Let's play the rich get everything. The rules are the rich get everything. participation is mandatory.
Let's play the rich get everything. The rules are the rich get everything. participation is mandatory.
Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You're "free" to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!
You're viewing a single thread.
I think a law stating you can't borrow against unrealized gains would be sensible.
You can keep your unrealized gains forever, live of your dividends for all i care, and pay no tax. But realizing them, either through selling or borrowing against, triggers a taxation.
Are dividends taxed?
"Yes*"
*As with all rules, it can vary by country. As I understand it, the US tends to double tax dividends, which is a rabbit hole of why the US market chases valuation so hard
Dividends paid out to taxable accounts are taxed.
Dividends that pay into non-taxable accounts can accumulate until they are withdrawn.
So, for instance, if you own $100 of Exxon in a regular brokerage account and $100 in an IRA, the $5 dividend you get from the first account is taxable but the $5 from the second is not.
This gets us to the idea of Trusts, Hedge Funds, and other tax-deferred vehicles. If you give $100 to a Hedge fund and it buys a stock in the fund that pays dividends, it never pays you the dividend on the stock so you never have to realize the dividend gain. You simply own "$100 worth of Citadel Investments" which becomes "$105 worth of Citadel Investments" when the dividend arrives.
I think dividends in a tax-exempt accounts, like a traditional IRA, are only not taxed if you reinvest the dividend or just leave it in your brokerage account. If you move money from your IRA account to, say, your checking account, that's when you pay taxes (and there are generally fees for moving money out of tax exempt accounts without meeting certain conditions, like being of retirement age).
I think dividends in a tax-exempt accounts, like a traditional IRA, are only not taxed if you reinvest the dividend or just leave it in your brokerage account.
Right. Although, with a ROTH IRA, you pay taxes before you put the money in. Then you earn tax free even after you take it out. That makes it the preferable vehicle for long-term savings (you should expect your initial investment to double every 10 years, assuming a 7% ROI which is fairly modest - so over 30-40 years you're saving 8x on the eventual withdrawal).
But this isn't just limited to IRAs. Using investment funds, you can pull the same trick. Buy the fund, then allow the broker to shuffle the investments within the fund as they please. You only "earn" the money when you exit the fund, in the same way you only "earn" your retirement when you withdraw from your IRA.
Savings accounts and trusts can then be structured to be inheritable tax-free, with your heirs having access to withdraw from the fund without ever actually owning the money (and thus needing to pay taxes on the inheritance). And to make it even more squirrelly, you can borrow against these funds, which allows you to make large purchases without ever actually spending any money. This maneuver, plus a cagey use of declared loses, means you can avoid paying any tax on any investment income virtually indefinitely.
There is a big maybe on whether Roth is better than traditional IRA/401k.
My kids are at the age where they are making those bets now. So I made a hugely complicated forecasting tool to forecast which would be better.
I think it really comes down to your view on future tax rates.
Your mileage may vary.
I think it really comes down to your view on future tax rates.
Unless you're banking on a 0% tax, the ROTH is hard to beat. Compound that by the Traditional IRA being taxed at the normal rate rather than the capital gains rate, and there's very little reason to use it unless you're really bullish on tax cuts in the long term.
Thanks for expanding on the finer points! With inheritance, they also reset the cost-basis when the owner dies, which means that all the capital gains accumulated over the time that the deceased had ownership is never taxed. Like, if I bought stock for $10, die when it's worth $100, my sister inherits it, and then sells it for $110 a while later, she only pays capital gains on $10 -- not $100.
I don't think people fully realize how dramatically our tax code rewards capital, at the expense of labor, not just in the broad-strokes (like the tax rate for capital gains vs the rates for income tax brakets) but also in these little details that are easy to overlook. So thanks for the discussion!
I largely agree with all the points made here however I think the overall message is a bit misleading. I would disagree that Roth investments are the preferred for long term investments. You aren't accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year. Those taxes, while small compared to what you will withdraw tax free are also losing out on 8x-ing themselves (as you would have invested that amount in a traditional tax advantaged account).
What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement. However traditional is better if you are in a higher marginal rate than you expect to be in retirement. If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.
You aren’t accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year.
If you're maxing out your contributions, it won't matter, except in so far as what you can earn on taxed income outside of the IRA account. That's going to be marginal relative to the contribution. And the compound returns inside the IRA make it meaningless.
What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement.
Unless you're going straight into a white shoe law firm or extraordinary paying tech job after you graduate, that's pretty much everyone. But even folks going into Fortune 500 companies typically start in the $60-80k/year range and climb up from there.
