Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has endorsed the Biden administration’s proposed tax hikes.
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.
Don’t miss
-
Commercial real estate has beaten the stock market for 25 years — but only the super rich could buy in. Here’s how even ordinary investors can become the landlord of Walmart, Whole Foods or Kroger
-
Car insurance premiums in America are through the roof — and only getting worse. But 5 minutes could have you paying as little as $29/month
-
These 5 magic money moves will boost you up America’s net worth ladder in 2024 — and you can complete each step within minutes. Here’s how
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.
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.”
Read more: Car insurance rates have spiked in the US to a stunning $2,150/year — but you can be smarter than that. Here’s how you can save yourself as much as $820 annually in minutes (it’s 100% free)
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.
What to read next
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Source Agencies
