A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness found that America’s richest families accumulated $8.5 trillion in untaxed capital gains in 2022

America’s wealthiest families held an astounding $8.5 trillion in untaxed profits in 2022. According to a report from the nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness, which analyzed Federal Reserve data, “one in every six dollars (18 percent of the nation’s unrealized gains is held by these roughly 64,000 ultra-wealthy households, who make up less than 0.05 percent of the population.” The report comes as the Supreme Court gears up to decide a case that could preemptively block any efforts to tax the wealth of billionaires.

The data looks at “quiet” income generated by “centi-millionaires,” Americans holding at least $100 million in wealth, and billionaires through unrealized capital gains. Those gains accumulate, untaxed, as assets and investments like stocks, real estate, bonds, and other investments increase in value. If those assets are not sold — or “realized” — they are not taxed, yet America’s wealthiest families can leverage that on-paper value increase to secure favorable loans with low-interest rates in lieu of using taxable income to finance their lifestyle.

“Of the $139 trillion in America’s national wealth, almost three-quarters (73 percent) is held by the richest 10 percent of households, over one-third (35 percent) by the richest 1 percent, and an astounding 11 percent — $15.2 trillion — is held by the handful of fortunate households that make up the billionaire and centi-millionaire class,” the report says. “The wealthiest 1 percent of households hold 44 percent of national unrealized gains ($21.2 trillion), with billionaires and centi-millionaires alone controlling 18 percent ($8.5 trillion).”

  • hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They should be forced to sell, that is the point. Accounting is complicated because people want to hide wealth. None of this is actually complicated it’s just been made complex.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a better solution. They take loans with these assets as collateral. Tax the use of collateral (as a kind of advance capital gains).

      • homesnatch@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        The situation is that the ultra wealthy never have to sell… Instead they get loans since that is cheaper percentage-wise than paying taxes.

        • profoundninja@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think that’s The problem though right. Don’t let Mega rich leverage their assets for loans for more assets.

          I’m not economist, forcing someone sell something just didn’t make sense to me.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, let them do that, but tax its use as collateral. It’s effectively an advance capital gains tax then, allowing them to generate cash flow from their assets but also not letting them escape income/gains taxes.

            • profoundninja@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah this makes sense to me.

              Remove the mechanisms that allow them to perpetually amass wealth on untaxed assets. And or tax assets from a certain threshold to the point where billionaires don’t exist.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, if a sale has to be forced, then so does the purchase. Who are you going to force to buy an asset they may not even want?

              • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And on top of that, you’d have to force someone to buy an asset they may not be able to afford, even if they want the asset that they’re being forced to buy.

                • progressquest@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Guys, we’re talking about the ultra wealthy here. I’m not convinced that they can’t afford it. And besides, valuations aren’t based on nothing. The interested parties are valuating based on what they think would be acceptable compensation, should the loan, or whatever, default. Simplest solution? If the government values your assets at a rate where you can’t find a buyer, then the go government would have to purchase at the established rate.

                  I want to emphasize here that we are talking about a level of wealth that you will never achieve; A level of wealth that indicates a sickness in society.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My only guess is that they meant if they had an investment that made $2 billion on paper that year they should have to pay the taxes on that whether or not they are required to sell off part of the investment to ensure it is paid. (Not sure, just my best guess of what they meant)

          • dtc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While you’re waiting you can share with us your solution if you’d like.

            • bluewing@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The solution is complex requiring every experts from multiple fields to solve and the ripples will affect everyone, even those that can ill afford it. And for those poor people, how does society go about choosing who to throw under the bus?

              I think one thing that gets missed here, it that all rules and regulations can be bent and manipulated for one’s own personal advantage. It’s a part of human nature and drive to do so to gain an advantage - no matter how slim it might be.

              The biggest issue that nearly everyone misses is not thinking about the longer term ramifications of “easy” solutions that seem to solve today’s pressing problem. Social media can never “see” farther than the end of their collective noses. Example: the internal combustion engine and cars. 100+ years ago, it was an apparently “good” solution to the tons of horse manure being created in every city every day and it’s attendant smell, disposal issues, and disease problems. At the time, who knew a bit over 100 years later it was not a good idea. It did seem to solve those immediate issues quite neatly at the time. And now many of us kind of regret it don’t we?

              And BEFORE you jump on me and the points I have tried to make it’s not about “NOT” trying to make improved changes - changes are needed for sure. But the any changes you make must be carefully thought of and weighed against possible future unforeseen consequences as best we can. Social media platforms, (the society’s “stupid” place), ain’t it.

            • profoundninja@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t have one, I’m not an economist.

              Anything i come up with doesn’t come from a well informed educated background.

              I can’t really even grasp what a world without billionaires might look like. If their wealth was distributed to the rest of us, would that just inject trillions of cash into the economy and cause hyper inflation?

              • qarbone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Also not an economist but inflation seems like a problem when you’re trying to maintain scarcity. I can’t see a problem if everyone can afford food and more people can afford fancy foods like Wagyu beef except that capitalists while think “I should be charging more for my fancy thing”. To me, injecting trillions into public services sounds like we hop the gap into a post-scarcity thing where we stop charging for necessities like food, shelter, communication, entertainment, and travel.

              • dtc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “I’m not an economist” when asked for solutions, but you sound like you understand the economy damn well when discussing it and ‘not being able to wrap your head around’ other ideas.

                • profoundninja@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I understand Econ as much as any highschool level graduate should…

                  I’m using basic supply and demand logic mate. Someone who actually understands economics would better explain the issue and solution (someone else in this thread might already).

                  Not sure why you’re picking a fight with someone who understands their own limitations on a specific topic asking for clarity.