This was so insightful!_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-04-26

This was so insightful!

A Higher Capital-Gains Tax Wouldn’t Be as Scary as It Sounds<blockquote>更高的资本利得税并不像听起来那么可怕</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":374350979,"tweetId":"374350979","gmtCreate":1619422358491,"gmtModify":1634273612476,"author":{"id":3577092105346620,"idStr":"3577092105346620","authorId":3577092105346620,"authorIdStr":"3577092105346620","name":"lolzies","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4c14b2defd1aecdccfdf3d13576b666b","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>This was so insightful!</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>This was so insightful!</body></html>","text":"This was so insightful!","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/374350979","repostId":1173749540,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1173749540","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1619419894,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1173749540?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-04-26 14:51","market":"us","language":"en","title":"A Higher Capital-Gains Tax Wouldn’t Be as Scary as It Sounds<blockquote>更高的资本利得税并不像听起来那么可怕</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1173749540","media":"Barrons","summary":"Shocked! Shocked! As in the classic line from the film Casablanca, the stock market somehow was surp","content":"Shocked! Shocked! As in the classic line from the film&nbsp;Casablanca, the stock market somehow was surprised by reports that the Biden administration is set to propose&nbsp;a sharp increase in capital-gains taxes on high earners.<blockquote>震惊！震惊！就像电影里的经典台词卡萨布兰卡有报道称，拜登政府将提议大幅提高高收入者的资本利得税，股市对此感到有些惊讶。</blockquote> That’s even though that prospect had been discussed widely, including in this space, following Joe Biden’s inauguration as president in January. And it had been a major part of the Democrats’ platform during the election campaign last year.<blockquote>尽管在乔·拜登一月份就任总统后，这一前景已经被广泛讨论，包括在这个领域。这是去年竞选期间民主党政纲的主要部分。</blockquote> Yet stocks hit an air pocket when the news was reported early Thursday afternoon, suggesting that the reaction was caused in great part by machines programmed to scan headlines. By Friday, the losses were more than recouped after human investors had time to read and reassess the reports.<blockquote>然而，当周四下午早些时候报道这一消息时，股市陷入了困境，这表明这种反应在很大程度上是由被编程为扫描头条新闻的机器引起的。到周五，在人类投资者有时间阅读和重新评估报告后，损失已被弥补。</blockquote> Those indicated that the administration would propose taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for people earning over $1 million a year. The top bracket for them also would revert to 39.6% from the 37% peak rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.<blockquote>这些人表示，政府将提议对年收入超过100万美元的人按照与普通收入相同的税率征收资本利得税。根据2017年减税和就业法案，他们的最高税率也将从37%的峰值恢复到39.6%。</blockquote> The net effect would roughly be to double the rate on capital gains for these high earners, to 43.4% from the current 23.8%, including the 3.8% Obamacare levy on investment income. It would mean that, for the first time, some Americans’ capital gains would be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary income, such as wages and salaries, instead of getting favored treatment as it has during most of U.S. tax history.<blockquote>净效应大约是将这些高收入者的资本利得税率从目前的23.8%提高到43.4%，其中包括对投资收入征收3.8%的奥巴马医改税。这将意味着，一些美国人的资本收益将首次以高于工资和薪金等普通收入的税率征税，而不是像美国税收史上大部分时间那样获得优惠待遇。</blockquote> None of these proposals has been officially announced or made yet; they’re likely to be outlined when the president addresses a joint session of Congress Wednesday evening. “The Biden tax proposals are an opening salvo in a negotiating process,” writes Greg Valliere, chief U.S. strategist for AGF Investments, in a client note. He and other Washington watchers look for the administration to seek a cap-gains rate of 28% or 30% for million-dollar earners, which would be about halfway between the current 23.8% and the 43.4% top rate reportedly under consideration.