Kamala Harris' 25% unrealized gain tax plan (the good, the bad and the truth)

[@FrankS111]

To all of you who believe this will only apply to the wealthy…guess what…income tax started off as “just for the wealthy” too.

[@ronnythompson9115]

Facts

[@JoeMcknart69]

Wrong. Income tax started during the civil war and taxed anyone that made $600 and up (~$8100 current value). Impossible for you guys to not make shit up huh hahaha

[@1DigitalFlow]

@@JoeMcknart69 Joe.. your not a bright one.. Masons earned 22.5 cents an hour ($13.50 a week, or $700 per year) Blacksmiths made 18 cents an hour ($10.80 a week, or $560 per year) Machinists earned 16 cents an hour ($9.60 a week, or $500 per year) Laborers made about 10 cents an hour ($6 a week, or $300 per year) Privates in the Union army earned $11 a week, or $572 per year. Firemen earned 15 cents an hour ($9.00 a week, or $468 per year) Carpenters earned 14 cents an hour ($8.40 a week, or $436 per year) Farmhands: 8 cents an hour ($4.80 a week, or $250 per year). SO in fact yes. if you made $600 and up you were wealthy.. Notice those unskilled wages? which is the majority of americans..250-300 a year..

[@MegaYoutunes]

The origional tariffs and taxes were 2% on corporations and people who made over the equivalent of 150k... most people consider that passing laws like this that grant additional powers to government will allow it to eventually creep down to the rest of the population.

[@MegaYoutunes]

Also your talking about the revenue act that was repealed. Yes it was the first income tax but wasn't a federal law which wasn't until the 16th ammendment

[@teole6364]

If the gov took 25% from your unrealized gain and your stocks went down to original price, I can guarantee you that you will not get 25% back.

[@IronskullGM]

Average gain is 10%

[@JoeMcknart69]

what is your guarantee based on?

[@MegaYoutunes]

Take intel for example. You would pay 25% then a crash you lose so much more.

[@d33763]

Does that mean one can write off unrealized loss?

[@MrGonzonator]

That's literally what the policy states.

[@Michael34J]

WARNING. This is a tax from Hell. In Denmark (where unrealized gains are taxed heavily) you can be indebted for life if you invest your time and money in a start-up. If value of shares go up at end of financial year one you will be taxed for a fictional profit, though you don't want to sell and/or can't sell at that particular time. If value goes down later same year you loose a large sum. Many never recover! The same happens to pension saving accounts. You are taxed every year of fictional profits of the investments you have made to secure your future retirement. Instead you are securing the state tax revenue. If the stock market crashes you will never realize a profit, but will have payed lots of taxes year by year. Same with property. As of 2024 in Denmark you will have to pay tax on your house based on a yearly algorithm government valuation. Government decides fictional "value gains "to be taxed AND the the percentage to be paid of the rising value of the house you live in - with no intention to sell. If you can't afford the tax you can borrow from the government at a high interest rate which means the state gradually year by year takes ownership of your house... America, don't go down that road

[@EdwardSatterfield]

Harris is out of her mind

[@darrenwilson3732]

She is a Marxist democrat, avoid!

[@blanebrinkley8333]

Vote no on all tax increases.

[@mikegriffin9474]

To tax unrealized gains is to make worth...worthless.

[@MrGonzonator]

No, it only gets taxed if it went up in value, so you keep 75% of the increase. Or maybe you just live off of a measly $100m for as long as that lasts...

[@iang8169]

There is no give back proposal though . If the stock goes up and you have a $100k unrealized gain you'd pay $25 k in tax but then if thr stock drops and that gain becomes 0 then you should get the $25 k back but under kamala policy there is NO giveback , It's a terrible policy

[@mikegriffin9474]

@MrGonzonator That's 75% of the 'unrealized' increase and if the stock tanks you've paid 25% of something that never became tangible. Insanity

[@iang8169]

​@@mikegriffin9474 exactly you'd pay 25 % tax on something that's worthless ..for this to work you'd need s give back provision so you'd get your money back that you paid in tax , if the stock tanked . But that's a very complicated process

[@davahn122]

@@MrGonzonator It will make stocks more speculative and increase short term trading increasing volatility

[@IronskullGM]

Sad goodbye to 401k and retirement investments.

