Thread

1. DataDive · 1789652120 · focus · HN ↗

   What happens if some of those tax the unrealized gains bills pass in some country where they have obligations?

   They would have to either pay the tax on gains or write off losses.

   1. philipallstar · 1789652603 · focus · HN ↗

      Surely only an absolute lunatic would pass that sort of law. And by then it's too late, because it's Socialism with extra steps.

      1. sebzim4500 · 1789652770 · focus · HN ↗

         Doesn't Switzerland do this instead of capital gains? Makes sense IMO, much better to tax wealth than discourage transactions.

         1. briandw · 1789654336 · focus · HN ↗

            Really? How? Show me a country that taxes wealth and is prosperous. Taxing unrealized gains results in owing tax on money you don’t have and makes starting a funded company impossible.

            1. superxpro12 · 1789657148 · focus · HN ↗

               and on the other hand we have trillionaires who spend their wealth on fascist party propaganda and censorship
         2. tim333 · 1789654968 · focus · HN ↗

            Apparently not. Googling, no one seems to actually do it in spite of some politicians talking about it.

            It seems quite a bad idea from a practical point of view.

            Not so much because it's socialist but it leads to all sorts of extra paperwork for no good reason. Like say you buy some utility company share for your retirement in 20 years and it fluctuates. Do you want to be valuing it and paying tax and then claiming it back when it goes down every year for 20 years or just declare the gain at the end?

            1. philipallstar · 1789657387 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, it is socialist in that the government basically gets to own more of everything you own every year.
         3. spacebanana7 · 1789655095 · focus · HN ↗

            Taxing capital assets by taking large portions of their value destroys value by forcing liquidity events. Think forcing sales of farms, factories and domain names.

            I much prefer land value taxes (and similar taxes on non capital wealth like jewellery) and leisure taxes (ideally taxing people for every hour they don't work). Of course these are difficult to administer in practice, but British business rates and US overtime tax discounts effectively approximate this.

            1. bitmasher9 · 1789656410 · focus · HN ↗

               The idea of taxing people for not working an hour sounds incredibly dystopian.

               1. superxpro12 · 1789657088 · focus · HN ↗

                  What will they think of next? tying healthcare to employment that you lose the moment you get fired to meet quarterly profits? Madness i tell you!
               2. overtone1000 · 1789657752 · focus · HN ↗

                  I had the same reaction. It also seems easy to pull apart. What about disabled people who are unable to work?

                  I think something more like "investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned through labor," accomplishes similar goals but is more intuitive and less problematic.

                  1. philipallstar · 1789659854 · focus · HN ↗

                     If your goal is to reduce investment that creates jobs for labour, then you should do that.

                     1. overtone1000 · 1789665812 · focus · HN ↗

                        This is a false dichotomy. Laborers could just as easily invest in job-creating endeavors as passive income earners. All taxes cause economic drag, not _just_ business and investment income taxes. The economy includes every participant, and laborers are not an externality.

                        1. philipallstar · 1789730520 · focus · HN ↗

                           I'm sorry, I don't follow. Yes, people who are labourers could also somehow creating funding pools that are big enough to start companies, but so what? That doesn't negate the fact that they will be disincentivised to do so by a tax on investment income.
               3. fl4regun · 1789664473 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not as dystopian as the ability to get wealthier without working and pay no taxes (and even IF you sell to realize gains, your tax liability is still lower than someone who made money through labour)

                  1. philipallstar · 1789730132 · focus · HN ↗

                     Your definition of "wealthier" is stupid, though, because it relies on a measure that doesn't actually apply to the person in question. A share's price is just "the last sale price of the same type of share", and that is multiplied by the person's shareholding to get their "wealth". However they don't have any more money by this happening - it's just a huge assumption that the share price would stay the same across all their shares if they sold right now.

                     The time we actually know what money they would make, making it concrete for tax, is when they sell. And we already do this.

                     1. fl4regun · 1789758243 · focus · HN ↗

                        There's multiple advantages to making money from equities that people who make money from ordinary income simply do not have, favourable tax rates, the ability to choose when and how much to realize, the ability to loss harvest, compound interest, everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality.

                        1. philipallstar · 1789982485 · focus · HN ↗

                           > everything around how we tax these 2 forms of income is set up to beget inequality

                           No it's not. Most people don't pay capital gains because things like houses don't have capital gains applied. I.e. the rules are set up so that most people avoid capital gains tax when they gain capital. Everyone pays income tax with the same rules, and some people pay capital gains tax as well if their risks pay off. We tax the profits and let investors absorb the losses.

         4. axus · 1789655661 · focus · HN ↗

            If the government forced transfer of ownership %, instead of forcing a sale, it would be not as bad?

            1. sebzim4500 · 1789663810 · focus · HN ↗

               They could accept either I suppose
            2. philipallstar · 1789730169 · focus · HN ↗

               It's identical really. It's just instituting the nationalisation over time of all businesses.

               1. sebzim4500 · 1789742849 · focus · HN ↗

                  In an ideal world, the government would sell some of whatever shares it gets at good times to pay off debt, for example when interest is high just before a tranche of government bonds expire
         5. philipallstar · 1789659818 · focus · HN ↗

            > Makes sense IMO, much better to tax wealth than discourage transactions.

            It's much, much worse to tax wealth.

            1. overtone1000 · 1789665861 · focus · HN ↗

               I disagree with you in the other thread, so I want to balance that by saying that I strongly agree with you here.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.