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).”

    • @BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      406 months ago

      And all those damned social programs.

      I know I’m on one, but that’s because I actually need it, not like everyone else who are just abusing it. Mostly those foreigners who are both lazy and murderous, but also stealing my job

      /s

    • @n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Oh come on, Jeff Bezos needed that money, he lost money one year! Those tax returns were definately a make or break for him!

      and to further clarify

      /s

  • @ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    696 months ago

    This is how you get nobility. Before Reagan, wealth typically dissipated by the third generation. We are heading toward the old European model, where families are rich for a millennium.

    • Stern
      link
      fedilink
      366 months ago

      Hopefully we can also head for the other old European model of dealing with them that the French popularized.

    • @Myro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      21 month ago

      Exactly. They may not call themselves nobility but their influence is the same if not more.

  • @ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    606 months ago

    Fortunately for the billionaire class, Clarence Thomas’ legal opinion is always for sale.

    • that guy
      link
      fedilink
      166 months ago

      Clarence Thomas is a traitor to the human race. He’d sell us out to aliens if given the chance.

  • @GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    546 months ago

    Societies should not allow billionaires as long as there are people who can’t even get food on the table. It’s just morally and ethically wrong. Some would even say unchristian.

    • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      136 months ago

      The answer is simple. Butcher the billionaires and their fortunes. Eat the rich and use the money for social work.

      • They hit a billion (or really $100 million), loose all assets (aside from a small seed amount), get another star on their chest, and try to do it again. Those who care about the rat race will jump through hoops for what they value, while the rest of us are able to maintain a healthy work/life balance.

    • @KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      106 months ago

      My cyberpunk solution is that once you cross the billion dollar net worth threshold, it becomes legal for a team of any size or an individual to register with the billionaire hunting office.

      If a registered person or group is successful in killing the billionaire, all of their assets (including any managed by a trust on their behalf) are seized, liquidated, and distributed to the group.

      Anyone paid to protect them, anyone affiliated with an organization paid to protect them, or anyone (regardless of affiliation or payment status) within a certain physical proximity to the billionaire is fair game.

    • @bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      As much as I understand Jesus was a socialist, even he couldn’t write rules to live by that can’t be bent, manipulated, and plain broken. Morals and ethics are a feeble reed to lean upon.

  • @BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    386 months ago

    It’s a good thing ZERO Justices have taken luxurious trips and gifts paid for by these same exact billionaires that could inject literally TRILLIONS into our communities!

  • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    33
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Fuck that’s a big boat.

    Does one person seriously need a boat that big?

    Like you can have a smaller boat but it still be tens of millions of dollars and not require an army to crew.

      • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        126 months ago

        That was unironically the argument when people were asking why do we have to take a historic bridge apart (again) in Rotterdam just to let Jeff Bezos’ toy out to the ocean.

    • that guy
      link
      fedilink
      86 months ago

      Seize the yachts, make them billionaire prison boats, national guard shoots anyone who leaves

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      Does one person seriously need a boat that big?

      No amount of people seriously need a boat that big. Not that kind of boat.

  • @quindraco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    336 months ago

    The solution here isn’t to tax unsold goods, it’s to tax the banks on all the income they’re getting from these loans.

    • @go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      76 months ago

      The solution here isn’t to tax unsold goods

      Why not? People are taxed for unrealized gains on a house. Why should stocks be any different?

      • @shasta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        Like it or not, most of the US has moved away from pension-based retirement in favor of 401k based retirement. Taxing unrealized capital gains makes it that much harder for the plebs of society. The rich will complain about the extra taxes but ultimately won’t really affect them much.

      • @quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        Taxing people on unrealized gains on a house is abusive and leads directly to maximum landlords and minimum home ownership. Why are we defending that?

      • @trafficnab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        One argument could be that anything that incentivizes people to sell their stocks isn’t a good thing

        The more people buying and selling at any given time, the more volatile the price could become, it’s so easy to buy and sell stocks that we already have to have high frequency trading disincentives by having a really high capital gains tax on stocks that were held for a short period of time

        Property is a lot less volatile, and there’s already a rather large natural incentive to hold on to it for long periods of time (moving is a pain), and taxing unrealized gains on it (essentially, paying estimated taxes on a theoretical future sale) is unlikely to really motivate anyone to sell their house

          • @trafficnab@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            26 months ago

            Apparently about half of Americans have money in the stock market (I would assume almost exclusively due to their 401k/IRAs)

  • @calypsopub@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    316 months ago

    TBF we are talking about unrealized gains. Their investments are worth more on paper, but until they sell them, the actual profit or loss will fluctuate. It would be an accounting nightmare to figure tax on unsold investments every year. I do, however, think capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as wage income.

    • @hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23
      edit-2
      6 months 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
        146 months 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
          156 months 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
            96 months 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
              66 months 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
                16 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              46 months 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  16 months 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.

        • CH3DD4R_G0B-L1N
          link
          fedilink
          English
          106 months ago

          Because no human needs more than 1 billion dollars. Nore did any human come by that honest.

