vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50).
If you are investing, via whoever you want, wherever you want, and you're a US tax resident - you will be taxed. As with all the other questions, clearly your transfer of funds to your parents is not a real gift, and as such you will be keeping interest in the amounts. Income will be attributed to you, and taxes will also be charged to you. Having the money lie in your parents' accounts doesn't make the money or the income any less yours.
"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these ""inner"" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax."
I don't know how taxes work in Israel, but I imagine it is relatively similar to taxes in the US. In the US you need to pay taxes on investment earnings when you sell them or in this case trade them for something of value. The amount that would typically would be taxed on would be the difference between how much you paid for the currency and the value of the item you traded it for.  In theory there shouldn't be any difference in trading bitcoins versus dollars or euros. Reality is that they are rather weird and I don't know what category they would fall into. Are they a currency or a collectors item? I think this is all rather hypothetical because there is no way for any government to track digital currencies and any taxes paid would be based on the honor system.  I am not an account and the preceding was not tax advice...
The real question you should be asking is how much should tax dollars, and govt in general, really be responsible for? The only reason you think it might be acceptable to increase taxes on investments is because you want more money going to govt and to whatever you think govt should be responsible for doing. Well, I probably think it should be responsible for less. And there are likely to be folks who think govt should do even more than you believe.  Who's right?
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)
Unless your investments are held within a special tax-free account, then every sale transaction is a taxable event, meaning a gain or loss (capital gain/loss or income gain/loss, depending on various circumstances) is calculated at that moment in time. Gains may also accrue on unrealized amounts at year-end, for specific items [in general in the US, gains do not accrue at year-end for most things]. Moving cash that you have received from selling investments, from your brokerage account to your checking account, has no impact from a tax perspective.
Whether an investment is pre-tax is determined by the type of account (i.e., tax-advantaged vs ordinary taxable account), but whether you can invest in individual stocks is determined by the provider (i.e., the particular bank where you have the account).  These are orthogonal choices.  If you want to invest in individual stocks, you need to look for a bank that offers an IRA/401k/other tax-advantaged account and allows you to invest in individual stocks with it.  For example, this page suggests that Fidelity would let you do that.  Obviously you should look into various providers yourself to find one that offers the mix of features you want.
Every economy wants growth and for growth to come you need investments. So, you must provide some motive for people to risk their money (every investment has inherently a degree of risk or if you want uncertainty about the outcome). As a result the tax on capital gains is lower than on other types of income (because the risk is almost zero). The tax is considered in the calculation of the net interest rate. And you can see this as the interest which the investors demand in order to invest their money.
Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs  (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html
"Some investment trusts have ""zero dividend preference shares"" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000).  Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote  ""Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as   capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about   how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance."""
The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.
&gt; taxation has caused unproductive investing practices  It certainly can. It's well established that capital gains taxes do cause investors to leave capital in mediocre or even fairly-bad investments, as suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes.
The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have ""phantom income"" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a ""regular"" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a ""best of everything"" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (""list of MLP"" and ""list of REIT""), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:"
The notional gain realized on the sale of property includes inflation. Consider a rental property bought in 1930 for $100,000, and sold in 1960 for $180,000, assuming inflation between 1930 and 1960 was 70%. In 1960 dollars, the property was effectively bought for 170k. This means the true gain after accounting for inflation is only $10k. But, the notional gain is $80k, meaning a tax on that capital gain would be almost entirely a tax on inflation. This is viewed by many as being unfair, as it does not actually represent true income. I will pause to note that any tax on any investment at all, taxes inflation; interest, for example, is taxed in full even though it can be almost entirely inflationary, depending on economic conditions. A tax on capital gains may restrict market liquidity. A key difference between capital gains and interest/rent/dividends, is that other forms of investment income are taxed annually. If you hold a bond, you get taxed on interest from that bond. You cannot gain value from a bond, deferring tax until the date it matures [at least in Canada, you are deemed to accrue bond interest annually, even if it is a 0 coupon bond]. However, what if interest rates have gone down, increasing the value of your bond, and you want to sell it to invest in a business? You may choose not to do this, to avoid tax on that capital gain. If it were taxed as much as regular income, you might be even more inclined to never sell any asset until you absolutely have to, thus restricting the flow of capital in the market. I will pause here again, to note that laws could be enacted to minimize capital gains tax, as long as the money is reinvested immediately, thus reducing this impact. Political inertia / lobbying from key interests has a significant impact on the tax structure for investments. The fact remains that the capital gains tax is most significantly an impact on those with accrued wealth. It would take significant public support to increase capital gain tax rates, for any political party to enact such laws. When you get right down to it, tax laws are complex, and hard to push in the public eye.
