News Realms Remove Ads - Go Premium! Sign In or Register

Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

The basic crux of this story is a really fundamental bit of tax literacy that people should have: "unrealized appreciation" is not taxed in the US. For people who knew that, nothing here is new. For people who didn't, it's the key takeaway of the piece: > https://t.co/yo8GzPMrDX

The basic crux of this story is a really fundamental bit of tax literacy that people should have: "unrealized appreciation" is not taxed in the US. For people who knew that, nothing here is new. For people who didn't, it's the key takeaway of the piece: > https://t.co/yo8GzPMrDX

  • HamletEJ
    Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
    The basic crux of this story is a really fundamental bit of tax literacy that people should have: "unrealized appreciation" is not taxed in the US. For people who knew that, nothing here is new. For people who didn't, it's the key takeaway of the piece: > https://t.co/yo8GzPMrDX

    • HamletEJ
      Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
      If you buy A Thing for $50, and now it's "worth $500" (that is, there is some reason to believe that you _could_ sell it for that, but you haven't), have you made "income"? It's complicated, there's no easy answer because there are a jillion subtle variations of that scenario.

      • Chadd Nervigg
        Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
        @HamletEJ Yeah, this was always a part of this conversation that I didn't really get what some people were looking for. Yes, Bezos and those like him are *obviously* underpaying on taxes. But what's the *right* amount of tax for him to pay?

        • Chadd Nervigg
          Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
          @HamletEJ He may be a billionaire based on is assets, but most of those assets are in Amazon ownership/stock or the like. Right now a 3rd party, Forbes, tends to make those asset valuations. If you tax based on the net gain in asset value, then the way they have to pay those taxes...

          • Chadd Nervigg
            Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
            @HamletEJ ...is to sell off huge chunks of that stock. And I imagine Bezos selling off 20% of his Amazon stock would have some pretty far reaching effects. Maybe they're good effects, I don't know. But it seems a hell of a lot more complicated than just writing a check for that much.

      • HamletEJ
        Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
        Foundational US tax cases say, it's not income (for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows income taxes to exist). This rule is the source of massive inequality: rich people hold valuable liquid assets but never have to sell them and trigger an income tax.

        • HamletEJ
          Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
          Writing the opposite rule (putting aside the politics of getting SCOTUS to overturn those cases) would be very hard. Lots of things are hard to value in real time. People's "wealth" is a fuzzy number based on estimates of how much illiquid assets are worth.

          • HamletEJ
            Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
            One to view this is: rich people get the best of both worlds: they hold very liquid assets (e.g. public company stock) that _are_ easy to value, and go about their lives with access to wealth. But unless they exchange them for actual cash, the income tax is permanently in limbo.

            • Chadd Nervigg
              Posted 4 years, 3 months ago (Source)
              @HamletEJ Which basically means they're only taxed on what they *spend* right?
Tweet