“When you buy something for one price, and later sell it for a higher price, that’s called a “capital gain.” In tax lingo, you “realize” a capital gain when you ultimately sell the asset. If the asset gains in value without you selling it (e.g., a stock you own rises in price), those gains are “unrealized.”
The capital gains tax in the US has a “realization requirement”: You have to actually sell the asset to be taxed. This creates an easy way for rich people to avoid taxes, by simply waiting to sell.
Imagine a 20-something who starts an internet company called FriendCo with his college roommates. Let’s call him Mark. (While I’m obviously basing Mark on somebody real, I’m going to simplify the real numbers a lot to make it easier to follow.)
At FriendCo’s founding in 2004, Mark and his four roommates each took 10 percent of the company, with the other half to be sold to investors. At the start, their shares were worth $0. But their website took off fast and soon had 1 billion users. The company went public in 2012, at a market value of $100 billion. Mark and his roommates’ shares were worth $10 billion each.
At this point, the company stands still and remains worth $100 billion forevermore (I told you I was going to simplify).
If Mark sells all his shares in 2012 after the company goes public, he’d pay taxes on the amount that the shares increased. They were worth $0 at first, and are now worth $10 billion. The top rate on capital gains in the US is 23.8 percent, so he’d pay $2.38 billion in taxes.
Suppose, instead, Mark decides to keep all his shares until he retires 40 years later, in 2052. Assuming the tax code doesn’t change, he’d still pay $2.38 billion. That, right there, is the problem.
Being able to pay a tax bill decades in the future, instead of right now, is a huge benefit. If I told my landlord that I would prefer to pay my rent 40 years from now, she would not find that very amusing. At the very least she would demand that I pay a lot of interest for paying so late. Other big purchases, like houses and cars, usually do involve paying a ton of interest in exchange for later payments. Capital gains taxes don’t.
The “realization requirement” of the capital gains tax thus functions like a massive, zero-interest government loan to people who’ve gained money on their investments. They’re able to save huge sums in taxes merely by waiting to sell their assets, and not paying any interest while they wait.
This is unfair; if you can afford to wait and not sell, you get a big tax break, but if you can’t afford that, you don’t. But the rule can also cause serious economic harm. By pushing people to hold onto investments longer than they normally would, it keeps them from moving their money to newer investments. That makes it harder for startups and other innovative firms to get the money they need to grow, leading to less innovation and slower economic growth.
The problem is compounded by other aspects of the US tax code. If Mark were to never sell his shares and instead pass them along to his children, they would not have to pay capital gains tax on the gain. In fact, if they were to later sell the shares, they would only pay tax on the difference between the value of the shares when they sell, and the value when they inherited them. (This is called “step-up in basis” or, more evocatively, the “angel of death loophole.”) So if the shares remain at $10 billion, the children can sell them and not pay a dime in capital gains tax. The rich are talented at evading the estate tax, too, so it’s very possible that Mark’s fortune will be completely untaxed.”
…
“The Biden proposal is meant to make the ultra-rich pay more. The strategy is simple: get rid of the realization rule.
For people with over $100 million in assets, the proposal would put in place a new tax regime. For easily sold assets with clear prices, like stocks and bonds and crypto, gains in value would be taxed during the year they happen, whether or not the assets are actually sold. Taxpayers would be able to get refunds if the assets later fell in value.
Andreessen, Horowitz, and other Silicon Valley types fret about what this would mean for startup founders whose companies haven’t gone public yet. These founders may be billionaires on paper but do not have any actual cash with which to pay taxes.
If these VCs had read the fine print of the plan, they’d see that someone in this situation would not have to pay taxes yet. If more than 80 percent of a person’s net worth is in “illiquid assets” like private company shares, they would not have to pay annual tax on those assets. If they sold the assets, they’d pay the tax plus a “deferral charge,” a kind of interest for paying the tax years after they gained the money. Should the company go public or be acquired, the situation would change — but also the newly minted billionaire would suddenly have liquid assets with which to pay their tax bill.
This is all somewhat academic, though, after the Supreme Court’s June 20 ruling in Moore v. United States. While the decision itself concerned a minor provision in the Trump tax cuts, one justice, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring opinion arguing that realization is required for a capital gains tax to be constitutional. As my colleague Ian Millhiser notes, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion hinted pretty strongly that he’d side with Barrett on the matter, while deferring on a ruling for now.
If the Barrett view has at least five supporters on the Supreme Court, then the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax is dead in the water.”
…
“I do not know of a single honest defense of the angel of death loophole, but unfortunately there are many deeply dishonest defenses. Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) spent much of 2021 claiming that realization at death would obliterate family farms in the Plains, for which she offered literally zero evidence. Alas, the gambit worked.
In theory, though, a future Congress could still close the loophole. They could go further still and pass law professors Edward Fox and Zachary Liscow’s plan to tax the loans billionaires currently use to generate tax-free cash. The most ambitious option would be to add deferral charges to the capital gains tax, so the rich have to pay the government interest when they defer taxes by not selling their assets.”
“The major proposals pitched by the campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump would both expand the federal budget deficit—though Trump’s plans would require significantly more borrowing over the next decade.
