Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
The only scenario where it makes sense to tax unrealized gains is if you’re borrowing and using the current fmv of an asset as security, and the fmv greatly exceeds cost. Then you at least have a basis for placing a value on the asset. For most securities and many other assets the fmv fluctuates so tracking gain and losses would be a nightmare if you’re taxing unrealized gains.
My view is that capital gains shouldn’t be subject to tax unless the gain exceeds inflation. I’ve seen cases where someone sells property that’s been held for 50 years and they have a big tax bill but when you look at the gain in relation to inflation, they didn’t actually make anything. If liquidating the asset today gives you less buying power than if you’d sold it 50 years ago, you’ve really made nothing but you’re being taxed nevertheless.
In Canada gains on your principle residence are exempt from tax, farmland (or shares in a farm company) is exempt up to $1.25M lifetime, and the inclusion rate is 50%. So half the gain is non-taxable and if a gain is realized in a corporation the corporation can pay a non-taxable dividend to the shareholders for the non-taxable portion. That’s all fairly sensible, in my view.
The thing about investment income is that people generally invest after tax money. You’ve paid tax when you’ve earned it, you put away a portion of those tax paid earnings, and then you’re taxed again when there’s a return on investment. At least in Canada, since 2009 you can put up to $7K annually into a tax free savings account and the income is never taxed. Some people have 7 figures in their account. Canada gets a bad rap as a high tax jurisdiction (and it is, especially when you factor in sales taxes) but there are some nice policies here.
Who are you to say what he would or wouldn't notice?
I agree about the starving children, but that's what charities are for. I'd rather choose where my money goes than to have it confiscated at gunpoint and used to pay for some bloated government program. During fiscal year 2024, the IRS collected more than $5.1 trillion in tax revenue. That'll feed a shit load of starving children, and yet...we still have starving children (and a gigantic national debt).
I'll ask the bloke that walks 2 of them around my neighbourhood, next time I see him. 😁
Seriously, such a fellow does exist.
And, they get an enormous amount attention from all he meets with them.
I think he has to have a special permit to have them / breed them. He is a member of some sort of Dingo preservation group.
Beautiful 'Dogs', by the way, and, his are the friendliest of Pups.
But Wild ones - well, they are Wild. Though, the half breeds that are so common in the BMs here behind me, are fuggin nasty things. Unlike pure Dingos, they Do Not shy away from Humans.
$700...
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/quinns-rocks/dogs-puppies/dingo-girl-looking-for-forever-home-/1333964264
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
So the tax amount would be on net worth increase? Bezo’s net worth went from 200 Billion to 210 billion…he owes 10% (or whatever) of the $10 Billion net worth increase….do I understand that right?
Well, it has happened that a billionaires net worth has decreased significantly for various reasons…and they’ve lost billions of their net worth…do they get to show that as a loss? And get a tax refund? And then amortize that refund against future taxes due?
And if it is based on net worth increase….what would prevent them from just getting more loans against the increase…since net worth is assets minus liabilities…all they’d have to do to avoid paying taxes on unrealized gains would be to take out loans…so their stock value goes up 10 billion…if they get a loan for 10 billion, then their net worth didn’t go up 10 billion…maybe it went up nothing…and taxing unrealized gains does nothing?
My point, besides this being just a plain stupid idea, and I haven’t thought it through completely yet, is that short of just outright taking their money (theft) it seems there will never be a way to close all the loop holes to the point that this asinine idea would actually work….
Anyway…I will never support ANY American giving this government any more of their money until the government can stop wasting it…this country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem…it has plenty of revenue…stop wasting it, stop the corruption, stop giving it to other countries, stop with the blatant fiscal irresponsibility…THEN…if it still needs more revenue, we can have a conversation about increasing anyone’s taxes…
Further, I can’t fathom why anyone thinks they are entitled to anyone else’s money, just because they “have” more money than them…you aren’t poor because the rich are hiding all the money…it’s not a zero sum game…everyone is free to earn as much wealth as they can create for themselves…and if someone isn’t creating wealth for themselves, stop blaming rich people and look in the mirror…
Dutton, is, well, pick the pejorative, and, very much disliked by the majority of the Electorate - as shown by the result, and, he himself losing his seat.
I can't recall exactly the quote, but I saw something along the lines that a bloke - Albanese , and his Party - that was far from popular / liked, won against a bloke / Party, that was largely despised, or something like that.
Stupid s**t like His / Their Nuclear Power Plant idea, with No real, believable costing - well, no effort to show it - really didn't impress many. And, when the CSIRO disputes / discredits such a thing, well, people believe Them, rather than some Drongo. We've no need for that way of producing energy - we have so many other options. We can happily sell sh*tloads of Uranium Yellow Cake to those that need it, though. That, I've no problem with - for many Countries, it's a viable / major way of producing the energy they need.
