Nobody reading this is rich enough to have to worry about it.Neither does anyone who IS rich enough, because this is DOA
Neither does anyone who IS rich enough, because this is DOA
Unrealized gains tax? Is that a thing already? What happens if you go up one year and then your stocks tank right after tax dayCapital gains are realized.
Taken as a whole, then, the 44.6% rate would only come to fruition under a separate proposal from the Biden administrations main capital gains rate increase, and only apply to those individuals with taxable income above $1 million and investment income above $400,000. That isnt quite as cataclysmic a policy shift as referring to a blanket 44.6% long-term capital gains rate would suggest.
The presentation of the 44.6% capital gains rate proposal is a strategic policy maneuverloudly shouting a startlingly high percentage while mutely ignoring the crucial aspect of income thresholds. The intent appears to be to play on public sentiments and concerns, more specifically the political landmine of adverse outcomes for small business owners.
https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/?sh=1b27bb01ff64That's about what I expected. This percentage would only tax the turbo rich.
Bring it on.
No reason why earned wages should be taxed at a higher rate than investment income which requires literally no effort.
https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/?sh=1b27bb01ff64
Investment income has risk associated with it.So does work.
Investment income has risk associated with it.And if you have losses, you get to deduct it from your taxes that year.
Lol canada just instituted a 65% capital gains tax on anything over $250k.
Why the fuck were doctors complaining about it? Is it ALL income over $250k? Or just money gained on the stock market?
just treat capital gains as normal income.
Investment income has risk associated with it.So does gambling, we still tax the shit out of that income.
Taken as a whole, then, the 44.6% rate would only come to fruition under a separate proposal from the Biden administrations main capital gains rate increase, and only apply to those individuals with taxable income above $1 million and investment income above $400,000. That isnt quite as cataclysmic a policy shift as referring to a blanket 44.6% long-term capital gains rate would suggest.
Nobel winning economist proposes a 2% tax on the 3,000 richest people on the planet. Only Germany flat out disagrees with it.
We won't get that either.
The thing I dont understand about this is why the income tax threshold is so high ($1,000,000) but the investment tax threshold is so low ($400,000). Doesnt that investment tax apply to any 401k or IRA that retirees roll over? A million a year is a lot of money, and Im sure no one here would argue with that being taxed.
But, even if I personally have $0 retirement, $400k in a lifetime of working, saving, and investing doesnt sound like that much; especially with insane inflation. It seems like its specifically designed to punish people for trying to save up for retirement, especially in blue states where annual income is higher. I dont even think retiring in CA would be possible with less than $400k from investments, and then the government takes almost half of it?
I know there are the super rich who would be effected by their routine hundred thousand dollar investments, but adding a clause to give retirees a one time leniency seems like it would be a better way to go. Unless Im misunderstanding something here, then Id appreciate someone trying to politely clear it up.
Uh....pretty sure 401K and IRA are always taxed as income. Not sure what you mean by "roll over", though.Roll it over into a no risk investment to pull from slowly. Maybe youre right about it always being taxed as income though.
And you don't have to withdraw your money all at once. I plan to trickle mine out over years, so on any given year my taxes won't be that high.
The thing I dont understand about this is why the income tax threshold is so high ($1,000,000) but the investment tax threshold is so low ($400,000). Doesnt that investment tax apply to any 401k or IRA that retirees roll over? A million a year is a lot of money, and Im sure no one here would argue with that being taxed.
But, even if I personally have $0 retirement, $400k in a lifetime of working, saving, and investing doesnt sound like that much; especially with insane inflation. It seems like its specifically designed to punish people for trying to save up for retirement, especially in blue states where annual income is higher. I dont even think retiring in CA would be possible with less than $400k from investments, and then the government takes almost half of it?
I know there are the super rich who would be effected by their routine hundred thousand dollar investments, but adding a clause to give retirees a one time leniency seems like it would be a better way to go. Unless Im misunderstanding something here, then Id appreciate someone trying to politely clear it up.
Edit: I also dont mean this offensively, but Im wondering about a possible age gap. My understanding of retirement has changed drastically in the past two years as family and friends have gotten closer to that point.
Investment income has risk associated with it.Theres a certain risk in the rich not paying their fair share of taxes as well, if you catch my drift.
Theres a certain risk in the rich not paying their fair share of taxes as well, if you catch my drift.Well no, America has over the last 50 or so years proven there's no risk in that whatsoever.
The thing I dont understand about this is why the income tax threshold is so high ($1,000,000) but the investment tax threshold is so low ($400,000). Doesnt that investment tax apply to any 401k or IRA that retirees roll over? A million a year is a lot of money, and Im sure no one here would argue with that being taxed.My dude what are you even talking about.
But, even if I personally have $0 retirement, $400k in a lifetime of working, saving, and investing doesnt sound like that much; especially with insane inflation. It seems like its specifically designed to punish people for trying to save up for retirement, especially in blue states where annual income is higher. I dont even think retiring in CA would be possible with less than $400k from investments, and then the government takes almost half of it?
I know there are the super rich who would be effected by their routine hundred thousand dollar investments, but adding a clause to give retirees a one time leniency seems like it would be a better way to go. Unless Im misunderstanding something here, then Id appreciate someone trying to politely clear it up.
Edit: I also dont mean this offensively, but Im wondering about a possible age gap. My understanding of retirement has changed drastically in the past two years as family and friends have gotten closer to that point.
Trump will say anything to get votesFTFY
Retirement stuff is usually taxed as income, not as capital gains. Capital gains would be from the sale of a stock. You don't pay capital gains when you sell stock in your 401k, you only get taxed when you withdraw it, and it would be income at that point. The tax free capital gains of 401k plans is one of the largest benefits of it compared to a regular brokerage account.Thanks for further elaboration.
And regardless, you wouldn't pull your whole 401k amount at once. You'd pull out annually, whatever amount you think you'll need.