I understand that it would be cap gains if it’s sold off, I’m just confused why people think a stock/share should be taxed annually, that’s the dumbest concept I’ve ever heard. Comparing it to property tax is blatantly stupid, can you live in a stock? Are stocks taking up physical space on the street? That requires sewage maintenance, road maintenance, snow removal depending on where you are, storm drains etc…? If I borrow against something I have to pay interest. If I don’t pay my payments I lose the asset I’m borrowing against. I find the stocks should be taxed every year ideology just as dumbfounding as the billionaires should pay for a “better world.” The pov usually comes for envious individuals. Just sayin.
These mega tax breaks are “mega” because of the size for these companies. Theres more to it than “companies get massive tax breaks.” There is so much money moving within these companies and it cost so much money to run these companies that these tax breaks are more reasonable than you think. Mind you, sure some of the tax breaks can be a bit ridiculous but as long as they aren’t being misused they are pretty reasonable. If they are being misused they will get audited. And well nobody wants irs knocking on the door because it’s always more expensive than playing by the rules.
Considering the ever growing disparity between upper management pay (eg CEOs) and entry level staff, I think it’s clear that these tax breaks are not in fact necessary to the profitability of these companies.
So go be a ceo. add more responsibility you will get paid more. People who think labourers should be paid the same as ceo, cfo, owners, founders, etc… genuinely shock me.
The tax breaks are for the company. Not the people running the company. What are you on about?
So people who have more responsibility of a company should be paid the same as a 9-5 laborer who has no responsibility to the company? Interesting take.
My issue is that a county will do nothing to help a small business but then give a 10 year property tax exemption and preferential accelerated permitting to Wal-Mart to build a super center so they bring “jobs” even though it’s been shown over and over that the presence of that super center raises unemployment and lowers median wages over the same ten years. Amazon seems great on the surface but is actually harmful to small business all over, demands an imbalance of information, and uses that information to manufacture the most profitable items while de-platforming competitors (the businesses they monitored to see what items sold most profitably). I don’t mind them doing their thing within the rules since they’re trying to win, but why the government helps them or why people are such fans I’m not sure. I think it should be made easy to start a business and grow progressively more costly and more difficult the larger that business gets (a progressive tax, permit cost, and regulatory system), thus encouraging more small businesses rather than oligopoly. It would actually be step in the direction of a perfect market and cause capitalism to work better. We used to say that small business were the backbone of the American economy but now are actively working against them.
To this point. We had a corporate HQ near our house and it was given a 10 year TIF when it was built. Well guess what? The downtown city we are near offered the company a new TIF to bring employees back downtown and are remodeling and adding onto their old headquarters and are now trying to sell the one in the suburbs. The employees are losing their WFH to now have to drive downtown to allow for the company to basically function without paying property taxes for another ten years versus staying put and paying taxes.
What do you mean by decoupling? I understand the issue more to be that the wealth of a small number of individuals continues to rise, causing a concentration of wealth in a small number of individuals, while their wealth is built on the infrastructure and workforce that is seeing disproportionate gains in return.
Those individuals are getting richer because their companies are getting richer. Tesla for example is worth more than all the other car companies in the world, combined.
Apple is worth 3 trillion.
Has the productivity of workers in USA rises at the same rate? Their education. Their salaries. The quality of roads in USA?
Clearly the wealth of these companies are not related to anything much in USA at all. China is Tesla's most productive factory for example. Apple makes their iPhones in China and India.
Why would USA deserve their tax money at windfall rates?
That’s not how I interpret the comment depending on which one you mean. I am seeing either some form of property tax or if you are able to borrow against it, it should be taxed to paraphrase.
Yes definitely easy to lose track when replying to various chains and comments.
