Question

When someone owns an asset (such as a share of stock) that rises in value, he has an "accrued" capital gain. If he sells the asset, he "realizes" the gains that have previously accrued. Under the U.S. income tax, realized capital gains are taxed, but accrued gains are not.

a. Explain how individuals' behavior is affected by this rule.
b. Some economists believe that cuts in capital gains tax rates, especially temporary ones, can raise tax revenue. How might this be so?
c. Do you think it is a good rule to tax realized but not accrued capital gains? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Please check the answer below

Step-by-step explanation:

a. One issue is the "locking-in" of assets. If I hold shares of Corporation X, then I can delay paying taxes as long as I don't sell. Effectively, I get to keep all of the interest/dividend payments on my tax liability. However, if I discover that X is really a poor investment and Corporation Y is better, then selling X and buying Y means that I have to pay taxes. This might discourage me from making a switch to a more profitable/efficient investment decision. This is the "locking-in" effect.

b. A short-run cut might cause many people to sell stocks that they had felt "locked-in" with. The penalty for switching is smaller, so more people will do it -- resulting in a great deal of cap gains tax revenue collected.

c. Taxing realized gains, even when the stock is not sold, rather than just accrued gains would eliminate this locking-in effect. Investors would not be penalized for switching to a better investment, and long-term capital gains revenue (as well as efficiency) would rise.