The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3].
This is a fair debt instrument and it's one that does not carry any tax. The revenue code only taxes on realized income, not debt. Thus the loophole for "millionaires on paper" and thus the impetus for the "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" movement.
What should change is how banks are allowed to use stock options, or stock in general, as collateral against debt. A bank gives you debt in lieu of equity in your home, for instance. This is the same as the bank giving you debt in lieu of your stock equity. These two debt instruments are treated the same in the banking code, and thus are not taxed by the revenue code.
This is where the revenue code should change. A bank should only be allowed to give loans against a fraction of the stock equity, up to a maximum that is based upon some threshold that is determined by congress through legislation and the revenue code. If someone wants to realize debt beyond this threshold then it should be treated as a realized capital gain and thus fall under the revenue code for taxation.
Why stocks and not physical property equity? Because stock values is mostly based upon consensus value estimates instead of supply and demand. The volatility of stock based debt can be very high, and could suffer from uncontrollable risk mitigation. For the banks to give out debt of this nature they should treat the debt as a bond asset being issued by the holder of the stock, and that bond issuer should then offer financing terms no different than the treasury's bond rates.
That means you, the stock holder, would sell a bond to a bank that covers the debt incumbering your stock. You would have to insure the bond against default, just like a bank. You would then offer the bank a return term that meets or exceeds the current bond rate at the time of the issuance, which could be 4%, 2%, whatever it is. This way you are being taxed on the sale of an asset (the bond) and realizing a cost for servicing the asset (the yield to the bank). The revenue code has clear rules for this kind of asset sale and you, the issuer, would be taxed at your income level.
That's how I would structure this, and I am sure that's how the original designer structured it. Since then, though, it has been perverted for "fairness" so that it would never pass congressional debate because nobody wants to see middle class people being unfairly taxed out of investing in the stock market. That's simply un-American.
The solution here is to change how banks are allowed to finance unrealized stock gains through debt instruments. Once the banks are given new rules for these actions, the realization of this equity would quickly self regulate through bond issuance and insurance instrumentation. Having to finance insurance on a $30M bond sale against your stock isn't going to be cheap.
[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/harriss-taxes-unrealized-gains-only-tip-5-trillion-tax-iceberg
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/blackout-period.asp#:~:text=A%20blackout%20period%20in%20financial,usually%20comes%20before%20earnings%20announcements.
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2021/11/11/how-americas-richest-people-larry-ellison-elon-musk-can-access-billions-without-selling-their-stock/