Of note : yesterday the National Party, Coalition Partners of the Liberal Party, announced they would no longer be in Coalition with the Libs.
Now, I'm sure they'll still direct preferences when needed / team up with the Libs for power - it just seems to be a bit of a 'demonstration separation' to give them a bit of 'air' from the losers of the election, at least for a time.
I joined both Parties a few years ago - something frowned upon by both - for a short time, to get a better look at Both parties workings / policies. It was quite enlightening / appalling from both the Libs and Labour. It was just a bit of an education for me - I hold no hard and fast allegiance to any Political party. Indeed, I have 2 close friends, from both parties, that I 'joust' with at times - both having served in State Parliament, one, Nationally . I know another, that I worked with years ago, that is still in State parliament, that is Bent in so many ways, and I am aghast that he is still in office.
One of the most satisfying things in this last election, for me, and, it appears many others, was to see our own resident Billionaire Politician, who spent around $60 Million on his / their campaign - the most of any Party - get soundly kicked in the goolies / rejected by the voters. A F**wit of Epic proportions.
I really appreciated all the text messages from our resident billionaire, if only I could have responded!
The nuclear power plant idea may have succeeded 30 years ago, but 1/3 of Australian houses have cheap rooftop solar, the cost of nuclear doesn't make sense.
A fast breeder reactor for generating ... isotopes may be useful for security.
I take it the general idea is as you say, and that losses as well as gains would be tracked. I work in the accounting industry and this sounds like a nightmare to me. It can be enough work just to track cost in investment portfolios with significant activity.
I would venture that our federal government likely wastes 70 cents of every dollar they get.
Last2Stroke thinks that entitles them to more dollars, somehow. Everything he's written in this thread indicates that his math skills are downright governmental.
There's more than a few fundamental issues with the things you're saying.
Let's pretend, hypothetically, that the money you're suggesting be taken actually went directly to the causes you're describing (in the real world we know this is not the case but let's set that aside for this argument). Great, we've fed a lot of kids and have now logistically figured out how to cost effectively eliminate hunger for children in America, outstanding! But is it though? Are there no second or third order consequences to the supposed solution you're describing? Let pretend that if Bezos wasn't taxed on his unrealized gains and left to take loans against his stock holdings like you describe, that he would take a measly $100million or so and commission a new megayacht. Well, on the surface that seems like a huge waste of money, but consider where that money is actually going. First the yacht needs to be designed, There's gonna be a lot of well paid designers on that project, as well as engineers before a single panel is formed. Now, once the yacht is designed, we need a shit ton of highly skilled shipbuilders to bring the vision to life, who are also getting paid a decent wage I'd imagine. Let's also not forget that there are a lot of different suppliers on the project, anything from raw materials like aluminum and steel to finished goods like fiberglass or carbon fiber panels. A project like this could take considerable time, likely years to complete, and could easily sustain entire companies that are filled with other workers like HR, AP, AR, etc.
If his yacht project isn't enough maybe he decides to take another $100m or so and build a few more Amazon warehouses. Again, that's a lot of steel, concrete, skilled labor, and construction companies involved in that project as well. The point being, if $10billion is taken and these projects don't happen, you're essentially just robbing Peter to pay Paul and getting no end product as a result. The kids of all those workers who lost their jobs because the project didn't happen aren't any less deserving of food than the other kids we're supposedly feeding now, so this entire theory that the moral high ground belongs to those stealing wealth from the upper class to somehow pay the poor is absurd.
The US is not known for it's mega yacht builders!
The luxury yacht builders of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands would welcome Bezos's business...
https://www.yachting-pages.com/articles/top-10-luxury-yacht-builders.html
If your federal government wastes 70 cents of every dollar, DOGE should be able to save $4.76 trillion annually.
But carry on...
So with everything JM said, the only thing you took from it was "yacht"? You're either incredibly dense, or you're acting like a douche just for the sake of being a contrarian...
He would not notice one bit. Billions in wealth is unfathomable to 99.99% of people to ever live. If his current wealth did not grow or shrink till the end of time, he could spend an average of 1 million per day and it would take him over 800 years to exhaust his wealth. But let’s just assume a measly 1% return yearly on his assets. As we know, that’s way below the average. That means yearly his assets would grow by 3 billion. And spending that 1 million daily would obviously be 365 million spent. We are not talking millions here. This is just an unspeakable amount of wealth. Again I’ll use my original example to show how much it is. 1 million seconds is 11 days. 1 billion seconds is 31 years. And Bezos has a net worth of 300 billion. His lifestyle is the exact same whether everything over 1 billion gets taxed at 10% or not.
I agree charities are great! But they’re voluntary. They can and will dry up in an instant. I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met and if billionaires have to pay a little bit more to make that happen then I’m all for it.
Your IRS statistic. Yes they collect the money, but the House determines the budget. They decide where the money is spent and how. You are correct our debt keeps going up. You know what one major thing would help mitigate that?