[@ronnythompson9115]

Facts

[@Jay410S]

All jokes aside I can’t believe someone would actually vote for this. Blue zombies

[@dcooke4933]

That's why they want to do it. They want you broke.

[@MrGonzonator]

If you have $100m+ in your 401k you have nothing to worry about.

[@angelmendez2211]

you make 100 million in assets.

[@paulmann1522]

It starts with the rich. That's how they open the door to eventually expand it.

[@lookouthappy]

Exactly what the rich people want you to believe.

[@eckhardt76]

@@lookouthappyIn the end the rich people will be politicians like her.

[@danw6014]

In other news, the wealthiest Americans relocate to other countries. Government officials baffled.

[@talk2see]

Also a possibility. Happens in Europe all the time. Have you seen the Social network (the movie about facebook)?. Well, the guy that Andrew Garfield plays, Eduardo Saverin, gave up his US citizenship in 2011 before a big liquidity event, for this exact reason. I'll leave you the wikipedia excerpt below: Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship in September 2011,[34][35] thereby avoiding an estimated US$700 million in capital gains taxes. This generated media attention and controversy.[5][36][37] Saverin claimed that he renounced his citizenship because of his "interest in working and living in Singapore",[38] and denied that he left the U.S. to avoid paying taxes

[@happyappy19931]

And the dollar plunges.. and the country suffers

[@starventure]

@@talk2see When the 0.1% move their money to avoid taxes, don't the investors below them suffer? 401ks are based on stock performance, who are the whales who influence that the most? It seems to me that the whole 10 year tax revenue estimate is unrealistic and that the gov will get 2 years gain at most, then start to see revenue tumble. Which means the lower $100m limit will have to be pushed lower at some point.

[@944treno]

Any tax proposed on the wealthy will effect the end users, us!! As an example we pay higher gas prices, higher groceries, higher building materials and so on. It's only a matter of time when this tax will be imposed on the average person.

[@easyislander]

So you think that its not to tax the wealthy? Yet the middle class is the ones paying the most tax? Those are just rightwing talking points which tries to fool poor people into thinking billionaires are struggling with taxes.

[@Thomasthetruthteller]

exactly and when you tax rich ppl they spent less at businesses and they don't expand their businesss

[@JoeMcknart69]

we haven't taxed the rich and big corporations still decided to increase prices the last decade like 2 fold for the user while increasing their own profits at an insane rate. Where are you getting this info that somehow taxing them is what's causing higher prices for the people lol.

[@Thomasthetruthteller]

@@JoeMcknart69 it's called inflation weirdo.

[@TonydaGM]

No , prices increased the last 4 years because of the democrats failed policies. ​@@JoeMcknart69

[@gregghunter1796]

All taxes start that way. "Only gonna affect the 0.01% most wealthy" thats has they get it to pass then they increment it up on a regular basis. Just look at the income tax. A tax on paper gains will affect anything of value. It will crash investment in this country so even if you aren't yet in the taxable category if you own anything of value it won't be worth $hit.

[@Chinsanity23]

People have to be retarded if they think it’d only affect the .01%. Any homeowner would be getting fucked by this

[@Kawboy65]

The 16th Amendment does not allow the taxation of unrealized capital gains. This was recently upheld in Moore vs US. The Supreme Court specifically said the govt can not tax unrealized gains.

[@angelmendez2211]

good thing amendment means to change like how we change prohibition.

[@happyappy19931]

And yet Kamala still proposes it?

[@righteyeartistry156]

Remember, the democrats hate the Constitution and the current make of SCOTUS .

[@KraziEyevin]

​@@angelmendez2211too bad Kamala has no power to amend the constitution, nor did she propose an amendment to make her proposal constitutional.

[@angelmendez2211]

@@KraziEyevin well they dont have manchin any more so their a possibility ewe can get rid of the filibuster.

[@richiefamus8778]

If this is true, why did Harris’s own rep go onto Fox News and admit that the unrealized gains would affect people making less than 400k?

