← Back to context

Comment by WalterBright

1 day ago

Washington state, as part of their frenzy of tax increases, decided that gold and silver bullion will be subject to the sales tax. Poof! There goes any point in investing in gold and silver. (Collector coins, too.)

What about GLD (SPDR)? I've been investing in a gold derivative for nearly a year and haven't touched a physical object yet.

  • Bullion has a pretty specific meaning, I doubt shares in gold derivatives could be construed as bullion.

The way you've written it sounds like taxing unmonetized bullion is insane overreach, but is it? They're just treating them the same as any other commodities. I can understand if you're opposed to sales taxes generally, but the only reason to single out bullion for an exception I can see is historic norms.

They're also applying a tax to monetized bullion. That's more more like taxing currency exchanges and it's a bit weird since currency exchanges are normally taxed on appreciation.

  • We do not charge sales tax when you exchange Dollars for Euros. Bullion advocates argue that exchanging dollars for physical gold is a currency exchange rather than a consumption purchase.

    If you were to turn that bullion into an actual product like jewelry, then it would be taxed.

    When a firm with tank capacity takes delivery of an oil contract they secured via the CBRE, do they pay sales tax on that? No, because it’s intended for resale.

    Unmonetized gold bullion is similarly generally intended for resale. Generally no one is “consuming” gold bullion.

    • Currency exchanges are exactly why I differentiated between monetized and unmonetized bullion. I don't see why going to Costco and buying a bar of gold is fundamentally different than buying the same weight of gold jewelry. That jewelry may very well be intended for resale the same way.

      23 replies →

    • "Generally no one is “consuming” gold bullion."

      Huh? Gold bullion is an input to hundreds of industrial processes. If it weren't, why would gold have any value?

      10 replies →

    • > Bullion advocates argue that exchanging dollars for physical gold is a currency exchange rather than a consumption purchase.

      One can argue that until they're blue, but it'd still be wrong. Gold is a commodity, and if you're buying it shell-packed at Costco you probably should be paying sales tax on it.

In English-speaking countries, we have a system that prints money and gives it to asset owners. Gold is still an asset, so buying it will still let people participate in that system. Increasing taxes by whatever (I'll assume 10%) is material but it doesn't remove any point, just makes it a bit less attractive. It could easily be a less risky play than investing in US bonds given that they can't pay them back in real terms.

That's a win for society if the money is instead invested into something productive!

  • People choose to hold non-yield-bearing assets when they believe the returns offered by current investment opportunities are not sufficient to justify the risks.

    It is the miracle of modern capital markets that enables almost anyone to quickly and easily invest their savings in productive assets, but of course capital markets aren’t perfect. The availability of “none of the above” options (like gold) that remove savings from the pool of active investment capital is the essential feedback loop that balances risk and return.

    • Modern capital markets also have non-yield-bearing assets like gold ETFs. The only practical difference is a tiny expense ratio and more liquidity.

  • I never invested in gold because it is not productive. I don't have any money, either (other than pocket money), because I've invested all of it.

    Gold is usually invested in as a hedge against inflation. It's not really the gold that goes up and down in value, it's the dollar that goes down and up.

    • This is an oversimplification IMO. There are higher order effects on the price of gold that makes it not directly related to the value of the dollar.

      I'm pointing this out because I have seen a lot of sentiment recently about how the dollar is crashing, just look at the price of gold. Yes, the dollar is decreasing in value faster than usual, but it also isn't crashing in the way that gold is spiking.

      This sentiment I think drives speculative gold demand, from standard speculative investing FOMO as well as from emotionally driven inflation fear well beyond what is realistic. The same thing happens to the stock market.

      5 replies →

    • Gold was worth about as much in nominal(!) terms ~2006 as it was in back in 1980 then doubled in a couple of years. Doesn't seem like a very good hedge but rather a very volatile speculatory asset...

    • Given that the gold and the dollar are not productive I think one is betting that society is less productive than inflation when one invests in gold and that one will need to pay a ransom over a long weekend when one holds dollars.

Taxing bullion is absurd - it’s not a product but more like currency or a placeholder of money you already have. What other taxes are they passing when you say “frenzy”?

  • Why is it more like a currency than any other object? It's not negotiable currency or legal tender.

    People buy it and sell it. I don't see any difference between bullion, iron ore, frozen concentrated orange juice, and Pokemon cards. You buy a thing, you pay the sales tax.

    • Well it's more like a currency than any other object because it has been used historically to either a) be the currency, or b) back the currency. Sure that's not true today in the United States, but like, it's obviously different than frozen concentrated orange juice... can we not at least agree on that pretty tame assumption? Or is this just some semantics race to non-meaning?

      Iron ore is similar physically, but it's really just a raw input material/ingredient used for heavy industrial manufacturing and production, it's never been intended to be an appreciating asset/hedge against inflation.

      I'm unfamiliar with whatever tax is being referred to in this specific comment thread, but I'd be curious how something like $SIVR is handled, considering it's backed by actual silver in vaults. That could lead to some unintended consequences if the investment plans of a lot of money suddenly changes how it's being allocated.

      2 replies →

  • Wealth tax is the best type of tax, because it incentivizes productive activities against speculation. It should be levied on a continuous basis rather than on transaction basis though, which is just basic numerical analysis.

    • Not my downvote, but the least devastating tax is only on commerce, and it has to be at insignificant levels to keep from resuting in undue damage.

      Taxing wealth, property, wage income, or just plain existence has always sapped productivity like few other things.

      It's foolish to try and tax "wealth" when you should instead be taxing the creation of wealth as it's in progress and nothing else. When actual ongoing business operations are going forward is the only time anybody can truly afford to pay any significant tax at all. Even if they are billionaires, and I say this as someone at the complete opposite end of the spectrum.

      Ordinary wage income doesn't even make sense to tax whatsoever when you want max productivity, unless income is excessive enough to reach so far above average that greater capitalist profits can be earned on the surplus. Then maybe more than just those gains should be taxed.

  • Is taxing investment absurd?

[flagged]

  • Can you please make your substantive points without snark, flamebait, swipes, or personal attack? Regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, you can make your substantive points without these things. We're trying for something else here.

    If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

    • I can certainly do that, and I can see how my comment came across as unnecessarily harsh. I just want to be clear that my issue was with the reasoning, not the position, and not the individual.

      1 reply →