• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Long Term Capital Gains

Long Term Capital Gains

  • yes

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • no

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
The notion you've introduced needs to be clarified; however, doing so involves comprehending/explaining some rather technical accounting concepts.
  • In the context of taxes, "capital gains tax" means "the liability a taxpayer owes a government as a result of income received from a capital exchange/transfer." Capital exchanges are ones wherein a capital (long term or non-current) asset is sold or purchased. Another type of capital exchange is one in which one receives a cash distribution of firm income (paid from net income) rather than a distribution of cash in the form of wages (paid from pre-net income cash). (For business owners who work in the firm they own, this is the difference between dividends and wages.)
  • See the following to obtain an understanding of what a deferred tax asset/liability is: Deferred Tax Asset/Liability

The preceding concepts are pretty straight forward. What follows is where precision matters.

Blue:​

  • "Long term" regarding a deferral of any sort --> That is a non-concept as goes accounting (tax or financial). One either defers a liability's/asset's liquidation/realization or one doesn't. How long one defers realization of returns (deferred asset) or paying a debt (deferred liability) is what it is, a period of time, not more and not less, but it has no qualitative label, only quantitative ones. (Deferred 'til next year. Deferred for a year. Deferred for a decade. Deferred for a month. Other quantitatively specific periods of deferral.) Because the notion of "long term deferral isn't "a thing," one can qualify any period of time as "long term."

    From a financial accounting standpoint, deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities are classified and reported as non-current; however from a tax accounting standpoint, one either did, as a result of one or more transaction events in the "just closed" accounting period, incur a tax liability or one did not.


Red:​

  • "Pushing" the incurrence of a tax liability into a future tax accounting and reporting period is how, for tax accounting purposes, a taxpayer defers a tax liability. The tax rate applicable to the tax liability is the rate that applies to the nature of the transaction(s) that give rise to the liability. Among the prime natures of such transactions is the receipt of cash, though in somewhat rare situations, the receipt of a claim to cash or cash equivalent can trigger the liability.
    • When does one incur a tax liability? The instant one owes the government a tax sum.
    • When does one calculate the tax liability? Just before one pays it. Why then? Because prior to then, it wasn't determinate, no matter how closely one might have previously estimated it. (That has to do with the passage of time and the fact that things can change between "now" and the future date on which one pays a debt. The same idea applies to expected receipts of (claims to) cash and other assets too; it's just that one is on the receiving end rather than the paying end.)
In light of the above concepts, one sees that to defer a capital gains tax is to defer the liability to pay tax on a capital gains transaction. On can defer the liability associated with a taxable capital exchange/transfer in a number of ways. Among the best ways is to "gross up to FMV" the basis of the value of the underlying capital asset involved in the exchange. That's what happens when one transfers assets into certain types of trusts, for example.

What follows is a highly simplified example, but the basic tactical approach applies to all forms of capital exchanges.
Buy, say, a share of stock for $10. Hold it for 20 years and learn it's FMV is $1000.​


  • [*=1]Sell the stock and one will, on the day of the sale, have a capital gains tax liability on $990.
    [*=1]Transfer the stock to a trust and the trust will own the stock at its FMV on the day of the transfer. When the trust later sells it, the trust (depending on what type of trust it is) will have a liability (or a loss) on the difference in price between $1000 and the selling price. The trust can pay the tax and then distribute the remaining cash to the trust beneficiary.

Though I've outlined the basic idea, there are many different tax liability (not the tax itself, which is the payment one make) deferral tactics. Doing that in one way or another is about what all the below pictured tactics are about.

rich.jpg

we need to fix that but unfortunately they write the rules and all the dumb azzed righties back them up!

no reasoning with a rightie.
 
we need to fix that but unfortunately they write the rules and all the dumb azzed righties back them up!

no reasoning with a rightie.

I don't think one's being a "rightie" or "leftie" has anything to do with the principles of accounting that drive the tax treatment given to capital gains and losses.

