Current Events > President Biden proposes a 44.6% capital gains tax, the highest in history

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1783213379198345452

needs more info

it shouldn't be a blanket percentage but it absolutely should increase with income

Bring it on.

No reason why earned wages should be taxed at a higher rate than investment income which requires literally no effort.

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.

Unrealized gains tax? Is that a thing already? What happens if you go up one year and then your stocks tank right after tax day

Nobody reading this is rich enough to have to worry about it.

absolutebuffoon posted...

Nobody reading this is rich enough to have to worry about it.

Neither does anyone who IS rich enough, because this is DOA

SAlYAN posted...

Neither does anyone who IS rich enough, because this is DOA

Oh absolutely.

But we all got a warm fuzzy feeling imagining the rich getting more rightfully taxed for a moment there, didn't we?

Doe posted...

Unrealized gains tax? Is that a thing already? What happens if you go up one year and then your stocks tank right after tax day

Capital gains are realized.

https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/?sh=1b27bb01ff64

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.

aarrgus posted...

https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/?sh=1b27bb01ff64

That's about what I expected. This percentage would only tax the turbo rich.

Mearcstapa posted...

Bring it on.

No reason why earned wages should be taxed at a higher rate than investment income which requires literally no effort.

Investment income has risk associated with it.

Fine my be. I don't make more than $400k.

No one has ever been able to explain to me why capital gains don't have the same fucking tax brackets as income.
Like, if you have both income and capital gains in a given tax year, you should just be taxed based on the combined total and that's it (gentle reminder that the income/gains are taxed at each graduated tier, so if the 22% rate hits at $100K for example, the income/gains below $100K are not taxed at that rate).

If I take my post-tax income and put it in a certificate of deposit, I get hit w/ INCOME taxes on the interest earned. If I put money into a 401K, when I take it out it is taxed as INCOME (or you do Roth and pay the INCOME tax up front).
But when it's put into the stock market buying stocks directly, all of a sudden it needs a special snowflake super low rate because...reasons.

aarrgus posted...

https://www.forbes.com/newsletters/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/?sh=1b27bb01ff64

Stupid strategy imo. He's going to lose a lot of voters if he they think they'll be taxed more. Need to say the million dollar thing outright.

just treat capital gains as normal income.

SHRlKE posted...

Investment income has risk associated with it.

So does work.

SHRlKE posted...

Investment income has risk associated with it.

And if you have losses, you get to deduct it from your taxes that year.
See: Trump

So who the fuck cares? Tax it all the same. Money gained is money gained.

Also, just throwing this out there: even if by some holy miracle this DID get through the house/senate, Confirmed Sugar Baby Clarence Thomas and his cohort will smack it down on sight without a second thought.

Lol canada just instituted a 67% capital gains tax on anything over $250k.

ShineboxPhil posted...

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?

Good. I thought the CG tax would be a blanket, but only for the rich is good.

Xenogears15 posted...

Why the fuck were doctors complaining about it? Is it ALL income over $250k? Or just money gained on the stock market?

The doctor's argument is that almost all of them are independent contractors so they don't get a pension plan. they save a portion of their income investing for their retirement. Usually when they retire, they sell their firm (patients and equipment) to someone else.

After 30-40 years, that investment would definitely increase substantially and now it's subject to the new capital gains tax.
They claim cause of this, it's only going to push more doctors to move to America or the uk.

Biden will say anything to get votes

This will never pass, but I hope it does.
Giant_Aspirin posted...

just treat capital gains as normal income.

This

SHRlKE posted...

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.

Honestly, it should kick in way before that $1million/400k benchmark as well

ClayGuida posted...

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.

I disagree with it on the principle that it would be a fucking international diplomatic nightmare to actually collect that tax. Ask me again after the entire planet has been unified into 1-5 countries

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.

BDSMKane posted...

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.
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.

streamofthesky posted...

Uh....pretty sure 401K and IRA are always taxed as income. Not sure what you mean by "roll over", 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.

Roll it over into a no risk investment to pull from slowly. Maybe youre right about it always being taxed as income though.

should be 70%

BDSMKane posted...

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.

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.

And regardless, you wouldn't pull your whole 401k amount at once. You'd pull out annually, whatever amount you think you'll need.

SHRlKE posted...

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.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

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.

BDSMKane posted...

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.

My dude what are you even talking about.

Tig posted...

Trump will say anything to get votes

FTFY

emblem-man posted...

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.

And regardless, you wouldn't pull your whole 401k amount at once. You'd pull out annually, whatever amount you think you'll need.

Thanks for further elaboration.