[md_]

What? How else would a tax on unrealized gains work if not mark-to-market at a fixed day of the year?

This is exactly how Wyden’s proposal works as well, so I fail to understand the point you think you are making.

Personal wealth taxes are literally a tax on personal wealth including unrealized gains.

“I was wrong” is much easier to type than your confusing reply. :)

[jeremy_arnold]

There are taxes A B. B includes A.

ProPublica says "we'd love to see more of A, which is separate from B, as B doesn't seem especially workable".

A and B are not the same, even if one encompasses the other in some meta sense.

A is actionable in a direct sense. And if you wanted to do it in a direct sense, the M2M date you'd pick would not be the first day of the tax year. And you wouldn't use a fixed formula that ignored actual results of the asset.

[md_]

> A and B are not the same, even if one encompasses the other in some meta sense.

What does "meta" mean in your usage? I may be missing some point you are trying to make. Personal wealth taxes encompass unrealized gains taxes, not in a "meta" sense, but in actuality.

Do you disagree?

> ProPublica says "we'd love to see more of A, which is separate from B, as B doesn't seem especially workable".

I took that to be ProPublica saying "one way to increase the total effective tax rate on the ultra-rich would be to tax unrealized gains. Wealth taxes do that; here are some downsides of wealth taxes as implemented elsewhere."

This strikes me as...fair and balanced reporting?

> A is actionable in a direct sense.

I don't know what this means. Hypothetically the US could have either a personal wealth tax or (only) a tax on unrealized gains.

> And if you wanted to do it in a direct sense, the M2M date you'd pick would not be the first day of the tax year.

No, I agree with this. The Swiss system uses mark-to-market at the end of the tax year. So...point you?

If ProPublica suggested the beginning of the year instead of the end of the year, I overlooked that. Good job catching them on this error, I guess? Or something?

> And you wouldn't use a fixed formula that ignored actual results of the asset.

I don't know what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?

[jeremy_arnold]

It's the same as property taxes. Do they factor capital gains in some obvious sense? Sure! They're based on assessed value, which should be closer to market value than original sale price. But no one looks at them as the same as forcing gains realizations. Just two different things conceptually. Just so for wealth taxes, with are just property taxes for non-RE property.

[md_]

Backing up a bit, you wrote,

"It's true that a few (and very much declining) number of countries have some form of wealth tax that includes some amount of unrealized gains. The Netherlands, for example, marks-to-market on Jan 1st of the tax year then doesn't actually track gains/losses over the next 364 days. So that obviously isn't a direct tax on gains."

I wrote,

"What? How else would a tax on unrealized gains work if not mark-to-market at a fixed day of the year?"

How do you believe an unrealized gains tax would work if not mark-to-market on a fixed day of the year?

Backing up even further, as I said, this is extreme hair splitting. Major economies do have wealth taxes, which include a tax on unrealized gains via mark-to-market. Is your point just "lol ProPublica r idiots nobody taxes just unrealized gains"?