One shouldn't need to be particularly wealthy or high earning to "get it" overall. Think about it....
  • What's a capital asset? An asset one holds (or in the case of financial rather than tax accounting, intends to hold) for more than a year.
  • What kinds of assets are capital assets? Houses, land, equipment, and financial instruments are some.
Consider the capital asset many folks own: a house that serves also as a primary residence. Over the periods in which one owns it, what happens to the value of the house? In most instances, it increases. The owner's wealth increases with the value of the house.
  • Does it make sense to incrementally tax the owner on the value appreciation over the course of the period of ownership? Of course not.
  • When the owner sells the house, does it make sense to tax him on the profit from the sale? Sure, but the tax code doesn't assess a liability if the owner, within a short enough period of time, uses the profit to purchase another house.
The purchase of a new house is, accounting-wise, is nothing other than the "grossing up" of the basis of the owner's wealth.
  1. 1970 -- Buy a house for $40K.
  2. 2010 -- Sell the house for $15M.
  3. 2010 -- Buy a new house for $15M.
  4. 2014 -- Sell the new house for $16M.
In the above series of transaction, in 2014, the owner will owe tax on $1M, not on $15.96M. The owner deferred his tax liability and "grossed up" his basis and paid tax on the resulting gain. It's exactly the same concept I described in the post to which you replied. The fact that I didn't earlier use a house as the example doesn't mean the underlying nature of the asset(s) is any different.


By my analysis of the matter, I don't have a problem with the rationale underpinning the taxation of gains/losses from capital asset transaction events. I take exception with:
  1. Disproportionate equitability of the allotment of tax impacts resulting from tax code alterations.
  2. The contextual disingenuousness of qualitative depictions of tax code changes.
On those two dimensions, the recently described changes in how capital gains provisions will be interpreted and applied are indefensible.
 
There should be no separate capital gains tax, it should all be taxed as regular income.

But 5 years would be better than 1.
 
Presently long term capital gains is defined as assets held for over 1 year. how many feel 5 years is a better definition of long term.

Capital gains is defined not by asset holding, and not by terms of time, but by gains earned by principal investment, an asset. Only the gains is subject to taxation.

The purpose of a greater tax rate for gains during a short period, 1 year under our federal system, is to diminish destabilization of market capitalization because of short term trends. Not to gain higher revenues or punish those who trade as compared to those who invest.

The initial argument for a capital gains tax separate from other income sourced taxes, was made to encourage market capitalization. However since the current objection is to Capitalism, using money to make more money with no labor required, then perhaps your question might be eliminating the gains tax completely and subjecting capital gains to the same taxation, progressive or not, incurred by other forms of income. i.e. NYS does not have a capital gains system of taxation. All forms of income are treated the same, inclusive of earned income, and taxed accordingly in a progressive taxing system.

If you are intent about criticizing a system of taxation, it behooves you to first understand what you are criticizing.
 
Is the question "how long should it be until capital gains tax is deferred as "long term"?

A change meaning I'd have to hold an asset 5 or 10 years before I can defer taxes on gains?

No one is deferring taxes. You misunderstand. There is no gain or loss to be taxed until the conveyance of an asset occurs.

i.e. I buy an equity for $2 on Monday. On Tuesday the value drops to 10¢. Do I take an immediate tax loss? or Do I put the equity away in a draw, forget about it as a loss, and find 5 years later it is worth $100, pull it out of the drawer, convey it at that time and pay a tax at that time on the $98 earned?

Maybe you want to tell me how I don't understand what you don't understand, how I am fabricating my understanding, because I know it all and I'm opinionated? Please do tell.
 
Why? For what reason(s)?

Anything less should be taxed at normal personal level income rates and not capital gain rates. Short term and medium term investments are what drive small business. Caprital gains taxes punish the small business owner for the use of their investment capital and hinder small business from being able to acquire short and medium term venture capital from outside investors. That’s without even discussing inheritance.
 
