Oct 4, 2024
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has expressed support for the Biden administration’s economic proposals.
One of the more controversial proposals is to introduce a 25% minimum tax on total income, including unrealized capital gains, for individuals with wealth over $100 million.
Advertisement
Jason Katz, managing director and senior portfolio manager at UBS, is a vocal opponent of this measure aimed at the wealthiest Americans. In an interview with Fox Business, Katz criticized the proposal sharply, calling it "an unmitigated disaster."
Capital gains are the increases in value of an asset over time. When an asset is sold, and the increase in value is converted into cash, these are called realized capital gains, which are generally taxable. Unrealized gains, in contrast, are increases in value that have not yet been realized through a sale and are not presently subject to taxes.
While Harris has broadly adopted President Biden’s tax policy proposals, it’s worth noting that she recently said she wants a smaller increase in the capital gains tax rate for the rich than him. This means she could also deviate from his plan in other ways and choose not to tax unrealized capital gains.
‘Accounting nightmare’
Katz expressed concerns about the practical challenges of implementing a tax on unrealized capital gains, highlighting its complexity in execution and calculation.
He used a hypothetical scenario to illustrate his point: “If you have an ultra high net worth person who bought, say, $100 million worth of Amazon, and it goes to $150 million, and they tax 23% on that $50 million in year one, if in year two, that $150 — because Amazon drops — goes back to $100 million, is the government going to rebate the tax from the previous year?”
This question underscores the difficulties associated with taxing assets in a highly volatile market where values can fluctuate dramatically. For stocks, it’s not uncommon to see substantial gains in one year — often referred to as "paper gains" — that may vanish the following year. The notion of being taxed on gains that have not been realized as cash can be particularly troubling, especially when those gains are no longer present.
Katz anticipated unfavorable consequences for the proposal: “It would be an accounting nightmare, not to mention the fact it would suck money out of the capital markets,” he stated.
Advertisement
Furthermore, Katz criticized the tax's applicability to other asset classes, such as real estate, where investors also accumulate unrealized gains. He questioned the practicality of the policy, asking, “Are real estate owners going to liquidate real estate to pay for taxes? It makes no sense whatsoever.”
Must Read
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and the simple steps to fix it ASAP
- Robert Kiyosaki begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’ — says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year
- Vanguard reveals what could be coming for U.S. stocks, and it’s raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
Who should be worried?
In the "Reasons for Change" section of the Treasury Department's explanations of the revenue proposal, it is noted, “Preferential treatment for unrealized gains disproportionately benefits high-wealth taxpayers and provides many high-wealth taxpayers with a lower effective tax rate than many low- and middle income taxpayers.”
This raises an important question: Will the proposed tax affect the average American?
The proposal clearly states that it will apply to “taxpayers with wealth (that is, the difference obtained by subtracting liabilities from assets) greater than $100 million.”
Only a very small segment of the population falls into this category. According to a 2023 report from Henley & Partners, there are approximately 10,660 Americans worth $100 million or more, constituting about 0.003% of the U.S. population.
Therefore, the tax will not directly affect the vast majority of people in America. However, given the substantial amount of capital controlled by those to whom the tax would apply, there could be indirect effects on the markets.
Still, Katz remains skeptical about who will ultimately be affected by the tax, reflecting on a discussion with publishing magnate Steve Forbes. “Now, granted, they're talking about this for only those that have over $100 million net worth, but as I was talking about with Steve Forbes offset, they start with that, but then it infiltrates other parts of the tax system,” Katz explained.
You May Also Like
- Turning 50 with $0 saved for retirement? Most people don’t realize they’re actually just entering their prime earning decade. Here are 6 ways to catch up fast
- This 20-year-old lotto winner refused $1M in cash and chose $1,000/week for life. Now she’s getting slammed for it. Which option would you pick?
- Warren Buffett used these 8 repeatable money rules to turn $9,800 into a $150B fortune. Start using them today to get rich (and stay rich)
- Here are 5 easy ways to own multiple properties like Bezos and Beyoncé. You can start with $10 (and no, you don’t have to manage a single thing)
Jing is an investment reporter for MoneyWise. He is an avid advocate of investing for passive income. Despite the ups and downs he’s been through with the markets, Jing believes that you can generate a steadily increasing income stream by investing in high quality companies.
