I expect this will be challenged and overturned as unconstitutional as the similar effort was in 2021, however it's insane as it stands, especially coming from a caretaker government.
Many ultra-wealthy individuals borrow against their holdings to avoid having to sell their assets and therefore paying taxes. They shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Relying on “realization” for taxation stops being reasonable when access to cash is basically the same as income. If anything, not taxing unrealized gains essentially punishes people who labor for income and unfairly favors people who use asset appreciation as a form of income.
We shouldn't be balancing things we want to do for people in need against what kinds of things we will do to peaceful people that we shouldn't do. Nonmaleficence precedes beneficence.
In any case, abundance generally comes from not crossing those lines — from nonmaleficence. The US crosses those lines a plenty, but still less so than the EU, and consider how much higher its average wages are:
Have to sell your stock because you can't otherwise pay the taxes? Yeah, well, fuck you because the government is having budget shortfalls, and it's easier for the government to do it that way.
"State Secretary for Taxation Eugène Heijnen acknowledged during parliamentary debate that the caretaker government would have preferred to tax investment returns only when they are actually realized, but said this was not feasible by 2028, as taxing unrealized gains would avoid billions in budget losses and is easier to implement." <emphasis mine>
I get downvoted to goatse.cx territory every time I point this out, but: Kamala Harris's threat to tax unrealized gains just prior to the election is probably why we have Donald Trump in office today. Even if you support such a tax, it was sheer insanity to propose it in the months leading up to the election. Did she honestly think people like Bezos and Soon-Shiong would allow their media outlets to endorse her after that, or that people like Musk wouldn't react by throwing everything they had at Trump?
Hopefully the Dutch political scene is a little less volatile than ours was in 2024. Otherwise a tax on unrealized gains will be a massive self-own for Dutch progressives, just as it was in the US. Failure to understand and acknowledge the reality of concentrated media ownership will just lead to the same results, again and again. Progressives who want to tax unrealized gains need to first get elected and then float their proposals.
Those of us who are against such taxes can then argue from a position of principled opposition, instead of having to deal with the myriad of other consequences and side effects that happen when far-right demagogues win elections instead.
Even if what you’re saying is true, this just goes to show how badly we need to rein in the ultra-wealthy by taxing their unrealized gains. Like I’ve pointed out elsewhere in the comments, letting billionaires (some of whom will soon be trillionaires) get away with having tax-free spending power disenfranchises the many people who labor for a living. The very fact you so casually say “their media outlets” just goes to show how their concentrated wealth threatens the public discourse. As a society, we can’t allow people to use their wealth to influence government and civilization as a whole without at the very least being able to tax said wealth. The solution to taxing the rich isn’t to downplay the issue for electoral convenience. It is to educate and build a grassroots movement that can oppose the power of concentrated media ownership. The very points you make kind of undermine any principled opposition to taxing unrealized gains.
I realize people want to tax the rich but seems to me that taxing unrealized gains would seriously penalize investment.
That’s a huge blow to the natural compounding that occurs as stocks appreciate over time.
Wouldn’t that kill their stock market? Who would invest with such taxes?
Seems like people would just pour their investment funds into real estate rentals or such where only “realized” income would exist to be taxed… (ignoring appreciation of the property)
> Kamala Harris's threat to tax unrealized gains just prior to the election is probably why we have Donald Trump in office today
It was not a good policy and was unpopular with many Democrats, but I think there were several other more major contributing factors to why as Trump won (ex. general displeasure with inflation post-COVID, high emphasis on the asylum crisis/trans issues, plus only having 4 months lead-up time after Biden's withdrawal).
Another factor was tech and crypto. The Biden administration was widely seen as hostile to crypto and DeFi, which turned off a lot of younger and online voters and created unexpected opposition to Harris.
There was also a perception of politicization in agencies that are supposed to be neutral. People pointed to things like EV summits excluding Tesla, or regulatory pressure and delays affecting SpaceX launches and Tesla investigations. Whether justified or not, the optics made it look selective and punitive.
Individually these aren't huge voting blocs, but at the margins they likely added to the broader dissatisfaction.
And what also didn't help was the perception that the Harris campaign operated in something of an ideological bubble. For example, reports that staff discouraged her from doing a Joe Rogan interview because they disliked him reinforced the idea of an echo chamber, which ties into your point about trans issues.
I expect this will be challenged and overturned as unconstitutional as the similar effort was in 2021, however it's insane as it stands, especially coming from a caretaker government.
Absolute travesty. Nobody should be forced to pay a made up number, let alone under the duress of having your door kicked in if you refuse.