<blockquote>这些提议都还没有正式宣布或提出；总统周三晚上在国会联席会议上发表讲话时可能会概述这些建议。AGF Investments首席美国策略师格雷格·瓦利埃(Greg Valliere)在一份客户报告中写道：“拜登的税收提案是谈判过程中的开场。”他和其他华盛顿观察人士希望政府为百万富翁寻求28%或30%的上限增长率，这大约是目前23.8%和据报道正在考虑的43.4%最高增长率的一半。</blockquote> And because it’s basically an unofficial trial balloon at this point, there are far more questions than answers about any tax changes that could be aimed at investors.<blockquote>由于目前这基本上是一个非官方的试验气球，因此针对投资者的任何税收变化的问题远远多于答案。</blockquote> In its efforts to tax capital the same as labor, the administration also could seek to tax dividends at the same rate as ordinary income. Since 2003, these payouts have been taxed at the lower capital-gains rate, which helps to offset their double taxation at the corporate and shareholder levels.<blockquote>在努力像对劳动力一样对资本征税的过程中，政府还可以寻求按照与普通收入相同的税率对股息征税。自2003年以来，这些支出一直按较低的资本利得税率征税，这有助于抵消公司和股东层面的双重征税。</blockquote> Another reported target is the estate-tax exemption. The administration would seek to slash the current one of $11.7 million to $5.5 million. However, because the exemption effectively is doubled for couples, the change would affect only a small number of estates.<blockquote>另一个报道的目标是遗产税豁免。政府将寻求将目前的1170万美元削减至550万美元。然而，由于夫妇的免税实际上增加了一倍，这一变化只会影响一小部分遗产。</blockquote> Potentially, a bigger impact would come from&nbsp;the elimination of the step-up in cost basis on inherited assets. That could produce a big hit on investments made years ago. For instance, if you invested $10,000 in theSPDR S&amp;P 500&nbsp;exchange-traded fund (ticker: SPY) when it debuted on Jan. 29, 1993, it now would be worth $159,472.86, according to Morningstar calculations. Under current law, if you were to die, your heirs would owe taxes only on gains above that appreciated value. Were the step-up in basis eliminated, your heirs would owe taxes on the gains above the original $10,000 cost when they sell.<blockquote>潜在的更大影响将来自于消除继承资产的成本基础的增加。这可能会对多年前的投资造成重大打击。例如，根据晨星公司的计算，如果您在1993年1月29日首次亮相时向SPDR标普500交易所交易基金（股票代码：SPDR标普500指数ETF）投资10,000美元，那么现在该基金的价值将为159,472.86美元。根据现行法律，如果您去世，您的继承人只需为高于增值价值的收益纳税。如果取消基础的增加，您的继承人在出售时将对高于原始10,000美元成本的收益纳税。</blockquote> Critics contend that the step-up in basis promotes dynastic wealth and inequality. But calculating the tax on hard-to-value assets, such as private businesses established years ago, can be nearly impossible. Even figuring the original price paid for long-held publicly traded shares would be tough.<blockquote>批评者认为，基础的提高促进了王朝的财富和不平等。但计算难以估值的资产（例如多年前成立的私营企业）的税收几乎是不可能的。即使计算长期持有的公开交易股票的原始价格也很困难。</blockquote> The reported proposals also could have some unexpected effects, among them increased corporate leverage, according to Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Bank of America. A higher capital-gains levy would raise the cost of equity, while a hike in corporate tax rates would lower the after-tax cost of debt, he writes in a research note. That would be negative for corporate credit ratings and default risk.<blockquote>美国银行信贷策略师汉斯·米克尔森表示，报道的提议还可能产生一些意想不到的影响，其中包括增加企业杠杆率。他在一份研究报告中写道，提高资本利得税将提高股权成本，而提高公司税率将降低税后债务成本。这将对企业信用评级和违约风险产生负面影响。</blockquote> Investors could sell assets now to take advantage of the current capital- gains rate, given that few observers think any increases would be retroactive. However, even if a hike is approved by Congress—a very big if, given Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate—UBS suggests that the impact on stocks might be limited.<blockquote>鉴于很少有观察家认为任何上涨都会具有追溯力，投资者现在可以出售资产以利用当前的资本利得率。然而，即使国会批准加息——考虑到民主党在参议院的微弱多数，这是一个非常大的假设——瑞银表示，对股市的影响可能有限。</blockquote> Only 25% of U.S. equities are owned by U.S. taxable investors, with the remaining 75% held by people and entities not subject to capital-gains levies, such as pension plans and other retirement accounts, endowments, and foreign investors, according to a note to the bank’s clients. And UBS expects some of the unaffected investors to buy any dip in the stock market. That could help support share prices.<blockquote>根据一份报告，只有25%的美国股票由美国应税投资者持有，其余75%由无需缴纳资本利得税的个人和实体持有，例如养老金计划和其他退休账户、捐赠基金和外国投资者。给银行客户的说明。瑞银预计，一些未受影响的投资者将在股市下跌时买入。这可能有助于支撑股价。