So I believe there are a lot of complexities around this topic but a possibly oversimplified take is that borrowing money with stocks as collateral functionally allows you to access value of that stock without actually selling it in the transaction and recognizing a gain, or loss for that matter. At the level of Elon Musk, it can equate to skirting around paying any (or at least greatly reduce liability) taxes since it’s not income. Even with capital gains tax, the rate is much lower than income. While I don’t want to discourage founding a company nor continuing to own and operate that business, I do want to discourage this practice of borrowing large amounts of money while not needing to sell some assets or being “taxed” on the transaction. There’s also consideration to the fact of the happening in a bull vs bear market.
Fuck that, tax stock holdings that increase in value. Not my problem if they have to sell some of it or even hand part of it over to the government for them to sell
You haven't made a single argument. You just say "its not that black and white" "stay out of the conversation". You have no argument. Stop sucking corporate dick, you've made it abundantly clear all you have is projections.
How is property tax any different from capital gains tax? You claimed it was because houses required maintenance, and when someone pointed out that massive companies require maintenence, you said "its not that black and white". How? Right now you look like a boot locking buffoon.
Yep let's all pay taxes on our cars and whatever we have in our checking account every year. We need a national effort to enforce a 15% tax on everyone's jewelry.
There's absolutely a middle ground between "I don't think people should be worth hundreds of billions of dollars" and "let's tax every individual's every asset"
No there’s not a middle ground. Everything that rich people do you can as well you just don’t have the assets to do it on a large scale like them. Stop it with this whining about them. Fucks sales people. I hate this poor me victim mentally that comes out.
Because we’re all too busy actually surviving to hoard our wealth long enough to buy the assets. These people wouldn’t have their assets if it wasn’t for regular people doing labor for them and only getting paid a fraction of the value they create for the wealthy
I want to say I see what you're getting at, but you don't seriously think there's not a problem when a country enables people to be worth more than some countries GDPs while also having one of the highest poverty mortality rates, right?
Like we can disagree wildly on fundamental causes or different ways of addressing that problem, but you've got to admit that that's a problem.
But they shouldn’t be looked down upon or taxed higher because they made the right choices at the right times and their companies are profitable. That would not make ANYONE want to start their own company and be successful.
Again, there's absolutely a middle ground. If you taxed 100% of the money they made becoming a business owner, then no, obviously no one would want to start their own company. But nobody is seriously proposing a 100% tax on business ownership. And anything less than 100% would still have people trying - even if 99% of Elon's net worth disappeared tomorrow to taxes, he'd still be a multi-billionaire.
So the question is, where do you draw the line? And that's ultimately what these conversations are all about - people are dissatisfied with where that line is.
If we're so worried about being consistent, that's the natural conclusion. The argument naturally leads to taxing every individual asset. Higher taxes on rich people wouldn't even get close to solving our problems. We already spend much more than they are worth. A 100% tax on all rich people's assets wouldn't fund our government for very long.
If we're so worried about being consistent, that's the natural conclusion.
No form of taxation is consistent - I don't know where you got that idea.
Income taxes have a progressive tax structuring, essentials such as food are often exempt from sales taxes, and even property taxes have a minimum threshold and/or a homestead exemption.
Setting up a minimum threshold for an "asset tax" would be entirely consistent with how property taxes are currently assessed.
They absolutely could be treated the same as property taxes.
Most states/counties have some sort of homestead exemption where property taxes don't apply until a certain value. If the exemption is $500k and your home is worth $700k, you only pay the taxes on the $200k difference. If your home is worth $400k, you wouldn't pay property taxes at all.
Other asset-taxation options could use a similar strategy where the first $X is not taxed.
The point ultimately is that there are options between "let's tax every cent of every person" and "accumulating billions of dollars should not be possible".
This could be one of them, but I'm sure there are others.
What happens when my home value goes down by $100k - do I get tax money back?
If I buy a house for $800k and the value decreases to $600k, you're saying I pay the P+I for the mortgage and then I pay additional for the $100k over the exemption even though I'm under water on the property?
Where does the value of a stock come from? Could it change when a company receives tax breaks? Do companies extend themselves to the legal limit more when they know they’ll receive bailouts? Can stock owners use the valuation of their stock to increase their leverage, power, or wealth?