            • 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
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

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

              • @bluewing@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                16 months 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
                16 months 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?

                • dtc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  16 months 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.

                • @qarbone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 months 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.

  • @Coach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    286 months ago

    roughly 64,000 ultra-wealthy households

    Get your forks and knives ready, fam. We’ll be eatin’ good, soon.

  • Verdant Banana
    link
    fedilink
    28
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    headline should read

    they want to “PAY” the Supreme Court to keep it that way

  • @merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    276 months ago

    $8.5 trillion in untaxed profits in 2022.

    through unrealized capital gains.

    Just to be clear, we’re talking about wealth taxes, not income taxes. Yes, the wealthy have all kinds of avoiding paying fair income taxes. But, this is a different issue, this is a wealth tax.

    It’s important to realize, that most of the US already has a form of wealth tax: property taxes. The thing is, property taxes are a regressive form of wealth tax. Sure, the poorest people pay no property-wealth tax, because they’re not wealthy enough to own taxable property. This time they do catch a slight break. Anybody who is middle-class and lucky enough to own a home pay the highest percentage of their total wealth as property-wealth taxes, because virtually all their wealth is tied up in that property. The wealthy pay almost no property-wealth taxes relative to their total wealth because only a tiny amount of their wealth is tied up in property.

    If you graph it out, at the bottom the effective wealth tax is zero, then it jumps to a much higher number, then it declines more and more as you get richer and richer.

    I say screw property taxes and replace them with a proper progressive wealth tax. Along with that, an inheritance tax with teeth and proper enforcement. The grandkids of billionaires should be starting on an equal footing with everyone else.

    • @Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      A ruling against wealth taxes would be insane and would essentially overturn our entire history of tax law. But it would be especially nuts in light of the ruling in NFIB v Sebelius that the government can hit you with a tax for doing nothing. That seems utterly incompatible with the idea that the government doesn’t have the power to tax owning things and/or amassing wealth.

      I guess that would mean you can tax not buying something, but you can’t tax not selling something.

      • Herbal Gamer
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        would essentially overturn our entire history of tax law.

        You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

        • @Makeitstop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          I’m talking about this in terms of jurisprudence. Judges are supposed to rule based on law and precedent, not just on their personal preferences and political views. It’s an essential element of the rule of law. There’s very little point in having a constitution or laws if judges just ignore them and do whatever they want. I mean, I think most people here would agree that they do not approve of this Court defying precedent and most reasonable interpretations of the law in order to impose their will on the country.

          Obviously, the Court can, has, and sometimes should overturn precedent, and potentially throw out decades or centuries of previously settled law. But generally speaking, that ruling should make a very compelling case for such an action. They would essentially be saying that everyone writing and interpreting the laws for all that time had gotten it wrong (intentionally or otherwise), including potentially the people who wrote the very sections of the constitution that the ruling is based on.

          The more specific point I was making was that Roberts had ruled that the government could use the tax power alone to tax “not having insurance” and that it wouldn’t run afoul of the constitution as long as it wasn’t just a head tax applied to everyone indiscriminately, as that would be a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states.* That’s the same clause that is being invoked in this case as a reason why wealth taxes shouldn’t be allowed.

          A ruling against taxes on unrealized gains would not only require the Court to assert that we’ve been doing it wrong this whole time and that we only just now figured that out, but Roberts in particular would be doing a complete 180 on the issue. Jumping from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other would be a rather remarkable change, one that would be hard to reconcile without concluding that one decision or the other was dishonest and politically motivated.


          * And because it had a regulatory intent, aimed at compelling people to buy insurance, it had to also not be so crippling a burden that it’s effects would need to go through police or regulatory powers.

  • Chaotic Entropy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    “But what if I become rich… I should vote against my best interests just in case.”

    In terms of unrealised gains, that’s kind of a tricky one. They certainly do benefit massively from unrealised gains though, like anyone would on paper.

    • @guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      126 months ago

      The best quote for this I’ve ever heard is “Europeans vote like they’ll one day be poor. Americans vote like they’ll one day be billionaires.”

    • @jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      46 months ago

      Do these nimcompoops realize that the existing wealthy elite, few in their number, got that way by exploiting social safetynets and taxpayer funded infrastructure for their gains?

      So cleary, if we want to be able to generate more wealth and more millionaires/billionaires, better social programs and infrastructure will get them there. Imagine how much easier it’ll be to become wealthy if you don’t have to give employees insurance, or tuition reimbursement? Or if there’s an amazing system of roads, rails, and ports to move your goods to consumers? God, you could become a successful businessman and still have a conscious. Best of both worlds.

    • @SchizoDenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      Yeah and the worse thing is that if they try and tax that, the retail investors like you and me are the ones getting fucked while these people get richer because of more profitable arbitrage oppurtunities.

  • @Okigotitnow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    256 months ago

    Nobody needs this kind of wealth. You have to be a real douchbag to buy this kind of boat. Many ways to use wealth without showing off in this un tasteful way. Unfortunately most of society today loves to see rich people on tickfuck and instagram. It will only get worst.

    Read a book have a beer with a friend. ok bye.