[@happyappy19931]

It’s a stupid policy

[@richiefamus8778]

@@happyappy19931 Beyond stupid. It’s a str8 up Ponzi scheme

[@TC-eo5eb]

The government only talks about taxation, never budget cuts.

[@talk2see]

Agreed

[@gotworc]

The reality is we need to tax more and spend less LOL. But that's never going to go well with the American people. They keep talking about the national deficit and the only way to get it down is taxing EVERYONE more and spending WAY less.

[@blitz_zen]

What do they want to do with the money? ….That should be our first question.

[@Brojeejaksonflaxinwaxin]

Zalensky and BB sit wide eyed, salivating in the corner*

[@MrGonzonator]

Lower YOUR taxes. You almost certainly don't have $100m

[@talk2see]

Well they haven't said that much were the revenues will go from one side to the other side directly (and I say both because neither Trump or Kamala has expanded much on this). The policies that Kamala HAS spoken about are more on the side of spending money without a clear plan of how to get that money. And it's important to point out that Trump has done the same thing (for example, both agree and have discussed extensively that they want to eliminate taxes on tips). But to answer your question, the govt always finds a way to spend the money. And a simple good case scenario is that they just spend the same amount of money as before but we narrow the deficit (or eliminate it) due to higher tax revenues.

[@water2770]

​@MrGonzonator probably on some pork that 90% of our representatives didn't even read. I think someone calculated it may fund the government for 2 days or so.

[@timefortinybirdandfriends6565]

Give it to illegals.

[@lyleanderson5407]

The tax burden will always fall on the middle class which is being dragged down by bad policies., remember when gov't grows the middle class suffers.... 🤔

[@MrGonzonator]

Do the middle classes live off loans till they die and rebase their assets so their family never pay capital gains, too?

[@happyappy19931]

Walz grew the MN government by 40% and squandered a surplus! These people should be nowhere near the government.

[@starventure]

@@MrGonzonator Yes. Smart ones do, and this is going to end up being a "tall nail" tax that goes after the most productive and intelligent.

[@joshb2686]

I don’t think you understand why this is such a big deal. The fact that very few people have a network over 100 million is irrelevant when billionaires start pulling out their assets this will affect every investor top to bottom. The idea of taxing someone on a profit they have not even made is dumb and most likely will never happen.

[@chulee846]

Is this where Kamala re4aches into a fish bowl pulls out a piece of folded paper with a number on it and that number is the amount that the taxpayer has to pay 25% tax on? Or does she use the Crystal ball method........

[@JeepGirl_101]

What if, after going after the rich and that's not enough. Who do you think they will tax next. Middle-class.

[@Tig78-9]

The whole reason she is taxing the ultra wealthy is so that the middle class can pay less.

[@ronnythompson9115]

You will see an exodus of the rich overnight. They can live in the Bahamas or Puerto Rico like most already do. The US will not get one penny after that. In fact it will stifle new investments in the US.

[@JoeMcknart69]

the middle-class doesn't use these loopholes...very few even have the collateral to leverage so they can get these ultra-high loans.

[@MrGonzonator]

Slippery slope arguments are worthless. Take it at face value.

[@angelmendez2211]

like they already do. It the rich they never go after they stole 90% of middle class wealth through trickle down theory or trickle up and stay.

[@rolandgelinas1412]

So getting taxed on my income isn’t enough, you want to tax me on money I haven’t made yet?

[@starventure]

Kamala and Bernie stare at your wallet, drooling.

[@danz1182]

When the government enacted the AMT in 1969 its motivation was 155 households that paid no taxes. In 2017 the AMT applied to 5 million households before the Republicans finally reigned it in. If you think this will only impact Households with over $100 million in 2025 assets in 2045 I have a lovely bridge in New York I will sell you cheap.

[@LarsGalbraith]

Put that criminal in prison

[@Shootsmith]

Consumption based Fair Tax solves this problem.

[@MegaYoutunes]

This was how income tax was started... only the wealthy have to pay.... look where it is now. Taxing unrealized gains will drive investment out of the USA market... why invest 100mil into US stocks and lose 25% profit when you can invest in japanese or chinese markets...

