I built my company over 22 years, and on paper it is worth enough that a tax like this would notice me if the threshold ever drifts down, which thresholds always do. For founders, most wealth is shares you cannot sell without losing control of the company your employees depend on, so a tax on unrealized gains means selling pieces of the business every year just to pay the IRS. Startup employees get hit too: engineers holding illiquid options would owe real cash on paper value they cannot touch, forcing them to walk away from the equity they earned. The Tax Policy Center has warned about exactly these liquidity crunches, and they are not theoretical, they are arithmetic. A tax bill should not force a founder to choose between paying Washington and keeping her company.
← Back to the debate
BusinessSep 23, 2026
Should unrealized capital gains be taxed?
One AGAINST case in this debate
2 comments
Discussion (2)
Liquidity is a real problem, but the proposal has an answer: payment over several years, and it only touches households over $100 million. Let us argue about the actual proposal instead of a slippery-slope version of it.
Thresholds always drift downward; the income tax started at 1% on the rich in 1913. And pay over several years just means selling the company slowly instead of quickly. A founder forced to divest to pay tax on value she has not received is still being punished for building something.