</blockquote> Moreover, investors have a lot of leeway in realizing capital gains. By deferring selling, you might pay a higher rate, but you’d also benefit from the continued growth of the assets, rather than paying the taxman now. Those with incomes that vary from year to year could realize capital gains whenever their annual income is under $1 million. Taxable income also could be reduced by charitable contributions or by shifting from taxable bonds to tax-exempt municipals, the bank points out.<blockquote>而且，投资者在实现资本收益方面有很大的回旋余地。通过推迟出售，您可能会支付更高的税率，但您也会从资产的持续增长中受益，而不是现在向税务人员付款。那些年收入不同的人，只要年收入低于100万美元，就可以实现资本收益。该银行指出，慈善捐款或从应税债券转向免税市政债券也可能减少应税收入。</blockquote> The very rich are different from you and me, F. Scott Fitzgerald famously observed. In one aspect, they certainly are: having a myriad of ways to manage their financial affairs to minimize taxes.<blockquote>非常富有的人与你我不同，F.斯科特·菲茨杰拉德有一句著名的观察。在一个方面，他们当然是：有无数的方法来管理他们的财务事务，以最大限度地减少税收。</blockquote> However, even though the Biden White House’s tax proposals are certain to get watered down, that won’t reduce their headline risk, adds Valliere. His prediction: “The rich, corporate and individual, are vilified by the progressives who dominate the administration, and this will keep the stock market on edge.”<blockquote>然而，瓦利埃补充道，尽管拜登白宫的税收提案肯定会被淡化，但这不会降低其总体风险。他的预测是：“富人、企业和个人都受到主导政府的进步人士的诋毁，这将使股市保持紧张。”</blockquote>","source":"lsy1601382232898","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>A Higher Capital-Gains Tax Wouldn’t Be as Scary as It Sounds<blockquote>更高的资本利得税并不像听起来那么可怕</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nA Higher Capital-Gains Tax Wouldn’t Be as Scary as It Sounds<blockquote>更高的资本利得税并不像听起来那么可怕</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nBarrons2021-04-26 14:51\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nShocked! Shocked! As in the classic line from the film&nbsp;Casablanca, the stock market somehow was surprised by reports that the Biden administration is set to propose&nbsp;a sharp increase in capital-gains taxes on high earners.<blockquote>震惊！震惊！就像电影里的经典台词卡萨布兰卡有报道称，拜登政府将提议大幅提高高收入者的资本利得税，股市对此感到有些惊讶。</blockquote> That’s even though that prospect had been discussed widely, including in this space, following Joe Biden’s inauguration as president in January. And it had been a major part of the Democrats’ platform during the election campaign last year.<blockquote>尽管在乔·拜登一月份就任总统后，这一前景已经被广泛讨论，包括在这个领域。这是去年竞选期间民主党政纲的主要部分。</blockquote> Yet stocks hit an air pocket when the news was reported early Thursday afternoon, suggesting that the reaction was caused in great part by machines programmed to scan headlines. By Friday, the losses were more than recouped after human investors had time to read and reassess the reports.<blockquote>然而，当周四下午早些时候报道这一消息时，股市陷入了困境，这表明这种反应在很大程度上是由被编程为扫描头条新闻的机器引起的。到周五，在人类投资者有时间阅读和重新评估报告后，损失已被弥补。</blockquote> Those indicated that the administration would propose taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for people earning over $1 million a year. The top bracket for them also would revert to 39.6% from the 37% peak rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.<blockquote>这些人表示，政府将提议对年收入超过100万美元的人按照与普通收入相同的税率征收资本利得税。根据2017年减税和就业法案，他们的最高税率也将从37%的峰值恢复到39.6%。</blockquote> The net effect would roughly be to double the rate on capital gains for these high earners, to 43.4% from the current 23.8%, including the 3.8% Obamacare levy on investment income. It would mean that, for the first time, some Americans’ capital gains would be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary income, such as wages and salaries, instead of getting favored treatment as it has during most of U.S. tax history.<blockquote>净效应大约是将这些高收入者的资本利得税率从目前的23.8%提高到43.4%，其中包括对投资收入征收3.8%的奥巴马医改税。这将意味着，一些美国人的资本收益将首次以高于工资和薪金等普通收入的税率征税，而不是像美国税收史上大部分时间那样获得优惠待遇。