[@talk2see]

This is definitely a possibility, but I don't think foreign markets will be the alternative. The US taxes citizens worldwide, so you can sell (or in this case, own) a share of AAPL or a share of Airbus, the IRS will get their share either way...

[@MegaYoutunes]

@@talk2see exactly. But what if Russia creates a new airline or computer company that is competitive to a US company. If it promises returns 10% less than the American brand over a period you still would net 15% by going with foreign brand. That is what people mean when investment will be driven from US.

[@debbiepoleviyuma7620]

​@@talk2seethey get foreign tax credit when investing in foreign stock. It's not double taxed by foreign country AND USA

[@starventure]

@@talk2see "Citizens" is the operative word there. A hostile nation swinging open the citizenship doors economically would wreak havoc on the US if the tax comes to be.

[@tomr7222]

$500b over 10 years while the 2024 budget is $6,500b is less than 1%.

[@chuckkissel2785]

If it works, they will certainly lower the bar down from $100M to $10M to $1M and before we know it anyone with a Stash or Acorns account will be paying taxes. Give the Government an Inch and they will take a mile.

[@JoeMcknart69]

if you start giving life sentences to murderers next they'll start doing life sentences for j-walkers...you guys are so fuckin paranoid lol

[@MrGonzonator]

Slippery slope arguments are worthless. Take the policy at face value or ignore it, but don't argue it means something it clearly does not.

[@chuckkissel2785]

@@MrGonzonator Did you know that the IRS was suppose to be temporary? Only to collect a 3%tax back in 1862, but congress like it so much they later ratified its permanent existence with 16th Amendment in 1913, and now we pay up to %37 tax. So YES, give the government and Inch and they will take a Mile. Don't want to give a history lesson, but it appears We The People need to see in advance because our Gov't clearly does not.

[@angelmendez2211]

ok what if she doesn't do that and instead target taxing the self loan these billionaires do to get tax free money.

[@chuckkissel2785]

@@angelmendez2211 Again that can lead to people that take out HELOCs (home equity line of credit) against their home, lots of people do that. Borrowing against an asset you own is tax free income, lots of potential to tax there. My comments are not directly against "her" they are against the people that come after "her". Once there is a new tax revenue stream the bar will be lowered over time (years).

[@davidschliebe246]

There is No good reasons to tax unrealized gains. "And you can keep your own Dr."

[@aharonwhitman9488]

Time for a second passport

[@bcheo890]

If they tax that 25 dollars thats 25 dollars im no longer earning interest on. How do they plan to calculate that. We run into an issue of opportunity cost. If when we fall below the stock price you are rembusered how long does it take for the federal government to pay you back?

[@talk2see]

these are questions that also support one of the biggest issues which is: this will be a very hard law to implement. Maybe even impossible

[@MrGonzonator]

Thanks for making this video, very difficult to find unbiased explanations on anything from the US!

[@talk2see]

Love it! That's the goal

[@dave3657]

We all know that it starts at the $100 million mark, how long till they drop it to $100? I remember when the government didn’t tax your Social Security also.

[@geeeee8268]

Here is the issue. Well aside of 16th amendment thing, which give the Congress the right to only tax an "income". If you have most of your assets invested, which most of wealthy and not so wealthy but somewhat smart people do, this tax is nothing more than forced asset sale. Otherwise where would one get $$ to pay the tax. In your example it would be "only" $25M... So yeah, good luck getting elected with platform like this.

[@gjp3863]

All this is way over my head but I do know I am skeptical of a politician who laughs all the time.