Anything less should be taxed at normal personal level income rates and not capital gain rates. Short term and medium term investments are what drive small business. Caprital gains taxes punish the small business owner for the use of their investment capital and hinder small business from being able to acquire short and medium term venture capital from outside investors. That’s without even discussing inheritance.

Perhaps you should speak with a CPA or tax attorney for a clearer understanding?

As a small business investor, tax liability is a very small issue for determining investment, if it enters the picture at all. (so far this year, a bookstore for children, a bakery, a black smithery, a custom cabinetry shop)

Introducing inheritance taxes merely muddied the waters, especially today.
 
Perhaps you should speak with a CPA or tax attorney for a clearer understanding?

As a small business investor, tax liability is a very small issue for determining investment, if it enters the picture at all. (so far this year, a bookstore for children, a bakery, a black smithery, a custom cabinetry shop)

Introducing inheritance taxes merely muddied the waters, especially today.

As an owner of numerous small businesses, a family farm inheritor and current owner, an investor in other small and large businesses, and the husband of a CPA/state tax auditor, I'll stick with my original statement.

But thank you for the advice.
 
Maybe you want to tell me how I don't understand what you don't understand, how I am fabricating my understanding, because I know it all and I'm opinionated? Please do tell.

Agreed.
 
As an owner of numerous small businesses, a family farm inheritor and current owner, an investor in other small and large businesses, and the husband of a CPA/state tax auditor, I'll stick with my original statement.

But thank you for the advice.

I don't see how capital gains rates effect small or medium business investment detrimentally. Investors would pay higher taxes if investment funds were taxed on the basis of earned income, reducing the available investment money.

The two primary qualities I seek for small business investment are vision and ability to execute, not tax issues. Most investors I know do the same.

I'm not arguing. I'm looking to learn.

I do have some small farming experience. I purchased an abandoned 150 acre farm from a NYS county gov't for back taxes, during the early 1970's. It had been on the market since the mid 1930's. I had no intent to farm. On the Hudson River with Riparian rights, I was seeking a vacation home for my family. I personally, with help from friends and family, after selling 50 acres to a new neighbor building a boutique dairy farm, rebuilt the house, barn, stable, machine storage shed, and other assorted small structures including a swimming pond fed by natural springs. Took my time, almost 10 years. I then sold an additional 50 acres to the Maryknoll Agricultural Conservancy in exchange for the original purchase price (the land had tripled in value after rebuilding the structures) and a contract at no cost to me to rebuild the arbor, mostly composed of heirloom fruit (mostly apple, pear, peach, cherry) and nut trees, some oak, pine, hickory and butternut. And to revive the grape and olive vines that surround the house. The olives failed, but the grapes and other berries are flourishing. They manage almost all agricultural efforts on the remaining property today, as part of their teaching, conservancy and heirloom rescue efforts. I used the money received to build a dock on the Hudson, for storing luxury Hudson sailing yachts come winter, a dozen slips with repair facilities on the shorefront. Inclusive of a small skiff and two mast boat for family use. Pays my land taxes and insurance costs. My family is responsible for maintaining livestock, a few horses, sheep and two very ornery goats, a bunch of dogs and cats with help from two tenants, a nun who teaches at Marymount, and a lay cleric who teaches piano at Maryknoll. They also run the vegetable gardens. This is not a farm for profits so things are a bit different. We hosted the 5 marriages of my kids at this farm (one of my boys lost his first wife, life goes on and he remarried, his second mother in law is now my second wife), and hope to do so for all, if not most, of the grandkids when the time comes.

As well, over the years I've land banked about 20k acres in northwestern NY, mostly abandoned farms, for old growth and sustainable lumber growth. It is professionally managed and has been in the black for a dozen or so years. We're thinking of doubling the land bank this next year, more than 300,000 acres are available in the region. Again, abandoned land.
 
Back
Top Bottom