If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.
The amount of money you have in the fund is going to be much larger.
Say I invest $5000/year up front and get a 10% return for 40 years. I'm looking at putting in $200,000 over that time and taking out $2.2M.
Assuming the tax rate is 25% for each of those years, I paid $50k in taxes to invest that initial $200k. But I get the $2.2M back tax-free.
If I put the $200k in tax-deferred, I have to pay $550k to get my balance out again.
Now, we can argue that I could put the $400/year in deferred taxes into a taxable savings account. And maybe we get clever by shielding that investment from taxation annually because we just shove it all in Microsoft or Berkshire B and let it ride. That nets me another $177k over 40 years, assuming the same rate of return (for which I'm still on the hook at 15% long term gains rate - so really only $150k).
The ROTH is $350k better. That's the whole reason the fund exists. It's another accounting gimmick to give wealthy people a stealth tax cut. Only suckers put their money in Trad IRAs.
You seem to be using many different assumptions separately. In the first you assume you are maxing a Roth IRA (in my initial response I was also considering 401ks as many of them have Roth options nowadays). If you are maxing your Roth 401k and Roth IRA you are likely a high earner and therefore likely in a higher tax bracket than you will be in retirement. This means that kind of person will likely prefer traditional investments.
Your assumption there is someone maxing out their retirement options and in a relatively low tax bracket doesn't seem like reality. So in your math example they wouldn't be putting the extra in a taxable brokerage account but in the same tax advantaged account.
Quick edit: also I'm confused on the extra $400/year into taxable account. It should be $1,250 per year (25% of the 5,000) which would be closer to $600,000 before the capital gains tax.
If you are maxing your Roth 401k and Roth IRA
You can't max both, you have to choose between them.
Your assumption there is someone maxing out their retirement options
The math doesn't change if your contributions are smaller. This is a game of percentages.
You definitely can max both a 401k and IRA you can also max an HSA. All these combined allow for an individual (not family) to save $34,150 (there are some edge cases I'm ignoring). Someone who can afford to save almost the US median salary amount is almost certainly going to have a higher benefit from traditional than Roth.
Also, the math completely changes if you aren't maxing because if you aren't maxing the contribution than adding more to the contribution gives you more tax advantaged investments (instead of taxable brokerage investments).
Yes
Not sure if it's the same everywhere, but if I pull a dividend I don't pay tax initially, but when I do my income taxes it's part of my income and I'd have to pay tax on it then
Careful with that. If you're not making estimated tax payments on your dividends (or other capital gains) every quarter or increasing your withholdings from wages to compensate, and you owe too much at the end of the year, you can get hit with penalties and interest.
For most people the quarterly dividends in their brokerage aren't enough to trigger that, but as your savings grows and quarterly dividends become significant they might.
Where I'm from, we don't do that. All dividends come with an "imputation credit," which basically says "this money's already been taxed."
Mhm. There's two very good reason unrealized gains aren't taxed: volatility and cash flow. Are you and the government expected to swap cash back and forth everyday to correct for changes in the market? No that's silly. Should people go into debt because they don't have the cash to pay the taxes of a baseball card they happen to own that is suddenly worth millions? Also silly.
For that same reason, using unrealized gains as security is dangerous, just like the subprime loans market was!
if you secure debt against them, they should be taxed?
Yeah owning a baseball card worth money sure whatever, if you pawn that card sorry, pay taxes. You use that card a to secure a loan with lower interest rates than you'd get without then sorry, you are realizing gains whether or not you want to admit it. This goes along one of the lawsuits against Trump. He lied to get favorable interest rates by overvaluing his assets to get better interest rates. If that's against the law why the fuck is that not counted as a "gain" to use assets to secure favorable interest rates?
There's a very good reason they should be taxed; half a dozen people are richer than god, and basically never pay any real amount of tax.
This would effectively lock out every small investor from the stock market due to the liability of both success and failure.
No it wouldn't. The proposal out there right now has a floor of something like a million dollars. Most of us will never need to worry about that.
I mean the stock market is literally gambling, so the risk of success and failure is already there. The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan. This would only occur if you're worth more than 100 million. You can afford to pay that tax.
I mean the stock market is literally gambling
I've a better record of success than the most successful poker players. Is it ten years of good luck or the consequences of effort and skill?
The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan.
Thus locking out all non-corporate investors from margin, prerequisite to options, prerequisite to risk mitigation and gains enhancement. The average investor looses the freedom to do much more than DCA a fund.
This would only occur if you're worth more than 100 million.