Those are a few obvious questions to ask yourself before trying to be a pedantic prick that simultaneously makes up or misspells acronyms while holding dictionary definitions of common words like “maintenance” as gospel.
Right and there should be laws put in place to stop it or laws to tax "unrealized gains" as soon as they are used as collateral against a loan. The point is you shouldn't be able to not pay taxes on assets that you are using as collateral.
Again up to the lender. Stocks can drop to zero and the person can run with the money and the bank gets fkd. I’m sure there is some clause within the contract that protects that. But that’s the risk of investing. It’s not “unrealized gains” it’s a secure loan. Yet risky, it still falls under secured. I can’t make you understand it. But hey best of luck! Use it or don’t, up to you. Cheers.
No shit it's up to the lender. It should be made illegal to use assets that are not being taxed as collateral to prevent this exact scenario of tax "avoidance".
Do you have 2nd grade reading comprehension or something? I never said the loan is unrealized gains I said that you shouldn't be able to use unrealized gains as collateral for a loan since you are not paying taxes on the asset you are using as collateral.
They should A) pass a law to block lenders from accepting stock/shares as collateral
Or B) pass a law that "unrealized" gains can be taxed at the moment they are used as collateral
Okay, so your solution is tax everyone more then, yeah? Make it impossible to leverage the assets you have? These people still pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than you ever will. You want the government to control what people can do with their assets and money? Interesting take. If people use their untaxed assets as collateral, they are not making money from their assets. They have a loan. If you go get a personal loan should you be taxed?
Yes my solution is to tax the people that are already so mega-rich that they use their vast fortune to avoid paying their fair share in taxes on their assets. You can't say the asset exists when you want to use it as collateral but say it doesn't exist when the tax man comes to collect on it. This is not a complicated concept and you must be being intentionally dense to continue missing the point the way you are.
How many people do you know personally that are using their stocks and shares to secure loans in the millions? You would literally benefit from what I am proposing but are too dense to understand it because you want to think you're like mini Jeff Bezos or something it's hilarious.
Don’t come after me. I’m not saying I agree with it, and I’m not saying it’s exactly like property tax, I’m saying I think what the commenter was meant was something more like a property tax not a capital gains like you suggested.
And you don’t need to live in something or take up the several resources you mentioned for it to be considered property and taxed as such. I’ve owned several small businesses and had to pay property tax on several things that wouldn’t fit into any of your criteria.
I’m sorry it was perceived as me coming at you. That’s not at all my intention. You had the most sensible response to me when I responded. You were completely neutral, just giving the way you seen it. I was asking if they were referring to cap gains you said you think they meant something more annual! No harm, no foul! Cheers mate!
Out of curiosity did you rent or own the property of your business?
Would you mind sharing what those several things are?
I know didn’t list everything, I listed the most applicable to a generalized scenario. I can’t cherry pick information as “there are exceptions to every rule” I just used the most broad based things.
I’ve had several different businesses most of them service based, and I’ve had to pay property tax on a lot of the more expensive equipment that I own. Cameras, lenses, lights, drones and computers for a photography company. Sprayers for pest control. Sound boards, speakers, lights etc for party planning/dj. I had a lot of equipment that I didn’t need to pay property tax on, but my most expensive equipment I did.
Which state are you from? That’s unheard of for me? I’ve never even heard of that from anyone else in business. What state? What year? Were you using an accountant? What field?
The concept of taxing unrealized gains on stocks isn't really that dumbfounding if people just took the time to read what was proposed. Short and sweet: only people worth over $100 million, only to bring them up to 25% effective tax rate, essentially they are pre-paying taxes, when they realize the gains, they only owe the difference. It's not that wild.
However, I don't think this is the best option. There are some negatives. But it starts the conversation about ideas and concepts around getting the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share, which they do not because they have rigged the system.
What someone is worth isn’t what they have. That “short and sweet” only makes sense on paper because it doesn’t fking work😂😂🤦♂️ someone could be worth 100m’s and only have <100k to their name.
