• MrEff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    3 months ago

    Biggest argument people are going to have against this is reading the headline and then realizing most their retirement is in the form of unrealized gains. But if you then just read the qualifier of $100 million, you will quickly realize we are not talking about normal people here. We aren’t even talking about normal rich people. We are talking about the 1% of 1% people.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s enough for 50 people to live comfortably on just the gains for an entire lifetime.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          I said “at least” because there’s significant variance in cost of living. I’ve already run the numbers, and for my family it’s $5MM - though this makes me realize that I meant household, so 50 is certainly not inaccurate per person.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      Government has never expanded their reach when given power. Civil forfeiture was about combating organized crime not funding police departments. Border patrol has expanded reasonable searches from crossings to cover entire states. Give it 20 year and this will apply to gains over a million.

      • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, and because of this the corporate tax rate and top marginal tax rate has been trending up for the past half century… right?

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          The effective tax rate has largely remained constant despite changing rates for the rich. Tax avoidance has always been a thing.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean… oh no? A million is still wildly more than any one human needs or should have so who gives a shit if they tax it. Also unsure if a retirement fund would exactly count as tradable assets anyways. But also, if we accidentally manage to kill the fucking stock market because of this in only two years that be fucking cool as hell lol.

        • MrEff@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You would be surprised. If you worked a decent job early in life, moved up the ladder, retired as upper middle class making $250k-ish, it is kind of expected to have about 2-3 mil in your retirement. Hell, if you work a half way decent government job and invested wisely your entire life and didn’t have stupid amounts of debt, you should have about a mil in retirement.

          1 mil in retirement gives you about 5,500 per month at a growth rate of 6%, withdraw rate of 3%, and annual inflation at 3%. The current recommended retirement is a little under a mil.

          As far as retirement funds counting as tradable assets, that is how your 401k accounts work. It is literally a stock market account. The question comes down to when the tax is paid, pre or post withdrawal. In a roth IRA you pay the tax coming in. In a traditional IRA you pay tax when the money comes out. Either way, as long as the money stays in the account you can make it liquid, put it in a stock, bond, mutual fund, whatever you want as long as the account can do it; but in the end it is in a trading account and short of the cash in there, it is a tradable asset.