Changes in Capital Gains Tax in the US - Going to 20% in 2011?
The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.)  Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act:   they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at   tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something   like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare   legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing   still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused. For the record, now that 2011 is here we know that the capital gains tax rate didn't change. Congress extended it for two more years. This shows the uncertainty in trying to maximize earnings based on future changes to the tax code. Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)
I think a lot of people do not understand corporations. People talk about the 99% and the 1%, but expanding that out it comes down to investors. I'm an investor personally, the job of the company is to make as much money as possible to make my investment as valuable as possible. Also, as stated in the article,  this move could be sparked by the desire to not pay double tax, both American and Canadian. Regardless of what moving their tax money does long term, the company is acting with the investors's interests, pure and simple. Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€ "Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada.  Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire.  The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US.  You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other ""bad"" income-tax states.  But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax.  Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly.  Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta.  The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state.  Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing.  Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister.  Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax).  Some provinces ""harmonized"" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8).  13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada.  Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000.  Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada.  If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction.  In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes.  If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them.  If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction.  Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets.  Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins.  Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type.  So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return.  But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances.  Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth." "As I recall from the documentation presented to me, any gain over the strike price from an ISO stock option counts as a long term capital gain (for tax purposes) if it's held from 2 years from the date of grant and 1 year from the date of exercise. If you're planning to take advantage of that tax treatment, exercising your options now will start that 1-year countdown clock now as well, and grant you a little more flexibility with regards to when you can sell in the future. Of course, no one's renewed the ""Bush tax cuts"" yet, so the long-term capital gains rate is going up, and eventually it seems they'll want to charge you Medicare on those gains as well (because they can... ), soo, the benefit of this tax treatment is being reduced... lovely time to be investing, innnit?" Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall.  The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive). You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money  Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even  Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed.  I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice. "Has anyone ever proposed significantly lowering the US corporate tax while simultaneously raising dividend taxes for high income earners? Hell, many economists believe that corporate income should be taxed at 0%. If you do this but are worried about ""teh evil corporations"" becoming too big and powerful, that's what a high tax on dividend income is for. You can't personally become rich from a corporation without earning dividend or salary income from a corporation's coffers." Very interesting article, thanks for posting. It's going to get really interesting really fast if investors force governments to raise taxes to pay investors, regardless of who's 'right' in the situation.   On a related note, I read awhile back that many US cities have sold the rights to various public areas to foreigners. For example, I believe Chicago sold the rights to collect parking fees along certain streets for 75 years to a company in the Middle East. Some cities then found that if they wanted to have a parade down that street, they had to compensate the company that owned the parking rights because they wouldn't collect any revenue the day of the parade.   I can't see how this ends well for the US economy. "No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as ""mark to market"", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation." "I have a degree in econ, but that hardly makes me an expert. Here is what I understand well enough to feel comfortable stating:  As you increase corporate taxes you decrease incentive for people to invest in corporations. Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment to individuals who want to invest. If you were to set the corporate tax rate at 90% (as they do in the link) you would see more alternative investments locally and an incentive to invest where taxation isn't as high. Think of it this way, I could buy stock in apple but the corporate tax rate is 99%, then I would be better off buying a piece of property to rent, or a piece of stock in a country that has a normal corporate tax rate. An exorbitant corporate tax rate would encourage me to take on more personal risk and start my own sole proprietorship... even if I would be less qualified to do so than those in the corporation.   If you want an alternative school of economics to study [Austrian Economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) has a lot to offer.   In my opinion the NYT article makes quality points and is economically sound. The ""naturalfinance.net"" article is trash." "OK, since you aren't a ""hoarder of wealth"" you wont have a problem with a progressive capital gains tax would you?  Say 15% on the first $50,000 of gains, 30% up to $200,000 50% up to $500,000 and 90% on $1,000,000 and up.  Keep in mind this is only on the gains from your capital.  There are a lot of programs we could fund and people we could help with that tax money." How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice. "Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any ""Income tax"" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under ""Taxable money for FY Income tax""? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain.  Will the ""Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back"" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay ""Dividend Distribution Tax""? Paid by the company. What is ""Capital Gains""? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security." That's only a portion of the money raised.  This is the theoretical UK version.  [Also known as a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), a Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax of about 0.05% on transactions like stocks, bonds, foreign currency and derivatives, which could raise £250 billion a year globally. FTTs are well-tested, cheap to implement and hard to avoid.](http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/everything-you-need-to-know) In a comment on this answer you asked  It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail?  This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example.   I sell some security for a $10,000 profit.  I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy.  So pay no taxes (without the rule).  Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately.  Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase).  I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes.  In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions).  Then I die.  All my securities step up in basis to their current market value.  So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits.  That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer.  And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities.   Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price.   Don't think that $10,000 is enough?  Remember that you also get the original value.  But this also scales.  It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years.  That's at least $5 million of securities.   The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people.   Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing.  You need to have many investments to take advantage of this.  If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees.  And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly.   Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.