[@chaoz155mm]

funny how they want to tax more, aka take more, but never just spend less

[@talk2see]

I agree. The issue (both sides) is that it's harder to win votes talking about spending less. It's hard to win votes by saying "we're gonna reduce spending on ______", but it's easier to win votes saying "we're gonna increase financial help to _____" Biggest example is both Kamala and Trump want to eliminate tax on tips. Good or bad, you're decreasing government revenues

[@angelinesg77]

This applies to people with net worth of $100mil. The ultra rich need to be taxed more and also use their assets as collateral to get loans instead of taking a paycheck for living expenses hence pay less taxes

[@markcormier3669]

Time to move overseas

[@seanhayden7776]

Thank you, I've been trying to find a video that can actually just lay out the proposal, and doesn't spend 20 mins talking about what it COULD mean. While I agree it is a slippery slope to open up, I think this is working in the right direction of closing that loophole of allowing the ultra wealthy to continue to hoard wealth for generations and generations. Where I'd really like to see all this take place is within our housing market. Too much of the housing in the US is owned by private firms, and not the American people. If unrealized gains tax means that these firms would now have to sell out these homes for fairer prices, and put them back into the hands of American families, I think this is a great idea. I've seen a lot of people in the comments saying that no part of this plan is any good at all. My question for you is this: what would be your proposal to close the infinite wealth loophole? How do we hold the (in this proposals case) top .1% of Americans accountable to pay a fair share of their taxes and not use accrued debt to legally reach a net zero?

[@talk2see]

Thank you so much for your comment. I'm happy my goal of an unbiased explanation has been succeeding with people like you. As far as the housing market, that is also part of the plan. I gave the example of a stock for simplicity and because it will probably be the main driver of this policy (since you always know the value of a stock due to the stock market). However, there is wording in the plan to tax alternative assets and also more illiquid assets like the houses. The implications of how to determine the price of real estate are explained (a little bit) but would need some further analysis and decision making by policy makers. The full details can be found in the Greenbook (link below) specifically page ~90. Thanks again! home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2025.pdf

[@debbiepoleviyuma7620]

teach Americans about stock market instead of taxing those who already learned. Politicians have gotten wealthy in stock market. Instead they just implement a law that will keep people from attaining that goal. The wealthy sell stock all the time and are taxed higher than lower tax brackets on capital gains. Taxing unrealized gains can hinder those with less money as their stock grows they are forced to sell to pay the tax of unrealized gains before reaching full profits. But the wealthy will be able to afford the unrealized tax AND continue to hold stock for full profits if they want to. It's going to have unforseen effects and keep middle class from reaching higher.

[@marktidwell-ww5nh]

It's another tax, it's bad, they cannot balance the budget, so they are coming after money you don't even have, and may or may not rec.

[@paulgordon6949]

It's about time somebody did something about these tax dodging billionaire types, and they start paying their fair share. Bring it on!

[@Chinsanity23]

And this is the beginning of “You will own nothing and be happy”. You buy a house for $200k on a fixed income. It’s worth $1M now so you owe $200k now??? Goodbye house 👋

[@snap403]

Thank you I appreciate the explanation.

[@talk2see]

@@snap403 glad I could help!

[@Steven-wz7sh]

I just saw her endorsed commercial on taxing companies. My thought was that companies would cut employees and freeze salaries and increase prices. IDK...what are your thoughts?

[@righteyeartistry156]

You’ve only been here 10 years so you don’t really have any idea of how this corrupt government operates. It wil trickle down to the average U.S. citizen. It always does. Big guy today, little guy the next day.

[@drivingwithtodd1781]

Let's keep it simple, a flat tax rate for everyone, rich or poor. Then everyone pays their fair share! The 1040 could be 3 lines; here is how much I made, here's the tax rate, here's your tax to pay. Boom, done ...

[@terryp6396]

don't american large property investors roll capital gains between properties? how would that work? i hope I'm misunderstanding something because that would be disasterous.

[@LWRC]

She did not say she will TAX 25% of Unrealized Capital Gains ! ! ! She said she will TAX UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS AT 25% ! ! ! A big difference ! ! !

[@talk2see]

Right but I feel like everyone understood that. The stock example makes it pretty clear

[@elijahakin5141]

Thank you for being unbiased

[@talk2see]

@@elijahakin5141 🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡

[@justmousinaround]

Hard facts; taxes always claim to start affect the wealthy only then they start to slip the threshold of those affected lower and lower. Taxes affected only the wealthy in 1913 after the passage of the 16th Amendment with rates starting at 1% and topping out at 7% for those making $500,000 or more ($11 million in todays money). By WWII withholding taxes was introduced and tax rates (and those affected by it) greatly expanded to include the middle class. In 1969 the AMT was introduced to stop tax avoidance by the wealthy and we know that affects a great number of middle class people. Everything Harris is proposing that they claim will only affect the wealthy (and affect their investments thus affecting YOUR jobs) is a lie, it will indirectly affect you now, or directly affect you later!