</blockquote> None of these proposals has been officially announced or made yet; they’re likely to be outlined when the president addresses a joint session of Congress Wednesday evening. “The Biden tax proposals are an opening salvo in a negotiating process,” writes Greg Valliere, chief U.S. strategist for AGF Investments, in a client note. He and other Washington watchers look for the administration to seek a cap-gains rate of 28% or 30% for million-dollar earners, which would be about halfway between the current 23.8% and the 43.4% top rate reportedly under consideration.<blockquote>这些提议都还没有正式宣布或提出；总统周三晚上在国会联席会议上发表讲话时可能会概述这些建议。AGF Investments首席美国策略师格雷格·瓦利埃(Greg Valliere)在一份客户报告中写道：“拜登的税收提案是谈判过程中的开场。”他和其他华盛顿观察人士希望政府为百万富翁寻求28%或30%的上限增长率，这大约是目前23.8%和据报道正在考虑的43.4%最高增长率的一半。</blockquote> And because it’s basically an unofficial trial balloon at this point, there are far more questions than answers about any tax changes that could be aimed at investors.<blockquote>由于目前这基本上是一个非官方的试验气球，因此针对投资者的任何税收变化的问题远远多于答案。</blockquote> In its efforts to tax capital the same as labor, the administration also could seek to tax dividends at the same rate as ordinary income. Since 2003, these payouts have been taxed at the lower capital-gains rate, which helps to offset their double taxation at the corporate and shareholder levels.<blockquote>在努力像对劳动力一样对资本征税的过程中，政府还可以寻求按照与普通收入相同的税率对股息征税。自2003年以来，这些支出一直按较低的资本利得税率征税，这有助于抵消公司和股东层面的双重征税。</blockquote> Another reported target is the estate-tax exemption. The administration would seek to slash the current one of $11.7 million to $5.5 million. However, because the exemption effectively is doubled for couples, the change would affect only a small number of estates.<blockquote>另一个报道的目标是遗产税豁免。政府将寻求将目前的1170万美元削减至550万美元。然而，由于夫妇的免税实际上增加了一倍，这一变化只会影响一小部分遗产。</blockquote> Potentially, a bigger impact would come from&nbsp;the elimination of the step-up in cost basis on inherited assets. That could produce a big hit on investments made years ago. For instance, if you invested $10,000 in theSPDR S&amp;P 500&nbsp;exchange-traded fund (ticker: SPY) when it debuted on Jan. 29, 1993, it now would be worth $159,472.86, according to Morningstar calculations. Under current law, if you were to die, your heirs would owe taxes only on gains above that appreciated value. Were the step-up in basis eliminated, your heirs would owe taxes on the gains above the original $10,000 cost when they sell.<blockquote>潜在的更大影响将来自于消除继承资产的成本基础的增加。这可能会对多年前的投资造成重大打击。例如，根据晨星公司的计算，如果您在1993年1月29日首次亮相时向SPDR标普500交易所交易基金（股票代码：SPDR标普500指数ETF）投资10,000美元，那么现在该基金的价值将为159,472.86美元。根据现行法律，如果您去世，您的继承人只需为高于增值价值的收益纳税。如果取消基础的增加，您的继承人在出售时将对高于原始10,000美元成本的收益纳税。</blockquote> Critics contend that the step-up in basis promotes dynastic wealth and inequality. But calculating the tax on hard-to-value assets, such as private businesses established years ago, can be nearly impossible. Even figuring the original price paid for long-held publicly traded shares would be tough.<blockquote>批评者认为，基础的提高促进了王朝的财富和不平等。但计算难以估值的资产（例如多年前成立的私营企业）的税收几乎是不可能的。即使计算长期持有的公开交易股票的原始价格也很困难。</blockquote> The reported proposals also could have some unexpected effects, among them increased corporate leverage, according to Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Bank of America. A higher capital-gains levy would raise the cost of equity, while a hike in corporate tax rates would lower the after-tax cost of debt, he writes in a research note. That would be negative for corporate credit ratings and default risk.<blockquote>美国银行信贷策略师汉斯·米克尔森表示，报道的提议还可能产生一些意想不到的影响，其中包括增加企业杠杆率。他在一份研究报告中写道，提高资本利得税将提高股权成本，而提高公司税率将降低税后债务成本。这将对企业信用评级和违约风险产生负面影响。</blockquote> Investors could sell assets now to take advantage of the current capital- gains rate, given that few observers think any increases would be retroactive. However, even if a hike is approved by Congress—a very big if, given Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate—UBS suggests that the impact on stocks might be limited.<blockquote>鉴于很少有观察家认为任何上涨都会具有追溯力，投资者现在可以出售资产以利用当前的资本利得率。然而，即使国会批准加息——考虑到民主党在参议院的微弱多数，这是一个非常大的假设——瑞银表示，对股市的影响可能有限。</blockquote> Only 25% of U.S. equities are owned by U.S. taxable investors, with the remaining 75% held by people and entities not subject to capital-gains levies, such as pension plans and other retirement accounts, endowments, and foreign investors, according to a note to the bank’s clients. And UBS expects some of the unaffected investors to buy any dip in the stock market. That could help support share prices.