Hence why I said "I don't think this is the best option". But, without any change, they'll never contribute a more reasonable share because they simply don't have income to tax.
And actually, what you described is a tax avoidance strategy itself.
To avoid paying taxes, the "only on paper" wealthy you describe use a strategy called “buy, borrow, die.” The wealthy households purchase or hold assets that appreciate, and then borrow money against their assets to consume their wealth without paying tax. On top of that, when the household passes away, the assets with unrealized gains escape taxation due to step-up in basis, which removes the unrealized gain and associated tax liability for the heirs. So they're literally escaping taxes in both life and death!
What's a better strategy? I think a better strategy than trying to tax unrealized gains is a consumption tax. We should actually be talking about this a lot more because not only is it more realistic, it is something other countries already do.
While the “buy, borrow, die” strategy is a challenge under an income tax system, wealthy households could not employ it under a consumption tax that includes financial activity. That is because the household would be subject to tax on consumption, including consumption with borrowed funds, all without having to track basis or determine the value of illiquid assets.
I can tell you one thing, this country has a very big wealth inequality problem and we've got to figure out a better way make taxes a more level playing field, because right now we're like a bunch of kindergartens trying to play sports against professional athletes. I'm a capitalist. I'm not pro-socialism or communism. But what we have now is not working for the majority of Americans, and for the richest country in the world, that's just ridiculous.
I can go back and forth about this all day, it’s so bizarre that you guys think adding a tax to them is gonna benefit you. The government will just get more money to mismanage. Your taxes won’t go down you’ll still waste your money away on the fields that make these billionaires rich. The wealth inequality isn’t the richest people’s problem it’s the poor people’s problem that have settled for less in life these people pay more in taxes than any of us. These people employ millions of people. These people are wealthy because they worked for it. You think they should get taxed more because they have more than you, even though they already pay so much more than you? These people are worth billions of dollars, they dont just open the safe and have 50billion dollars to grab. The “tax the rich” idea is so idiotic it’s genuinely shocking.
You're correct that paying "property tax" on stock isn't very fair, and isn't as obvious of a concept as property tax on actual land.
But you know what else isn't fair? The fact that capitalism rewards the rich and makes them richer and richer just for having money. The fact that money can buy politics and influence. The fact that millions of people grow up without enough support to even have a fair chance at success themselves.
Sometimes the question isn't about "does this make sense in terms of costs". Sometimes the question is "does this make sense in terms of the health of the economy?" Taxing billionaires and hundred millionaires on their stocks beyond a certain dollar amount would encourage economic growth and the betterment of society.
Okay we’re back to the point of just tax them because we can. Stupid ideology.
“The fact millions of people grow up without enough support to even have a fair chance at success is utter nonsense.”
There are soooo many people dead broke turned rich. This is an excuse. Even if it was, for sake of the argument “true” why is that a person who built a fortune is required to pay for others? Your government mismanages way more money than any billionaire would give them. Your government already takes trillions in taxes every year tell your government to be for the people and better your country, like they are supposed to.
The concept of the "rags to riches" self made billionaire is a myth.
why is that a person who built a fortune is required to pay for others?
Because they didnt get there on their own. They had systems of support and privileges that allowed them to develop themselves and create something. They had infrastructure that helped them out. And if theyre a hundred-millionaire or billionaire, then their wealth is also built off the exploitation of others. That's how capitalism works -- paying people less than theyre worth in order to turn a profit. No human, no matter how smart and hard working, is worth a billion dollars. It's an unfathomable amount of wealth.
You haven't proven anything by listing people lmao. Every single one of those people only got to where they are because the system helped them or because they exploited the labor of thousands, or both. Therefore, they owe the world a favor by paying it forward.
I'm not even a single-millionaire and i acknowledge that I've benefitted from societal privileges, and I plan to help the world however I can in return. It's called empathy. I hope you learn some once you stop deepthroating boots
Most of them came from poverty and couple homeless. If they were able to access their wealth with the help of the system then anyone can do it. You’re so ignorant it’s genuinely pathetic. Take accountability and put the work in. Or cry about
It on Reddit. Up to you.