[@joevince6066]

Khammunism

[@ImNoBSING]

This time it will work, pinky promise!

[@jkbc]

That's fine as long as you can also deduct the unrealized losses against your income when the market tank

[@matt8663]

The 100 million dollar threshold will disappear faster than a fart in the wind. This will apply to everyone in the end.

[@marcusjamesOG]

Lies .. any homeowner rich or poor will have to pay 25% of unrealized gains. It’s not fair for the middle class or rich. Why are you justifying this BS?

[@talk2see]

I'm not justifying it, just trying to explain it. What you're saying, as far as the proposed law stands right now, is wrong. Nonetheless, what you mentioned IS a big risk, which is why I was sure to point it out. Goal is not to support one side or the other, just explain things better!

[@ryantuteur5659]

Is that a one-time tax or is it taxed each year on all unrealized investments held? Say, I own NVDA for 5 years, unrealized. Do I pay a one-time tax on that holding or do I pay 25% per year until I sell NVDA?

[@talk2see]

From what I understood, it's 25% a year. So if we continue the example I made, say that you buy at $100 and the stock is now $200, you pay $25 in taxes the first year. The second year, if the price is still $200, it would be $18.75 (which is 25% of $200-100-25, that is, 25% of $75). Now, I'm not sure if it would mean you also get yearly refunds if you paid more than the current taxable unrealized gain (if the stock moves down). I think it's only refund when you actually sell, but I can't confirm

[@jnicophene]

This was great! Thanks for the breakdown

[@talk2see]

I appreciate it!

[@brightmangroup1003]

you forgot to talk about the most important thing : that unrealized gains tax has been tried before in a number of countries and has failed in all of them, and been repealed in nearly all of them

[@talk2see]

Did not know that. What countries? (serious question)

[@vmt2000]

This guy is a magician! I do not have $100M.

[@Bondbeer]

$100m today. $10m tomorrow? Then everyone??

[@jodygriffiths4873]

Just another way for them to take money out of the working class people pocket and straight into their pockets.

[@cheeseandrice877]

Thanks for explaining this. This seems to be an attempt to walk back Reaganomics.

[@Mike-k9k9n]

Everybody pays 5% period,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, That Should do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One page Tax Form........... 5% for each state............Out of pocket, just 10%

[@talk2see]

interesting

[@happyappy19931]

If anyone thinks this won’t flow downstream, then I have oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you!

[@fireflaze]

There is no good to this idea.

[@matthewanderson5125]

Kamala would be a very scary president on just economics and more wars alone.

[@keithbertschin1213]

Only for those over $100m, we have to claw back what Trump gave to his rich buddies

[@MV-un3jt]

I think the part that the left forgets is that the government doesn't need more taxes. It needs to stop spending $25-$100 on 1 screw.....

[@whatsgoodmyguy4391]

Dude Nobody making $600,000 can take deductions and pay no taxes. You realize you're talking about income here right income is taxed there's a minimum alternative tax that you can't avoid There are no tax deductions to get you below a certain level trust me.

[@joevince6066]

Never owned a buisness huh?

[@JoeMcknart69]

source: trust me

[@backcountyrpilot]

The lion’s share of “capital gains”, are caused by devaluation of the Dollar.

[@derek-e1d]

THis will crash the market as people take money from stocks and put them into tbills, especially while tbills are paying 5% and already have tax advantages.

[@dancdow]

But that sweet sweet 25% capital loss tax credit! Oh, wait..

