The Truth about Harris’s Proposed Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains

A meme going around Facebook about Kamala Harris’s proposed tax on unrealized capital gains reads “Home Owner Do you realize that the Harris plan to tax unrecognized Capital Gains mean if your house goes up in value you will have to pay that Tax Even if you don’t sell your House!”

The meme drew widespread criticism for it’s falsity. On the face of it, this is factually wrong—but only on the face of it. Harris specifically states that she would limit the tax to those with $100 million in assets, and only to those who don’t pay their “fair share,” defined as 25% at minimum.

But in engaging the skeptics, I argued that, properly analyzed, the meme is in fact correct. Below is a summary of the postings I made on Facebook.

Properly understood, the meme is exactly correct—“Harris's plan to tax unrecognized capital gains MEANS” your home. No, it’s not in her published plan. She's running a campaign. Of course she’s not stupid enough to SPECIFY it for middle class homes. Not now. Politicians regularly sneak in their schemes first for the rich. But once in place, the logic of the principle opens the door to widening the scope of the tax to more and more taxpayers, ultimately snaring the vast middle class. Even AXIOS, which was cited by one fact-checking correspondent challenging that meme, understood this:

There's also a slippery slope concern; the big mental and legislative hurdle is taxing unrealized capital gains — after that, lowering the threshold below $100 million would be easier, EVEN IF NOT CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE.

In other words, once you accept the principle, and set the precedent, it will be easy for politicians to expand the power. James Madison, referring to the increasingly tyrannical British laws that led to the American Revolution, said  

The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. [My emphasis]

Fortunately, the Founders understood the slippery slope. That’s why America exists. 

We, too, should understand the consequences in the principle Harris and the Democrats are trying to sneak in. 

Many people believe Harris’s tax on unrealized capital gains, also known as wealth taxes, will always apply to the miniscule centi-millionaire group. But when we start sliding down the slippery slope, and it hits middle class homes, they’ll say “But I didn’t mean this!” Yes, you did. The total value of Americans’ homes tops $50 trillion. How long does anyone think the political class will ignore that pot of gold? If we don’t see the consequences in the principle of taxing unrealized capital gains, and deny the consequences by denying the principle, we will be opening the door to taxing our homes—and virtually every non-liquid asset Americans own, like 401ks, IRAs, brokerage accounts, collectables, the values of pensions, and on and on to the unrealized capital gains of any asset the politicians can discover. 

Personally, my main reason for opposing unrealized capital gains taxes is that it is immoral. It’s wrong for the middle class. And just as wrong for mega-millionaires. It’s also grossly  impracticable, as many countries found out by hard experience. As CATO reports:

More than a dozen European countries used to have wealth taxes, but nearly all of these countries repealed them, including Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. Wealth taxes survive only in Norway, Spain, and Switzerland.

For both moral and practical reasons; for our own financial well being; and on principle, we should reject Harris’s hideous wealth tax scheme. This is a really big deal. It is something entirely new, and would open up a whole new target on Americans’ financial health. We should not give our tax-hungary political class that target. Let’s deny the consequences of the principle. Reject Harris’s scheme to tax our homes!

Related Reading:

Unrealized Capital Gains Taxes Will Trickle Down to the Middle Class by Peter Jacobsen for FEE

Joe Manchin on Biden's Wealth Tax: 'You Can't Tax Something That's Not Earned.' by Peter Suderman for Reason

Plans to Tax Unrealized Capital Gains Are Beyond Radical. They’re Ridiculous by Jack Salmon for National Review

Biden Is Trying To Pass a Wealth Tax—Again. It Could Be Unconstitutional by Ira Stoll for Reason

Why We Should Celebrate Christopher Columbus Day

Columbus Day has become controversial. Critics, mostly on the Left, point to Christopher Columbus's brutal treatment of New World natives and support for slavery, which they claim override his exploratory achievements that set in motion the train of events that led to the Enlightenment and ultimately the birth of America. Which holds sway; Columbus's undeniable bad aspects or his positives, which led to the such monumental turning points such as the abolition of slavery throughout most of the world?

History is messy. There are very few total heroes or total villains. Historical context is crucial, and the ultimate evaluation of any achievement must be weighed against this context and the totality of the person. On balance, from a humanitarian perspective, was Columbus a positive or negative force in the overall sweep of history? 

Count me on the positive side. As my tribute to Christopher Columbus on this, his day, I present selected excerpts from selected articles by other writers:

Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization By Thomas Bowden

On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World.

We need not evade or excuse Columbus’s flaws--his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives--to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose philosophers and mathematicians, men such as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Euclid, displaced otherworldly mysticism by discovering the laws of logic and mathematical relationships, demonstrating to mankind that reality is a single realm accessible to human understanding.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose scientists, men such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, banished primitive superstitions by discovering natural laws through the scientific method, demonstrating to mankind that the universe is both knowable and predictable.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose political geniuses, men such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers, defined the principles by which bloody tribal warfare, religious strife, and, ultimately, slavery could be eradicated by constitutional republics devoted to protecting life, liberty, property, and the selfish pursuit of individual happiness.

On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose entrepreneurs, men such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Gates, transformed an inhospitable wilderness populated by frightened savages into a wealthy nation of self-confident producers served by highways, power plants, computers, and thousands of other life-enhancing products.

On Columbus Day, in sum, we celebrate Western civilization as history’s greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?

In another op-ed on Fox News.com, Let's Take Back Columbus Day, Bowden said this:

We’ve been taught that Columbus opened the way for rapacious European settlers to unleash a stream of horrors on a virgin continent: slavery, racism, warfare, epidemic, and the cruel oppression of Indians.

This modern view of Columbus represents an unjust attack upon both our country and the civilization that made it possible. Western civilization did not originate slavery, racism, warfare, or disease--but with America as its exemplar, that civilization created the antidotes. How? By means of a set of core ideas that set Western civilization apart from all others: reason and individualism.

Excerpts from an op-ed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, October 10, 2008, Columbus was a hero [No longer available online]

By Dimitri Vassilaros

Christopher Columbus could not have discovered a better spokesman than Thomas A. Bowden.

The accomplishments of Columbus should speak for themselves. But thanks to political correctness, the moronic multicultural mob keeps talking them down. Mr. Bowden has been speaking passionately and forcefully about Columbus for years.

"My ancestors were savages," says Bowden matter-of-factly. Everyone can say the same, depending on how far back one is willing to look at lineage. "It's nothing racial or ethnic; it's historical fact."

"Columbus critics have a disguised criticism of Western civilization because Europeans replaced Stone Age Indians. They believe that this continent would have been better off without Europeans, that industrial civilization is an evil that is to be lamented and regretted.

"That is the real criticism of Columbus. I reject it completely."

Indians typically were widely scattered Stone Age tribes, he says. "They had little agriculture and lived in poverty, fear, ignorance and superstition. They had no concept of government, ownership or private property rights.

"Slavery was perfectly common.

Well, didn't Indians at least live in harmony with nature?

"No," says Bowden. "Man should not live in harmony with nature in the sense of simply keeping it pristine. We live by impacting the environment. The environment has no intrinsic value. Our civilization is more in harmony with nature by making it serve our ends."

Well, what about all the land supposedly stolen from the Indians by European settlers?

Indians did not own the vast reaches of land that they traveled on, Bowden says. Ownership of land is deserved, he says. By that, he means a settler can acquire property rights by making the land more valuable by, say, digging it up for farming. Or to build his homestead or business.

Columbus essentially was an explorer and discoverer bringing Western civilization's cures, science and technology, he says. The philosophical legal process was another gift the Europeans gave to the Indians, he says. "Indians got all that for free."

Columbus' critics should fall down on their knees and thank the Founding Fathers for creating a nation based on the moral principle of the individual's right to life, liberty and, Bowden stresses, the selfish pursuit of happiness.

"It's the only nation that came about in such a way. Anyone who has humanity's interest at heart should love America," he says.

Excerpts from Man's Best Came With Columbus—Michael S. Berliner

Did Columbus “discover” America? Yes, in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., the developing scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus’s discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed. What they replaced was a way of life dominated by fatalism, passivity, superstition, and magic.

There is a movement to replace Columbus Day with something called Indigenous Peoples Day, which is "a holiday that celebrates and honors the Native Americans and commemorates their shared history and culture."  "Native Americans" are no more native or indigenous than anyone else born in America. Their ancestors may have arrived in North America before others' ancestors. But so what? No race of people actually emerged in North America. By all accounts so far, human life first evolved in Africa, before spreading around the globe. That said, if anyone wants to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day, fine. But why replace Columbus Day? American Indian tribes, had practices that were at least as vicious as Columbus, including wars of conquest and plunder, slavery, torture among each other and the slaughter of innocent settlers including women and children. But just as American Indians may have done some good things worth commemorating, so did Columbus, in spades. It was Columbus, not American Indians, who changed the course of history for the better, landing him ninth on historian Michael H. Hart’s ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and 30th, next to Ferdinand Magellan, on Time’s list. 

Like other great individuals, it's the good of Columbus that we celebrate, not the bad. Celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day, if you like. But there's no reason for either/or. Celebrate both.

Happy Columbus Day

Related Video:

Progressive or Oppressive? Balancing the History of Manifest Destiny -- A panel discussion with Tom Clavin, Stephen Hicks Ph.D., John Prevas in Progressive or Oppressive? Balancing the History of Manifest Destiny.

Related Reading:

The enemies of Christopher Columbus—Thomas A. Bowden

Opposing Views:

On Christopher Columbus, the Far Left Is Correct—Bryan Caplan

Why Did Mark Cuban Endorse Kamala Harris?

On the face of it, successful businessman and Shark Tank venture capitalist host Mark Cuban’s endorsement of Kamala Harris makes no sense. Her hatred of “Billionaires” is central to her worldview. More broadly, Harris is a central planning authoritarian. Her whole economic “vision” for America centers around control by the state. So what could Cuban be thinking? 

In this op-ed for The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin tries to make a positive case for Mark Cuban’s endorsement of Kamala Harris:

Democrats, long hammered for being anti-business, have frequently looked for prominent business leaders to serve as validators.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s most effective advocate from the business world might be tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who became a household name as owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks (he sold his majority stake late last year for $3.5 billion) and as a one of the hosts of the reality TV show “Shark Tank”.

Translation: It’s good campaign window dressing. But that surely can’t be Cuban’s purpose. So again I ask, Why? I don’t say he should endorse Donald Trump. Abstention is a valid alternative. 

But Harris is as anti-business as any Democrat, in my view. I don’t think Mark Cuban thinks otherwise. But he could remain neutral. So, what’s he thinking? I posted these comments, slightly edited for clarity:

It’s interesting that Jennifer doesn’t mention Cuban’s desire to be SEC chairman. In answer to a pointed interview question from Neil Cavuto on whether he would accept a cabinet job in a Harris Administration, Cuban immediately answered “SEC Chairman,” and why: 

“NEIL CAVUTO: But can I ask you, Mark, whether you would entertain the treasury secretary, or commerce secretary in a Harris Administration...

“MARK CUBAN: Head of the SEC, that's the job I would take. Maybe HHS, but somebody needs to replace [current SEC Chairman] Gary Gensler.”

Cuban did not equivocate. He labeled Gensler “awful” for his regulatory assault on the newly emerging Blockchain and AI industries, and business in general. 

I don’t doubt Cuban hates Trump, and everything he said about Trump [in the Cavuto interview]  is true. But I don't think Cuban is a fool. I think Cuban has accepted the likelihood that Harris will win. Forget his mushy praise. Cuban likely wants to have a chance to blunt her economic authoritarian instincts. The most likely reason for Cuban’s endorsement of Harris, especially given Harris’s proposed blame-the-victims price controls and proposed assault on his—and by extension of the principle, all Americans’—vast unrealized capital gains assets, is the old political advice, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” 

Related Reading:

The reality of Kamala Harris' plan to tax unrealized capital gains by AXIOS

  My take

On the Candidates’ Disastrous Price Policies—and Harris’s Moral Obscenity

Joe Biden’s Despicable, Unjust Blame Game

Harris's Unchanged anti-American Values

For President: Abstention. For Congress: Republican.

With about a month before the presidential election, I have made up my mind: I will neither endorse nor vote for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Down Ballot, it’s urgent to give Republicans at least one branch of Congress, especially if Harris wins (as I expect). The odds are that the Senate goes Republican and the House of Representatives goes Democrat. Such an outcome would blunt the worst policies of a Harris Administration and set the stage for further Republican gains in the 2026 midterm elections. Hopefully by then the Republican Party will have begun to recover from the Trump disaster and to swing back to its ideological roots as the party of free markets, individual rights, and limited government.

Regarding the presidential race, I posted the following to Facebook, slightly edited for clarity. A fuller explanation is here. Commenting on the article, Haley’s Voters Size Up a Scrambled Presidential Race, I wrote:

I am a Nikki Haley voter. Since she is not on the ballot, is my only choice Harris or Trump? Hardly. What choice is missing from the article? The choice to vote for neither.

I won’t vote for Trump, even though his policies would likely be less bad. His attempt to overturn a legitimate election spat in the face of every prior president, the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers. This is unforgivable.

But neither will I vote for Harris, an even more reactionary figure. Her CNN interview statement that “The freedom that unlocks all the others [is] the freedom to vote” echoes the reactionary view of her party from Biden (“The fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow.”) back to its founding in 1828, which held that slavery should be decided by democratic vote. 

Harris, true to her party, rejects the foundational American principle of unalienable individual rights grounded in Natural Rights Theory, which holds that our fundamental rights—beginning with life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness—are unalienable and precede governments, which “to secure these rights, are instituted among men.” In rejecting Natural Rights, Harris effectively cancels America. The implication of Harris’s view on freedoms is that individual rights come from government, and that any government can grant, create, or rescind anyone’s rights, including the right to life, as long as it is elected. But such a government is a totalitarian state, and that is the consequence of the proposition that all of our rights depend on the right to vote.

But freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right of every individual, as long as they are respectful of the same rights of all others, to live one’s life by one’s own values and choices regardless of anyone else’s vote or of the outcome of any election.

No one is obligated to vote against their conscience. So, for only the second time in my life, I will abstain. I reject both candidates as contrary to my conscience, and I choose to leave the presidential line blank and to vote for neither.

Related Reading:

Why I Will Never Vote for a Democrat

Joe Biden—the Real Protégé of Jefferson Davis

Harris's Unchanged anti-American Values

America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right. 

‘God-Given’ or Not, Rights Must be Defended on Rational Grounds

Related Viewing:

What Are Rights and Where Do They Come From? by Harry Binswanger

On the Candidates’ Disastrous Price Policies—and Harris’s Moral Obscenity

I don’t think any economic fallacy has undergone more scrutiny, for so long, and been so universally condemned by non-partisan economists, as government price controls. Yet price controls keep resurfacing in political campaigns, especially in times of inflation. 

This presidential campaign of 2024 is no exception. Donald Trump is going crazy with tariff proposals, and recently proposed capping credit card interest rates at 10%.

Kamala Harris proposes Federal anti-price gouging laws against the food industry. I touched on the price gouging absurdity in a short post on Quora. She follows from her boss Joe Biden on this issue. 

The damaging economic effects of price controls are covered nicely in an article By Ryan Bourne and Sophia Bagley [published by CATO, titled  Economists’ Damning Verdict on Both Presidential Candidates’ Pricing Policies. So I won’t repeat them here. My focus is on the horrible moral aspects, which are not covered in the article. On the moral aspect, of the two candidates, I think Harris is the most dangerous and unjust.

Here is my Facebook post on this article:

The article rightly focuses on the economic arguments against price controls, which are well known. But of the 2 candidates, Harris is by far the worst because her policies are not just bad economics. They are MORALLY OBSCENE. And she is not original. She is just the latest in a long line of politicians who blame private enterprise for the inflation disasters that their own policies cause. In the 1970s inflation disaster, Nixon, Ford, and Carter all blamed, in their own way, private enterprise. Using useful idiot terms like “greedflation” and “shrinkflation,” (Biden’s favorite terms) and “price gouging” (Harris’s favorite), the Biden/Harris axis blames American business for inflation. This is the moral equivalent of blaming the rape victim rather than the rapist.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. It is the creation of excess money to finance excess government spending. This causes excess demand, which triggers GENERAL price rises (Prices can rise for other reasons, such as supply shocks. But that is NOT inflation). Since the Federal Government nationalized money over 100 years ago, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT can excessively inflate the money supply, which the Federal Reserve did in spades to fund the massive Trump and Biden “covid relief” spending. 

The recent “price spiral” was not caused by, and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAUSED by, American business, as Harris claims. It was caused by Trump/Biden spending (with the most blame going to Biden, in my view). All economic groups, business, workers, consumers et al, are trying to cope with the resulting cost pressures, as best they can, that 2 administrations set in motion. Harris’s campaign ploy of blaming “price gouging” by business for inflation should be rejected as the moral obscenity that it is. So much for HER character.

Related Reading:

How Anti-"Price-Gouging" Laws Really Work

‘Greedflation’: Biden’s Scandalous Blame Shifting

Joe Biden’s Despicable ,Unjust Blame Game

Memo to Jersey City Mayor Fulop: The Federal Reserve, Not Supermarkets, is to Blame for 'Hidden Food Inflation'

Economics in One Lesson—Henry Hazlitt

Did the New York Times Just Vindicate Reaganomics?

In NJ, the Crusade Against "Price-gouging" Could Be Hindering Recovery

New Jersey’s Political Attack on Takeout Food Delivery Service Providers

Memo to Harris: Corporations are not destroying America: The way the Harris campaign is marshaling economic data paints a misleading picture. By Eduardo Porter for The Washington Post