Investing is when you seek to make money from owning things.   Making money from owning things is economic rent.    &gt; Investing is a valid practice that helps new businesses and, by extension, society as a whole.  Investing has good and bad effects.  The good is that useful capital is created.  The bad is that rent is created.  Corporate tax cuts are a disaster.  It's increasing the bad part of investment with a net negative effect on the good part.
When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement.  You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year.  In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement?  In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement.  After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less.
You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns.  Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains.  The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it.  This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA.  So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs.  If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur.  You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year.  These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on.  With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.
You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant.  So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.
There was one nugget in this pretty bad article.  Lowering taxes on the investor class - specifically on capital capital gains does not in itself spur investment if there is not growth in the overall economy.  What it does do is spur short term speculation since capital gains taxes are only levied on the sale - it's cheaper to buy/sell, buy/sell, etc.
You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).
Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx
But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research &amp; Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/  &gt; Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service.  That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors.  1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes.  The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%.  I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.
In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.
1031 is a section of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code that allows investors to defer capital gains taxes on any exchange of like-kind properties for business or investment purposes. Taxes on capital gains are not charged on the sale of a property if the money is being used to purchase another property - the payment of tax is deferred until property is sold with no re-investment.
Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted.
As I understand it, capital gains from real estate sales in India can be shielded from income tax entirely if the proceeds of the sale are invested in certain specific types of bonds (Rural Highway Contruction Authority of India?) for a period of three years beginning no later than x months (6 months?) after completion of the sale. Perhaps this applies to sales of inherited real estate only and not to commercial property or residential property acquired by purchase since there is no step-up of basis on death as occurs in the US, and in all likelihood, records of the purchase price of the inherited property are lost in the mists of time, and so the basis of the investment is effectively zero (or treated as such by the revenue authorities) The interest paid by these bonds is included in taxable income. Perhaps @Dheer will be willing to correct any mistakes in the above. So, it may be necessary to check whether (a) the interest income from the bonds was declared on Form 1040 Schedule B for each year (b) whether the appropriate boxes (the ones that ask whether the taxpayer has signature authority over foreign accounts etc) were checked on Schedule B or not, (c) whether Form TD 90-22.1 was filed each year or not (this is the FBAR requirement) Note that if the total value of the accounts is less than US $10K during the entire year, then the taxpayer is supposed to check NO on Schedule B and need not file Form TD 90-22.1.  Also, there is a separate requirement to file a Form 8938 for certain specific types of investments.  There was a two-part article describing these rules in Forbes magazine some time ago, and this is available on-line (Part 1 and  Part II) As @superjessi says, the IRS might be lenient if the only issue is not filing the forms in timely fashion, and the taxpayer is voluntarily coming into compliance even though the filing is late. They are likely to be less  forgiving if the foreign income was not reported, and still remains unreported even after filing the various forms.
The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.
At the end of the year, the mutual fund company sends you a statement like any other investment and it has a bunch of boxes that you copy into your tax return software.  Then you just check the box that says 'tax-exempt' and you're done.
I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents.  You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file.  You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question.  I would like to hear a more definitive answer.
"Taxing wealth is an easy idea, but I don't think it can ever work. Wealth is too easily hidden, transformed, or revalued. Taxing actual cash flows works because two parties have to declare it. Taxing wealth would cause huge conflicts as to how wealth is measured. That said, I'm a big fan of the idea that the estate tax should be massively increased, and would only involve a single evaluation per taxpayer, rather than every year. Taxing more measurable forms of wealth, like stocks, would cause wealth to flow from stocks into property, which would then be valued as low as possible, causing a general market crash and another great depression.  I'm most curious about a Georgian tax scheme, which is where taxes are levied on un-improved property. Per wikipedia: ""Georgism, based on the belief that people should own the value they produce themselves, but that the economic value derived from land (including natural resources) should belong equally to all members of society.""   So most taxes in society would be generated by those who owned property as a speculation and didn't invest in it. Incentives would be to make all property held privately be as economically productive as possible."