[@Dziadzia-d6e]

Taxes targeting 'the rich', never stay with just 'the rich'. The Phone tax was meant to tax 'the rich' to pay for WW I. Did it end with the end of WW I? Nope. In fact, back when everyone had land lines, you paid the phone tax. Today, I would guess you'll find a tax on your mobile phone bill as well. Even the Minimum tax that was enacted years ago, supposedly to force 'the rich' to pay more of their 'fair share', ended up getting people who weren't 'rich'. Nor would these 'increases' to the Treasury mean the tax gains would go to schools, etc. This is like a robber coming to your home demanding your money and valuables and telling you it's you 'paying your fair share'. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmnEqZprgqucjas

[@johnshaw6702]

So, does that mean they don't have to pay the tax they pay now when they sell those stocks. Because paying taxes on money you havn't recieved makes no sense to me. Of course if I had acess to over 100 million to draw on, I don't think it would hurt me, but that's doen't change the issue. They claim that the rich are only paying something like 8.6% tax on their income, which is a false statement. They pay between 24 and 25% of their actual income in taxes at the higher tax brackets. When they make that lower tax claim, they are talking about how much it would be if they sold all their investments, not their actual income. Until they sell those assets, they are only potentail income, not actual income.

[@chrisriden1465]

I have a question. I believe that the ultra rich have a big impact on the stock market. Would the ultra rich trying to avoid paying these taxes by selling off their stock impact the market in general? Would someone holding a lot of a stock and selling their stocks tank that stock?

[@talk2see]

Love the question. Lets break it down: 1. Will a lot of sales tank the market? Yes, but we're talking LOTS LOTS. As in, if Bezos were to sell the entire +900 million shares of AMZN (we're talking more than $150B) that would tank the stock, specially if he tries to do it too fast. This is simple supply and demand, if you dramatically increase the supply and demand stays (relatively) constant, this will drop the price. 2. Will they actually sell under this law to avoid paying taxes? Not really, at least it wouldn't make the most sense to just sell for tax benefits. If this law is implemented as it stands you will have to pay 25% on unrealized gains. People like Bezos, that have lots of investments with huge gains, rather pay 25% of unrealized gains than pay 100% (which is what would happen if they sell it all). Thanks for the question!!

[@chrisriden1465]

@@talk2see Thanks for the reply and making it make sense. I have investments myself, but not a lot. And I would hate for this to trickle down and affect me when they say it only affects people who make over 100 Mill. A lot of the time the small guy doesn't win.

[@talk2see]

@@chrisriden1465 remember that presidents can’t just go into office and change taxes like that. They need approval from congress (both chambers). This is a massive hurdle that would need to be cleared, and then it would be decreasing the barrier below to 100 mil… so dont worry, it will most likely not affect you

[@Beleeuer]

Isn't she rich? Aren't they all? I didn't think they'd make a tax that hurts them

[@talk2see]

@@Beleeuer yeah but I don’t think they’re 100 million net rich

[@LivingOnCash]

Do you really think any laws they pass will apply to them? They will be exempt.

[@soloespanol4723]

If you don’t understand even the basics of investing you have no idea how communist this idea is.

[@greattools2057]

There goes our houses and our jobs 25% percent on unrealized games everyone that votes for Kamala Harris better have a big checkbook! I want a real commander and chief 3 1/2 years ago. We were much better off. If you have any sense America, rather you like him or hate him he’s better than Kamala Harris the chameleon and tampon Tim. I’m voting for present Donald Trump and JD Vance. Now do the job we want the American dream back!

[@wread1982]

Why save for retirement if Kameltoe is going to steal half our money??

[@talk2see]

I had not heard that one before

[@edithhewson7208]

We are all screwed

[@janhayes5838]

Would you let vp harris decide where you spend your personal money

[@Bondbeer]

Such a bad idea. Obviously not a math major. Stocks go down as well as up. People live in their houses that have gained. My income is from the corn I sell from my farm which has gained value. Hello!!

[@michaelangelo9119]

Terrible ideas. It’s an opportunistic economy for her maybe. Price controls and unrealized gains are terrible terrible ideas.

[@michaelangelo9119]

A policy that could slow stock growth Confiscatory

[@ango586]

Billionaires are crying 😂

[@starventure]

The billionaires move the money that the millionaires partake of. If the billionaires jump ship and sell off, the millionaires don't get the money. No more billionaires=no more millionaires=the US economy crashes.

