Tax Bill

sub_thug

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
10,260
Reaction score
5
Well, it’s coming out that the Senate tax bill is treating all stock holdings as “First In First Out.” That means that you have to sell the first shares you get from a company first. For those that aren’t following, let’s say you work for Amazon, receiving 3 shares per year as part of your stock options. When you were given those shares when you started working there in 2000, they weren’t that valuable. Less than $100/share. Now, they are worth over $1100/share. When you sell them, you have to sell your oldest ones first, meaning that those are the ones worth the most. That also means that you’re paying more in capital gains tax that way. That’s a real bummer, harming the retirement savings of those that have been saving.

This tax bill is a bad bill. Not in a left v right way, but just in an objectively bad policy kind of way. It takes effect next year, so maybe now is the time to dump all my stock and jump all in on bitcoin before someone else finds new ways to tax me...
 
What domestic programs you think will be decimated to pay for this giveaway to the rich that does nothing to address the offshoring of funds and labor?
 
I just read that there's some language in the bill that screws over companies with the corporate AMT, resulting in them essentially paying hundreds of billions more in taxes than expected and offsetting the benefits that come from a cut in rates.

If both of these things are accurate, the GOP is doubling down on their f' ups. They rushed the bill and didn't give anyone else time to proofread it....but it doesn't look like they did a good job of reading it or writing it.
 
We are all fucked unless you are a millionaire
 
ok, so you're also claiming it as a long term gain instead of short term so you'll pay less taxes on it.
 
ok, so you're also claiming it as a long term gain instead of short term so you'll pay less taxes on it.
What it's going to do is cause me to move my money around a lot less. That's the issue. A lot more investors are going to hold positions on certain companies in order to avoid paying higher capital gains tax. So equity is going to stay put, and when money doesn't move around, young/rising companies won't get as much investment capital for them to put back into their companies/products. That's the whole point of being a publicly traded company. When you increase taxes like that, you are essentially stagnating the market via government constraints.
 
What domestic programs you think will be decimated to pay for this giveaway to the rich that does nothing to address the offshoring of funds and labor?

We are all fucked unless you are a millionaire
The thing is, as I alluded to in post #10, this doesn't even help the exceptionally rich if most of their total value is held in the stock market. This is the sort of stuff that causes the market to slow down. The people who are really crapping their pants right now are the major trading companies like AmeriTrade, E*Trade, T Rowe Price, Vanguard, etc. Right now, the market is the best that it's ever been, and people are making money hand over foot. Why shoot all that in the foot like this? Like I said in the OP, this isn't even a left/right thing. This is just a really bad policy.
 
Well, it’s coming out that the Senate tax bill is treating all stock holdings as “First In First Out.” That means that you have to sell the first shares you get from a company first. For those that aren’t following, let’s say you work for Amazon, receiving 3 shares per year as part of your stock options. When you were given those shares when you started working there in 2000, they weren’t that valuable. Less than $100/share. Now, they are worth over $1100/share. When you sell them, you have to sell your oldest ones first, meaning that those are the ones worth the most. That also means that you’re paying more in capital gains tax that way. That’s a real bummer, harming the retirement savings of those that have been saving.

This tax bill is a bad bill. Not in a left v right way, but just in an objectively bad policy kind of way. It takes effect next year, so maybe now is the time to dump all my stock and jump all in on bitcoin before someone else finds new ways to tax me...
Don't sell, all the money the rich save, will trickle down to us serfs. So the money the 1% saves means they have more money the give to the poor.
Kansas has the same policy and their economy is booming.
 
What it's going to do is cause me to move my money around a lot less. That's the issue. A lot more investors are going to hold positions on certain companies in order to avoid paying higher capital gains tax. So equity is going to stay put, and when money doesn't move around, young/rising companies won't get as much investment capital for them to put back into their companies/products. That's the whole point of being a publicly traded company. When you increase taxes like that, you are essentially stagnating the market via government constraints.


What you can't reinvest you're long term capital gains? Since it's taxed less you should have more to invest in those new companies.
 
What you can't reinvest you're long term capital gains? Since it's taxed less you should have more to invest in those new companies.
I can reinvest, but I'm paying more taxes because I'm having to sell my highest value stocks first. So I less to reinvest. That's the issue here. I think the best way to promote growth is to reduce the capital gains tax, incentivizing people to move their money around more frequently. But that's not what this bill does.
 
Don't sell, all the money the rich save, will trickle down to us serfs. So the money the 1% saves means they have more money the give to the poor.
Kansas has the same policy and their economy is booming.
See posts 10 and 11
 
I can reinvest, but I'm paying more taxes because I'm having to sell my highest value stocks first. So I less to reinvest. That's the issue here. I think the best way to promote growth is to reduce the capital gains tax, incentivizing people to move their money around more frequently. But that's not what this bill does.

No. You're paying tax on your longest held stock with is going to be at a lower tax rate than your marginal tax rate.
 
No. You're paying tax on your longest held stock with is going to be at a lower tax rate than your marginal tax rate.
Lower rate, yes. Higher monetary value because the oldest stocks yield the highest profits if you follow the mantra "Buy low, sell high."
 
You're paying either nothing 15 or 20% on LT capital gains.

You're paying your marginal tax rate on ST capital gains.

It sounds like you just don't want to pay on your taxes that you've made the most money on, but you're going to pay that eventually unless you're in the low bracket.
 
Give the man his 4 years and ideas to make America better.

That's the magic of the u.s.

If it's a failure or you don't like results you can vote again.

Let's check back in 3 years
 
Well, it’s coming out that the Senate tax bill is treating all stock holdings as “First In First Out.” That means that you have to sell the first shares you get from a company first. For those that aren’t following, let’s say you work for Amazon, receiving 3 shares per year as part of your stock options. When you were given those shares when you started working there in 2000, they weren’t that valuable. Less than $100/share. Now, they are worth over $1100/share. When you sell them, you have to sell your oldest ones first, meaning that those are the ones worth the most.

Wouldn't they be worth the same as all the others?

I'm nitpicking I'll admit.

Appreciated value.
 
Wouldn't they be worth the same as all the others?

I'm nitpicking I'll admit.

Appreciated value.
So I buy shares at $10/share and then I buy the amount of shares later at $70/share. I decide to sell half my shares at $100/share. In FIFO, I have to sell the oldest ones first, so I am paying capital gains tax on the profit of $90/share. But if I wanted to sell the newer ones first because I wanted that money to buy a home or reinvest it into another company, I’d only be paying capital gains tax on the profit of $30/share. So much less tax. As such, I am incentivized to leave my money where it is for as long as possible so that I pay less tax.
 
Back
Top