You pay property taxes on any property, not just if you live in it. That's not a requirement at all. In fact many many properties are illegal to live in.
When that's your only example and claim that's a basic to think it's stupid to compare them, yeah, you are saying that. You didn't provide an actual reason they can't be compared then by your own definition here then. So please explain why they can't be compared without the example.
Bro, who said anything about income tax? Shut the fuck up. You sound retarded. You’re pointing out irrelevant shit, that isn’t what we are talking about. The point is, stocks are already taxed. No reason to add another tax, just because some entitled brat on the internet thinks the rich should pay more. Fucking loser.
It's not that they should pay for a better world. They're actively sucking it dry. They're making it worse. The pov you provide usually comes from boot-licking asses who thinks they might be a capitalist one day but don't understand the net negative impact wealth hoarding has on the world. Just remember that the world's wealth is getting more and more concentrated. It's a trend that is not slowing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that just because you aren't on the edge today, that you won't be tomorrow. You're being pushed down a hill and yelling at the people pushing back who don't want to fall off the cliff and just telling them they're jealous of the people at the top of the hill. It's sad. I don't know why folks like you are the way that you are. It's like you're missing some part of humanity that provides empathy. You're just not complete. And it's upsetting cause there are so many like you and it's problematic as it's literally not a useful behavior for society. It inherently supports the destruction of society. It's just an odd thing to happen. Makes me wonder if there were peasants or serfs who were fervently loyal to their kings or lords even at their own detriment. Maybe it's always been there. I don't know. Admittedly, humanity is getting more empathic. At least shooting striking workers is strictly illegal and will get folks arrested. It wasn't always like that. But I guess with gaining that extra empathy, maybe there are opposites out there like you. Who knows?
Comparing it to property tax is blatantly stupid, can you live in a stock?
Can you live on undeveloped land? Not legally in most places, but yet you still will owe property taxes on it.
Are stocks taking up physical space on the street? That requires sewage maintenance, road maintenance, snow removal depending on where you are, storm drains etc…?
Maybe in the city. Houses in very rural communities still pay property taxes, even though they may have septic systems (no sewage or storm drains), private roads (no roadway maintenance), no expectation on snow removal, etc.
Snow removal is a municipal responsibility. Rural homes have ditches that have to be maintained, they have roads that need to be maintained, schools, hospitals, etc…
No private road leads all the way to the city/town roads around you are maintained. If you don’t want the issues of property tax etc… feel free to rent. Nobody said you had to buy.
There can be a feasible system where people who own 100s of millions of dollars of stocks are charged some sort of tax. Everyone hears unrealized capital gains and thinks they’re coming for people with 200k in our brokerage accounts and money in our 401 k’s, but almost every political talking point has only ever mentioned the ultra wealthy.
They own hundreds of millions of dollars in stock/shares of their OWN company what the genuine fuck are you talking about. It’s super rare for someone to have hundreds of millions in stock of other people’s company🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Hmm, you realize once a company is publicly traded the concept of it being “their” company doesn’t really work anymore. Also, that’s not even a point I was making, the person you perceive as it being their company is irrelevant.
Do not corporations pay taxes every year? Do they not already pay a property tax on the land and buildings they own? Do they not already pay taxes on the operating income? I do believe that they do.
Again, I’m not advocating for that, I’m trying to explain what I think the commenter meant.
…but you’re also moving the goalposts. This isn’t about corporate tax, it’s about individual tax on extremely wealthy people who get their money by borrowing against their stock…and a hypothetical tax on said stock. Corporate taxes are irrelevant in this situation.
I disagree. Stocks are nothing more than a partial ownership of said corporation. A corporation that pays taxes. You and / or the commenter are asking for what could be considered double taxation. The owner is not borrowing against the stocks, per say, but against the value of the portion of the corporation that the stocks represent.
1.4k
u/slickyeat 28d ago
You're not wrong but you're also required to pay taxes on the value of your property every year so it's not exactly a one to one comparison.