[@whatsgoodmyguy4391]

Nothing good about it

[@williamjonas4013]

SICK AND I MEAN SICK SICK AS IN MENTALLY ILL.

[@jeff702]

Why not just do away with the Step-up in Basis? Why not just fix the loophole instead of making some other shit up to grasp tax payer money early.

[@talk2see]

That's a good proposal too. I know Bill Ackman, himself a billionaire, had some good solutions that he discussed on his twitter to try to increase tax revenues on more feasible and efficient ways around this issue. Perhaps check those out if you're interested.

[@luapnomis21]

Kamala We Trust

[@rolandgelinas1412]

And how long would taxing unrealized earnings only be for people over 100 million. Once the democrats see how much money they could take in, how long do you think it would take to change the 100 million dollar figure

[@talk2see]

That's one of the big risks and the reason why i think everyone should analyze it regardless of income and net worth

[@stephenaceituno]

A+ info thanks 🙏

[@talk2see]

thank you!!!

[@jonnyhernandez4502]

Honestly anyone can sit back and bitch and moan. But the fact is, someone as wealyh as soros, trump, gates, etc shpuld not be paying less in taxes than you or I. That is unacceptable. I like this idea. There will always be a "slippery slope" somewhere. We have to start making the wealthy pay their fair share.

[@talk2see]

I also feel that even though this might close a loophole, it will be hard to fully implement. Almost all the people that have this much money have it in trusts and LLCs. How do you determine if that's part of the person's net worth? It will be hard to implement and enforce... important to keep that in mind as well

[@markkarbowski6473]

Horrible person in politics worst vice pres.

[@brandonjohnson1800]

Lmfao like how he just used Trump as example oh no reason. But now tell me how much tax dollars are they. If you add up all the people employee by Trump . Because of Trump many have jobs able raise family more than I ever be able say about our government Trump 2024

[@talk2see]

Maybe Trump wasn't the best example, but sadly he is the only example. I don't have records for Bezos, Bill Gates or Musk. However, Warren Buffet (himself a democrat) openly says that he pays too little in taxes due to the loopholes out there. I just didn't use him because I don't have the actual numbers, but with Trump I do...

[@tripac3392]

Naive

[@jxpat]

Rethink the intro.

[@talk2see]

The chair twirl?

[@DannyHarris-i5j]

There is nothing good about it you might as well take that off the fucking title

[@talk2see]

@@DannyHarris-i5j 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[@apro4500]

You explain this well , this could change as you said easily if it starts big and gets changed to effect everyone. Also as you said it would create a nice chunk of funds after 10 years , and just like medical marijuana compared to recreational , they would like to have the entire pie not just a piece.

[@ronnythompson9115]

You will see an exodus of the rich overnight. The super rich can live in the Bahamas or Puerto Rico like most already do. The US will not get one penny after that. In fact it will stifle new investments in the US.

[@talk2see]

Yup

[@dg9265]

No thank you😅 God bless Donald Trump, 2024

[@talk2see]

Next week's video is about Trump. Stay tuned

[@July.4.1776]

Trump 🇺🇸🇺🇸 2024 he is the only answer.

[@talk2see]

Next week's video is about Trump. Stay tuned

[@ovfloski4673]

Tax the rich 100%

[@ronnythompson9115]

Not smart. You will see an exodus of the rich overnight. The super rich can live in the Bahamas or Puerto Rico like most already do. The US will not get one penny after that. In fact it will stifle new investments in the US.

[@talk2see]

I like how you kept it concise. Straight to the point

[@leoborros]

There's nothing good

[@johnprovenzano-nb4fz]

4:45 Why don't you mention that it will KILL investment as these are the most mobile people on Earth. They will take their money out of this country.

[@talk2see]

This could be true but again, the IRS taxes US citizens on worlwide income/investment gains. Only way to avoid this is by renouncing their US citizenship, which few actually do (but some do)

[@starventure]

@@talk2see The BRICS will smell the blood in the water and offer citizenship for a reasonable fee.