<blockquote>根据一份报告，只有25%的美国股票由美国应税投资者持有，其余75%由无需缴纳资本利得税的个人和实体持有，例如养老金计划和其他退休账户、捐赠基金和外国投资者。给银行客户的说明。瑞银预计，一些未受影响的投资者将在股市下跌时买入。这可能有助于支撑股价。</blockquote> Moreover, investors have a lot of leeway in realizing capital gains. By deferring selling, you might pay a higher rate, but you’d also benefit from the continued growth of the assets, rather than paying the taxman now. Those with incomes that vary from year to year could realize capital gains whenever their annual income is under $1 million. Taxable income also could be reduced by charitable contributions or by shifting from taxable bonds to tax-exempt municipals, the bank points out.<blockquote>而且，投资者在实现资本收益方面有很大的回旋余地。通过推迟出售，您可能会支付更高的税率，但您也会从资产的持续增长中受益，而不是现在向税务人员付款。那些年收入不同的人，只要年收入低于100万美元，就可以实现资本收益。该银行指出，慈善捐款或从应税债券转向免税市政债券也可能减少应税收入。</blockquote> The very rich are different from you and me, F. Scott Fitzgerald famously observed. In one aspect, they certainly are: having a myriad of ways to manage their financial affairs to minimize taxes.<blockquote>非常富有的人与你我不同，F.斯科特·菲茨杰拉德有一句著名的观察。在一个方面，他们当然是：有无数的方法来管理他们的财务事务，以最大限度地减少税收。</blockquote> However, even though the Biden White House’s tax proposals are certain to get watered down, that won’t reduce their headline risk, adds Valliere. His prediction: “The rich, corporate and individual, are vilified by the progressives who dominate the administration, and this will keep the stock market on edge.”<blockquote>然而，瓦利埃补充道，尽管拜登白宫的税收提案肯定会被淡化，但这不会降低其总体风险。他的预测是：“富人、企业和个人都受到主导政府的进步人士的诋毁，这将使股市保持紧张。”</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/take-heart-investors-a-higher-capital-gains-tax-wouldnt-be-as-scary-as-it-sounds-51619224906?mod=RTA\">Barrons</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/take-heart-investors-a-higher-capital-gains-tax-wouldnt-be-as-scary-as-it-sounds-51619224906?mod=RTA","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1173749540","content_text":"Shocked! Shocked! As in the classic line from the film Casablanca, the stock market somehow was surprised by reports that the Biden administration is set to propose a sharp increase in capital-gains taxes on high earners.\nThat’s even though that prospect had been discussed widely, including in this space, following Joe Biden’s inauguration as president in January. And it had been a major part of the Democrats’ platform during the election campaign last year.\nYet stocks hit an air pocket when the news was reported early Thursday afternoon, suggesting that the reaction was caused in great part by machines programmed to scan headlines. By Friday, the losses were more than recouped after human investors had time to read and reassess the reports.\nThose indicated that the administration would propose taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for people earning over $1 million a year. The top bracket for them also would revert to 39.6% from the 37% peak rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.\nThe net effect would roughly be to double the rate on capital gains for these high earners, to 43.4% from the current 23.8%, including the 3.8% Obamacare levy on investment income. It would mean that, for the first time, some Americans’ capital gains would be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary income, such as wages and salaries, instead of getting favored treatment as it has during most of U.S. tax history.\nNone of these proposals has been officially announced or made yet; they’re likely to be outlined when the president addresses a joint session of Congress Wednesday evening. “The Biden tax proposals are an opening salvo in a negotiating process,” writes Greg Valliere, chief U.S. strategist for AGF Investments, in a client note. He and other Washington watchers look for the administration to seek a cap-gains rate of 28% or 30% for million-dollar earners, which would be about halfway between the current 23.8% and the 43.4% top rate reportedly under consideration.