-
It'll never be passed in such a way. Legislation always favors the corporate and wealthy as they're the ones that write it. It's most perverse in finance and investment. There's been nothing favoring human investors since the breakup of Ma Bell.
-
It's totally inadequate to save the republic from the nearly-unmitigated, algorithmically-optimized capitalism that exists today. The biggest fish, corporations, would simply get bigger by eating their biggest threat: humans with a lot of resources, but not the most affluent.
The stock market is a tool. It's not the cause.
TL;DR:
The neolib's proposal is crap.
This isn't:
-
legislate away most of corporate personhood
-
restore the Glass-Steagall Act
-
repeal the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act
In no part of your response did you make any sense or a rational point, demonstrating a clear lack of understanding and a wanton disregard for good-faith arguing. Troll gonna troll I guess.
I can't dumb it down any more. Perhaps another can do so.
was that clear enough?
-
Good
We're talking about the stock market. And it would be quarterly or annual. Please stop exaggerating.
There's a precise moment in time you take a loan. Use that moment in time to calculate worth; tax.
Sure, but this shouldn’t apply to everybody. Unrealized gains up to $10 million don’t get taxed. Unrealized gains over that amount get taxed.
If you pay it yearly you’re not paying this every day. People with this much money almost always go up in unrealized gains every year, so it’s not going to be a back and forth. It’ll be a yearly adjustment. No different than literally everybody else that pays taxes on their new wealth every year.
Edit: as for the baseball card example, if you’ve got over $10 million in unrealized gains on baseball cards, yeah, maybe you pay taxes on that.
Or doing so, it counts the loan as income and is taxed accordingly. But seriously, the main aim itself can also be taxed. A house is...
You'd have to put some controls in there for that solution to work. Hitting new homeowners with an immediate tax on "earning" $1,000,000 to pay for their house seems a bit cruel.
The unrealized gains is for 100 millionaires or more. I don’t think there is anyone with 100million in unrealized home value.
I was talking for a hypothetical world where that law isn't a thing and simply paying capital gains in "realized" gains is.
Nut hey, yeah, sure, 100mil works too.
Capital gains are applied against a cost basis, in the case of your homeowner, their purchase price. Unless the house appreciates in value there is 0 capital gain, even if you made the mortgage a realization event and for some reason implemented this with no residence exemption or tax brackets. It's mad how this point has to be repeatedly explained through this thread.
That was my thoughts as well.
Wouldn't that affect things like Home Equity loans?
Homes are taxed based on assessed value. They are already a form of taxing unrealized gains.
Most of the population either has:
- no unrealized gains
- gains in a retirement account that we can't borrow against
- gains in real estate that are taxed, but can be borrowed against
- a combo of 2 and 3
I think it's fair to ask that the rich play by the same rules. You can either borrow against your gains and pay taxes on them, or not pay taxes and not be able to borrow against them.
No because the mínimum for this to apply is 100 million.
The government also told the public that the income tax was going to apply only to rich people, how'd that turn out?
Depends on the exact implementation, but sure, you could happily write a version where an initial home loan isn't hit, and only "top up" loans against the INCREASED value of your home is targeted.
How are you going to enforce that? The Bank can cite whatever they want for giving the loan.
If we just tax them then it's easily enforceable and it's done.
It can just be flipped on it's head;
How are you going to enforce taxing on value, the person can just cite whatever value they want for the asset.
No they actually can't. In stocks the price is publicly listed by a third party. In real estate an assessor gets involved. For commodities like cars they have to be unique or nearly so before there isn't a third party listing it's value.
For edge cases, especially large real estate, we could always make a second law, one that says the government can buy your building at the value you gave the IRS if it's significantly below market rate on dollars per square foot for it's type (office, industrial, residential, etc), or that it's represented as a higher value in investment reports or bank loans. We'll frame it as a bail out, helping them offload toxic assets. Then the government sells the building on the open market. That way when someone like Trump decides his buildings are suddenly worth less than all of the surrounding buildings we can keep him from going bankrupt again.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-fraud-ruling-property-valuation-michael-cohen
A former sitting president has been indicted, if not convicted of this very crime. You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe it's that uncommon.
It took literal decades and the magnifying glass of running for public office. I'm not comfortable with that being the standard.
It is the standard. Now. Currently.
If you don't like it, might I suggest a guillotine or several. Worked for the French.
Or, we could pass a law changing that standard.
This.
Seems more reasonable than taxing unrealized gains, although I'd prefer if the debate was on how to cut absurd amount of spending rather than trying to find new tax streams.
I'd rather we went back to taxing the rich properly and stopped having crumbling infrastructure.