.
@9WB62KM9mos9MO
Only for individuals who have the ability to use their unrealized gains to subvert the tax process. I.E. The ultra rich.
@9W78YR8Independent9mos9MO
NO, this is one of the dumbest ideas out there - will they also provide a break for unrealized losses?
@x10guy9mos9MO
No, but any loans that are taken out against their stock should be taxed at the same rate as capital gains.
@9W5YC669mos9MO
Only if they are being used as collateral for a loan. At which point they are essentially being given a value and realized.
Yes, but at a drastically lowered rate as the unrealized gains do not yet have a set monetary value. This would prevent large stock brokers from dumping large sums of money into a stock to claim it as "unrealized".
@9W2KG4W 9mos9MO
Yes, if the gains are above a very large dollar threshold and the asset is liquid with a clear market value.
@9VJYDSPIndependent9mos9MO
No, but the utilization of unrealized capital gains to secure loans to avoid taxation should be banned, or those loans taxed as earned income.
Yes, if those unrealized gains are used as collateral or reap benefits that are immediate they should be taxed.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