It's sad to see the US education system in action, let me explain it for you...
If Bezos spent $100 million building a yacht, it would not be built in the US, the business and jobs @JM485 is outlining would be in Germany, Italy or the Netherlands. It would be a personal expense and not tax deductible.
If Bezos decided to build more Amazon warehouses in the US, it would provide business and people in the US with work during construction, and employment for people working inside the warehouses after construction. It would be a business expense for Amazon, and would be tax deductible.
Of course billionaires spend money! You think he’s not going to buy his yacht and literally anything else he thinks he wants at that moment because he his assets would have been 300 billion but instead the growth from 270 billion to 300 billion got taxed at 10% and only gave him 297 billion instead? I think we’d both be extremely naive to think someone’s wealth being taxed and dropping their net worth from 300 billion to 297 billion (in this example) would mean that said billionaire would then decide he doesn’t want a custom built 500 million dollar yacht to hang out on in the ocean.
He has the money to build anything he wants to, even a flying dildo...
The funniest part of this whole thread is ThatOneMXGuy (from his parents basement on the Mesa in Austin) expecting that the increased taxes paid by the billionaires would go to starving children.
The reality is it would go to government programs that benefit the cohorts of government officials, and would get distributed to NGOs who are also cohorts, and some of it would get sent back to those same government officials.
Odd how ThatOneMXGuy is so concerned about taking out his anger over not being wealthy on billionaires without saying anything about how the Clintons, the Obamas, Bernie Sanders, etc have been government officials for the great majority of their careers and somehow are now multimillionaires.
So asking ThatOneMXGuy again - How much of someone else's money are you entitled to? It will only be a matter of time before that amount goes up.
Cutting government corruption and wasteful spending should be the first step.
Pit Row
It's amazing how righteous so many folks become when talking about billionaires and how they should spend their money....
How much of the cheap cost of the solar panels is due to any Australian government programs?
I don't have an issue with how he spends his money, but he should have made it pointy...
Ok, I can't argue with that. Appreciate the clarification 😀
The Australian government spends $2.3 billion annually subsidizing the installation of rooftop solar, and $14.5 billion annually subsidizing coal fired power stations.
The average rooftop solar installation pays for itself in 3-4 years, it would be 5-6 years without the subsidies.
"[charities] can and will dry up in an instant."
That's bullshit, and you know it. Americans voluntarily donated over half a trillion (~$580 billion) dollars to charity in 2023. That's a lot of well fed kids...
"I’d rather have a guarantee from the federal government that basic needs of children are met"
That same federal government already collected $5.1 trillion in taxes last year, and the needs of children aren't being met. What makes you think taxing billionaires more will change that?
*Edited because the capital “b” in billion automatically made the stupid sunglass emoji.
I'm unclear on something. What I found was the $14.5 billion was for all fossil fuels, and includes expenditures towards many aspects such as extraction to increase production. There seems to be economic benefit there.
Are the solar panels and necessary materials extracted in and made in Australia? Perhaps there is additional economic benefit with them too? I suppose lowering the use of coal locally allows more coal to be exported, so that would be an economic benefit.
You haven't asked who receives the economic benefit, companies, who are mostly owned by foreign entities, who receive the subsidies for coal fired power stations, or Australian households who receive subsidies to lower their power bills. Australian households have voted, that's why 1/3 of households have rooftop solar.
Many minerals for solar panels are extracted in Australia, but they are made in China, Australian consumers don't care, Australia is a mining country, not a manufacturing country.
Australian coal fired power stations are built next to coal mines, companies and state governments who own the coal fired power station also own the mines. Those mines don't have the infrastructure to export coal, coal is exported from other mines that do have the infrastructure.
The Australian government has announced a new subside for home batteries, reducing installed cost by 30%, payback for most households would be 6-8 years, which almost makes it financially viable.
Brainwashed to love their rulers without even knowing theyre owned. Same as England, same as Canada same as most white developed nations… with a few exceptions.
Communism/socialism is at play big time. Australia has the most over-inflated Govt employed bureaucracy on earth. Paid well above Private sector. Disability insurance scheme funding many people and companies.
Study that country to see how socialism can sink a modern 1st world nation rapidly.
Land tax is a sure fire way to cripple farmers/land owners to reclaim land for state. Thats been floated i hear as well.
Well, I guess you answered my either/or question; you’re just dense.
Take out the word “yacht” and replace it with 30,000 square foot mansion in LA (or any other long term project that creates jobs), and JM’s point doesn’t change. The only thing that changes is you don’t get to give a smug, douchey answer. Have the best day ever.
JM's used a "megayacht" as an example, not an LA mansion, a "megayacht" would be made offshore, so would provide US jobs during construction.
or are you too dense to understand that.
"sink a modern 1st world nation rapidly"
LOL...
Post a reply to: Australia taxing unrealized gains