Many ultra-wealthy individuals borrow against their holdings to avoid having to sell their assets and therefore paying taxes. They shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Relying on “realization” for taxation stops being reasonable when access to cash is basically the same as income. If anything, not taxing unrealized gains essentially punishes people who labor for income and unfairly favors people who use asset appreciation as a form of income.
And nobody should go hungry, and nobody should lack basic healthcare. But here we are balancing the scales.
We shouldn't be balancing things we want to do for people in need against what kinds of things we will do to peaceful people that we shouldn't do. Nonmaleficence precedes beneficence.
In any case, abundance generally comes from not crossing those lines — from nonmaleficence. The US crosses those lines a plenty, but still less so than the EU, and consider how much higher its average wages are:
EU Europe average ≈ $30,500
United States ≈ $68,000
Have to sell your stock because you can't otherwise pay the taxes? Yeah, well, fuck you because the government is having budget shortfalls, and it's easier for the government to do it that way.
"State Secretary for Taxation Eugène Heijnen acknowledged during parliamentary debate that the caretaker government would have preferred to tax investment returns only when they are actually realized, but said this was not feasible by 2028, as taxing unrealized gains would avoid billions in budget losses and is easier to implement." <emphasis mine>
Given how volatile crypto is it seems like a bad deal for equity holders.
RMDs force me annually to liquidate stocks to pay US Government taxes. I'm not complaining; merely observing feasibility.
I get downvoted to goatse.cx territory every time I point this out, but: Kamala Harris's threat to tax unrealized gains just prior to the election is probably why we have Donald Trump in office today. Even if you support such a tax, it was sheer insanity to propose it in the months leading up to the election. Did she honestly think people like Bezos and Soon-Shiong would allow their media outlets to endorse her after that, or that people like Musk wouldn't react by throwing everything they had at Trump?
Hopefully the Dutch political scene is a little less volatile than ours was in 2024. Otherwise a tax on unrealized gains will be a massive self-own for Dutch progressives, just as it was in the US. Failure to understand and acknowledge the reality of concentrated media ownership will just lead to the same results, again and again. Progressives who want to tax unrealized gains need to first get elected and then float their proposals.
Those of us who are against such taxes can then argue from a position of principled opposition, instead of having to deal with the myriad of other consequences and side effects that happen when far-right demagogues win elections instead.
Even if what you’re saying is true, this just goes to show how badly we need to rein in the ultra-wealthy by taxing their unrealized gains. Like I’ve pointed out elsewhere in the comments, letting billionaires (some of whom will soon be trillionaires) get away with having tax-free spending power disenfranchises the many people who labor for a living. The very fact you so casually say “their media outlets” just goes to show how their concentrated wealth threatens the public discourse. As a society, we can’t allow people to use their wealth to influence government and civilization as a whole without at the very least being able to tax said wealth. The solution to taxing the rich isn’t to downplay the issue for electoral convenience. It is to educate and build a grassroots movement that can oppose the power of concentrated media ownership. The very points you make kind of undermine any principled opposition to taxing unrealized gains.
I realize people want to tax the rich but seems to me that taxing unrealized gains would seriously penalize investment.
That’s a huge blow to the natural compounding that occurs as stocks appreciate over time.
Wouldn’t that kill their stock market? Who would invest with such taxes?
Seems like people would just pour their investment funds into real estate rentals or such where only “realized” income would exist to be taxed… (ignoring appreciation of the property)
You might be right. I’m sure it didn’t help her case.
A crummy idea is a crummy idea, even if you otherwise like the person having it.
> Kamala Harris's threat to tax unrealized gains just prior to the election is probably why we have Donald Trump in office today
It was not a good policy and was unpopular with many Democrats, but I think there were several other more major contributing factors to why as Trump won (ex. general displeasure with inflation post-COVID, high emphasis on the asylum crisis/trans issues, plus only having 4 months lead-up time after Biden's withdrawal).
Another factor was tech and crypto. The Biden administration was widely seen as hostile to crypto and DeFi, which turned off a lot of younger and online voters and created unexpected opposition to Harris.
There was also a perception of politicization in agencies that are supposed to be neutral. People pointed to things like EV summits excluding Tesla, or regulatory pressure and delays affecting SpaceX launches and Tesla investigations. Whether justified or not, the optics made it look selective and punitive.
Individually these aren't huge voting blocs, but at the margins they likely added to the broader dissatisfaction.
And what also didn't help was the perception that the Harris campaign operated in something of an ideological bubble. For example, reports that staff discouraged her from doing a Joe Rogan interview because they disliked him reinforced the idea of an echo chamber, which ties into your point about trans issues.
> Hopefully the Dutch political scene is a little less volatile than ours was in 2024.
They have 3-4 party coalitions and all of them want markup on your wallet. This is how tax the rich ends up, everyone else gets hit with taxes.
[dead]
[flagged]