\nAnd because it’s basically an unofficial trial balloon at this point, there are far more questions than answers about any tax changes that could be aimed at investors.\nIn its efforts to tax capital the same as labor, the administration also could seek to tax dividends at the same rate as ordinary income. Since 2003, these payouts have been taxed at the lower capital-gains rate, which helps to offset their double taxation at the corporate and shareholder levels.\nAnother reported target is the estate-tax exemption. The administration would seek to slash the current one of $11.7 million to $5.5 million. However, because the exemption effectively is doubled for couples, the change would affect only a small number of estates.\nPotentially, a bigger impact would come from the elimination of the step-up in cost basis on inherited assets. That could produce a big hit on investments made years ago. For instance, if you invested $10,000 in theSPDR S&P 500 exchange-traded fund (ticker: SPY) when it debuted on Jan. 29, 1993, it now would be worth $159,472.86, according to Morningstar calculations. Under current law, if you were to die, your heirs would owe taxes only on gains above that appreciated value. Were the step-up in basis eliminated, your heirs would owe taxes on the gains above the original $10,000 cost when they sell.\nCritics contend that the step-up in basis promotes dynastic wealth and inequality. But calculating the tax on hard-to-value assets, such as private businesses established years ago, can be nearly impossible. Even figuring the original price paid for long-held publicly traded shares would be tough.\nThe reported proposals also could have some unexpected effects, among them increased corporate leverage, according to Hans Mikkelsen, credit strategist at Bank of America. A higher capital-gains levy would raise the cost of equity, while a hike in corporate tax rates would lower the after-tax cost of debt, he writes in a research note. That would be negative for corporate credit ratings and default risk.\nInvestors could sell assets now to take advantage of the current capital- gains rate, given that few observers think any increases would be retroactive. However, even if a hike is approved by Congress—a very big if, given Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate—UBS suggests that the impact on stocks might be limited.\nOnly 25% of U.S. equities are owned by U.S. taxable investors, with the remaining 75% held by people and entities not subject to capital-gains levies, such as pension plans and other retirement accounts, endowments, and foreign investors, according to a note to the bank’s clients. And UBS expects some of the unaffected investors to buy any dip in the stock market. That could help support share prices.\nMoreover, investors have a lot of leeway in realizing capital gains. By deferring selling, you might pay a higher rate, but you’d also benefit from the continued growth of the assets, rather than paying the taxman now. Those with incomes that vary from year to year could realize capital gains whenever their annual income is under $1 million. Taxable income also could be reduced by charitable contributions or by shifting from taxable bonds to tax-exempt municipals, the bank points out.\nThe very rich are different from you and me, F. Scott Fitzgerald famously observed. In one aspect, they certainly are: having a myriad of ways to manage their financial affairs to minimize taxes.\nHowever, even though the Biden White House’s tax proposals are certain to get watered down, that won’t reduce their headline risk, adds Valliere. His prediction: “The rich, corporate and individual, are vilified by the progressives who dominate the administration, and this will keep the stock market on edge.”","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1675,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":20,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/374350979"}