Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Vermont Lt
If this person had read the proposed law, she would know that you get to take the loss if the value of the asset has gone down.

Let's do a thought experiment. For this experiment, assume the tax rate between $100K and $200K is 20% and between $200K and $300K is 30%, and stays the same over a two-year period.

In year 1, a person makes $200K, but has unrealized gains of $100K. So, in that year, he pays $30K in additional Fed. taxes ($100K*30%).

Now, in year 2, the person make again $200K, but has unrealized losses of $100K, wiping out all of the gains from the year before. So now, he gets back $20K ($100K*20%) from the Fed for his losses.

So, over a two year period, the person has a net gain of $0, but has paid a net of $10K in additional taxes.

10 posted on 10/25/2021 8:03:36 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: kosciusko51

I think you stated it perfectly.

Where you and I differ is that this law only applies to people making 100,000,000 annually. So the incremental tax rate would not change.

I agree that this is a stupid—and probably unconstitutional—”law.” I don’t think it would last 90 days before an injunction.

Wealth taxes are pretty stupid once you get past the “lets eat the rich” BS.


21 posted on 10/25/2021 11:22:48 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson