Kamala Harris Supports Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains: What It Means for Wealthy Households

The Kamala Harris campaign has made one of its first concrete policy proposals this week with a tax plan. The centerpiece of the plan is a series of high-end tax increases on corporations and wealthy households worth approximately $5 trillion over 10 years. Specifically, Harris has proposed enacting the tax increases detailed in President Biden’s budget released earlier this spring. 

One issue in this plan has captured specific attention: a new tax on unrealized capital gains. Biden, and now Harris, have proposed levying an annual tax on the static wealth of households worth more than $100 million. Specifically, households worth more than $100 million would pay an annual minimum tax worth 25% of their combined income and unrealized capital gains.

This is known as a “wealth tax,” and the goal is to tax wealthy households that increasingly avoid taxation by living off unsold and unrealized assets. However, unrealized capital gains means that the asset has not been sold, and thus a price has not been locked in for the benefit of the asset-holder. This means that taxes may be paid on value that is never received by the owner, ultimately disincentivizing long-term investments by wealthy households. Here’s what to know.

A financial advisor can help you navigate the nuances of changing tax legislation and build a plan that suits your goals.

Unrealized capital gains occur when the value of an asset increases over its cost basis (typically the purchase price) while it is held unsold. This can be thought of as theoretical profits. For example, say that you purchase an equity for $10 per share. The next day, the price increases to $12 but you do not sell. That $2 difference is an unrealized capital gain. While your net worth may have increased by $2, it remains at risk to change further unless you sell the equity.

Realized capital gains occur when an asset is actively sold for more than its cost basis. The resulting profits from the sale are considered the realized gains. 

Realized capital gains have a final, known value. They are the recorded amount of a fixed transaction, while unrealized capital gains fluctuate. They reflect the state of an asset at any given time while it is held unsold. So, in our example above, say your equity is worth $12 per share on July 1, and you sell it for $14 per share on August 1. You would have a $2 unrealized capital gain on July 1, and a $4 realized capital gain on August 1. 

Capital gains apply to all capital assets. This is a broad category that most commonly includes financial securities and real estate 

Capital gains taxes are taxes that apply any time a capital asset is sold for a profit. Currently, there are no taxes on unrealized capital gains. The taxable event requires a transaction. It occurs at the time of the sale and is based on the realized gains or losses relative to the cost basis (in general, the purchase price of the asset).

This tax has long been a contested issue in American politics and economics, as capital gains (generally the income generated from passive investment) are taxed at a significantly lower rate than earned income (the income generated from labor and work). 

Specifically, capital gains are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, and the highest bracket begins at profits over $500,000. By contrast, earned income is taxed at up to 37%, depending on your annual income level. For example, the 22% income tax bracket for 2024 begins at $47,150 of annual income. 

Proponents of this system argue that it encourages investment and growth. By reducing taxes on investments, the government can incentivize business creation, land development and other economically productive activities. Proponents also argue that this system constitute double-taxation as it is, since investors use money they earned (and therefore was taxed) to buy the underlying securities. 

Critics argue that this system encourages rent-seeking behavior rather than productive investment, since investors are incentivized toward passive returns on investment assets. They argue that there is no double taxation since investors only pay taxes on their profits, and that the special status for capital gains creates an unfair system in which millionaire investors pay less in taxes than low-income workers. 

A financial advisor can help you build a tax-efficient strategy based on your goals and circumstances. Get matched with a fiduciary advisor today.

Alongside the debate over realized capital gains, some policymakers and some economists have begun to suggest a tax on unrealized capital gains. This is a tax on the value of a portfolio’s unrealized gains. Each year, eligible households would calculate the growth of their portfolio and would owe a portion of that increased value in taxes.

This is otherwise known as a “wealth tax.”

Under the Harris/Biden proposal, all households with more than $100 million in net assets would pay a minimum tax of 25% on their combined income and unrealized capital gains. This would most likely be assessed as of the end of the year. 

So, for example, say that a household holds a portfolio of stocks with a $50 million tax basis. On December 31, those shares are now worth $125 million. They also have an annual income of $1 million in cash and $10 million worth of stock options. 

As a household worth more than $100 million, this proposed minimum tax would apply. They would have unrealized capital gains of $75 million ($125 million current price – $50 million cost basis). They would have another $1 million of income, with their stock options likely exempted from income taxes. As a result, they might owe up to $19 million in taxes (0.25 * $76 million). However, one problem with this is that as unrealized gains, the value of that $125 million securities investment may go back down to the original $50 million value — or even below it — at any given time. This would mean the household paid a 25% tax rate on value it may have never received.

The details of this proposal remain speculative. Neither the Biden Administration nor the Harris campaign have said exactly how they would like to enact or enforce this policy. Since no jurisdiction has passed a wealth tax on securities, there is no working template to work from. This would particularly raise valuation and enforcement questions when it comes to taxing private and illiquid assets, in which pricing is more speculative than with high-volume public assets like public stocks and bonds. 

The idea of a wealth tax has gained increasing traction in recent years. 

The perceived problem that these policymakers are trying to solve is that, increasingly, very wealthy households operate without ever selling their assets. They are frequently paid in stock and options, often untaxed. They access cash and property through loans secured by those assets, which are again untaxed, and asset swaps.  

This practice, known as “buy, borrow, die,” means that the very wealthy may be able to circumvent some taxes, operating without ever triggering a taxable event. It also means that ever-more wealth keeps being effectively locked up indefinitely, idling in portfolios to be used as collateral.

Some economists have proposed solving this with the estate tax. There are two main criticisms of that approach however: First, while not a dead letter, the estate tax collects less and less revenue every year. Second, the estate tax offers much less flexibility than a revenue-based tax, as it only allows taxation after the semi-unpredictable event of an individual’s death.

This has lead to a growing embrace of taxing unrealized capital gains. Proponents argue that a wealth tax will is the only way to tax ultrawealthy households, which would otherwise continue their current practice of indefinitely holding untaxed assets. This would generate revenue and, by forcing a liquidity event, return many of those assets to the market.  

There is significant criticism around the idea of a wealth tax, however. One of the most significant question remains a legal one. Critics argue that the federal government does not have the authority to tax individual assets outside of a transaction. This argument is primarily based on the Fifth Amendment Taking’s clause, which reads in relevant part “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” and on the Direct Taxation Clause of the Constitution which reads, in relevant part, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” 

Most Constitutional scholars believe that these arguments are weak, and political more than legal.

Anti-tax advocates have attempted to the Takings Clause to argue against the constitutionality of many taxes, including the income tax, for years without success. The Direct Taxation Clause is more ambiguous. The Supreme Court has never defined what actually constitutes a “direct” vs. an “indirect” tax. There is no clear authority to argue that a wealth tax would trigger this clause, and any such holding would likely come in conflict with many other areas of the tax code. The closest modern authority on this issue comes from a 2024 case Moore vs. USA in which the Court upheld a tax on undistributed foreign assets. 

Beyond the legal criticisms, there are significant questions about the implementation and enforcement of a wealth tax. As noted in the example in the previous section, unrealized gains can quickly become unrealized losses, meaning taxes could be imposed even though a household does not actually receive the full benefit or ownership of the money they are taxed on.

And as the Tax Policy Center notes, any wealth tax would have to address complicated assets including businesses and real estate holdings, and tax-avoidance strategies such as trusts and corporations. These are not necessarily fatal problems for a wealth tax, as any tax scheme must address complex assets and avoidance, but they must be addressed in order for this idea to become a mature proposal. 

For more information on how you can best plan your tax strategy and navigate any legislative changes, consider consulting a financial advisor.

The Harris campaign has fully endorsed a tax plan put forth by President Biden’s administration. This plan proposes to raise revenues by around $5 trillion, in part by levying taxes on unrealized capital gains for households worth more than $100 million. This is known as a wealth tax, and it has become an increasingly debated topic in recent years.

• You don’t need to own your own yacht to want to save on taxes. Heck, minimizing your taxes might even help you buy that boat someday. So let’s start talking about smart ways to reduce your taxes, strategies you can use right now. 
• A financial advisor can help you build a comprehensive retirement plan. Finding a financial advisor doesn’t have to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool matches you with up to three vetted financial advisors who serve your area, and you can have a free introductory call with your advisor matches to decide which one you feel is right for you. If you’re ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now. You can also check out SmartAsset reviews.
• Keep an emergency fund on hand in case you run into unexpected expenses. An emergency fund should be liquid — in an account that isn’t at risk of significant fluctuation like the stock market. The tradeoff is that the value of liquid cash can be eroded by inflation. But a high-interest account allows you to earn compound interest. Compare savings accounts from these banks.
• Are you a financial advisor looking to grow your business? SmartAsset AMP helps advisors connect with leads and offers marketing automation solutions so you can spend more time making conversions. Learn more about SmartAsset AMP.

Photo credit: Grok, ©iStock.com/JoeyCheung, ©iStock.com/courtneyk