Trump’s proposals would add an estimated $5.8 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a fiscal policy think tank at the University of Pennsylvania (Trump’s alma mater). Most of Trump’s deficit-increasing policies result from proposed changes that would reduce Americans’ tax burden. He’s called for permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts, which would add an estimated $4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade (unless Trump comes up with offsetting spending cuts). His plan to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits will add another $1.2 trillion.”
“American Compass makes the case that adherence to tax cuts, deregulation and free trade have been disastrous economic policy and that government can make capitalism work better for workers and families. It calls for more restrictions on trade with China, using public capital to stoke investments in critical industries, supporting organized labor and banning corporate share buybacks. (A spokesperson for Republicans on the House select committee on China said the group has been “a strong and effective advocate for common-sense policies to stop enabling our foremost adversary.”)
Cass wrote last month that the 2017 Trump tax cuts were “an expensive failure.” American Compass argues that tax increases as well as spending cuts are needed to tame the deficit, and it released a survey showing Republican support.”
“”Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years,” Cristina Enache wrote for the Tax Foundation in a June report on such levies around the world. “They raise little revenue, create high administrative costs, and induce an outflow of wealthy individuals and their money. Many policymakers have also recognized that high taxes on capital and wealth damage economic growth.”
Depending on how high the tax is set, Enache cautioned, it can erase any gains people might make on their investments. “For safe investments like bonds or bank deposits, a wealth tax of 2 or 3 percent may confiscate all interest earnings, leaving no increase in savings over time.”
Worse, wealth taxes depend on government officials’ ability to accurately assess the value of fluctuating holdings in stocks, property, businesses, and the like. That’s a big ask even if you pretend that tax officials are likely to be honest in such efforts.
“The Amsterdam stock market fell by around 13pc in 2022 as inflation soared – but the tax office assumed investors generated returns of 5.5pc, and taxed them accordingly,” Charlotte Gifford wrote for The Telegraph about the administration of the Dutch wealth tax.
The Supreme Court in the Netherlands ruled that the wealth tax hits people excessively hard relative to actual earnings and that it’s unacceptably discriminatory while also violating rights to property ownership. Just weeks ago, the Dutch court revisited its ruling and found legislative efforts to fix the wealth tax inadequate. Hundreds of thousands of people are now owed refunds.
Enache examines several arguments for wealth taxes, including claims that they encourage more productive use of assets or their transfer to entrepreneurs who are better at producing value. But wealth taxes can also encourage consumption among those who fear they might as well enjoy assets now rather than have them confiscated later. They also incentivize businesses to pay large dividends while discouraging growth.”
“The solution to the national debt lies in reevaluating and cutting back on unnecessary and wasteful programs, reforming entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and implementing a more efficient tax system that encourages economic growth.
But none of this can even begin to happen until politicians perceive a demand for it from the American people. Rising debt reduces investment and can slow economic growth, while increasing worries about inflation and the strength of the U.S. dollar. It reduces confidence in the social safety net and increases the risk of a fiscal crisis. Perhaps when these problems manifest, the voters will demand that politicians take the issue seriously. But by then, it may well be too late for the economic stability and growth we have taken for granted.”
“For decades, New York City has been trying to enact an ambitious experiment to reduce traffic and pollution on some of the most congested roads in the world by charging cars a fee to drive in parts of Manhattan and using the revenue to better fund public transportation.
It’s known as congestion pricing, and after many hard-fought political and legal battles, lawmakers and transit officials had finally agreed on a plan that was set to launch later this month. Mere weeks before the new fees would go into effect, however, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul postponed the implementation of the plan indefinitely, citing economic concerns.
Supporters of the long-planned, much-discussed effort are fuming. The plan’s ultimate goals were to get cars off the road, reduce carbon emissions, and improve public transit, including the New York subway and regional rail. Congestion pricing would have, in other words, made the city safer, cleaner, and easier to get around for the people who live there.
“The really frustrating thing about this is that Trump is fundamentally wrong about how tariffs work. He has been for a long time. Taxes on Americans are not going to change China’s behavior. That’s not theoretical. We have six years of real evidence. Tariffs are not saving American manufacturing. The trade deficit didn’t fall like Trump promised it would. China didn’t buy the larger share of American imports that were part of Trump’s supposed “phase one” deal. In the middle of Thursday’s debate, Trump even managed to confuse the trade deficit with the federal budget deficit (a mistake he’s been making for years).
If only Biden were in a position to highlight Trump’s clearly misguided views on trade and tariffs. But that would have required different choices over the past three-plus years (and a stronger debate performance from the president, who struggled at times on Thursday to be articulate).
Biden chose this outcome, and now we’re left with a choice between a candidate who doesn’t understand the fundamentals of trade policy and one who has foolishly gone along with that fantasy for political gain.”
“In a recent paper titled “Industrial Headwinds: Reducing the Burden of Regulations on U.S. Manufacturers,” published in the May 2024 Club for Growth Policy Handbook, economist Daniel Ikenson writes, “For manufacturing firms, the cost of federal regulations in 2022 was roughly $350 billion, or 13.5% of the sector’s GDP—a burden 26% greater than the inflation-adjusted cost of regulatory compliance in 2012.”
He adds that while the average U.S. company pays a regulatory compliance price of $13,000 per employee, large manufacturers shoulder a cost more than twice as much—$29,100. However, even some small-sized manufacturers face annual compliance costs of $50,100 per employee. This helps explain why manufacturing automation is so popular and why our fastest-growing companies are in service-sector tech, not manufacturing.”