You're viewing a single thread.
Wealth is not money. There's nothing to tax.
This is a very true statement.
Stocks won't get taxed unless they get actioned on. That is where the majority of their preceeded wealth is.
The US government is sovereign, it can very much either take ownership of the stock, or estimate its value and construct a loan that the company owners needs to pay back because they owe this tax. Or probably 100s of more clever solutions as well.
It can definitely decide to tax wealth if it wanted to, it could also break up large companies to at least spread the wealth of these institutions wider. It mostly just doesn't "want" to.
This argument is so unnecessary defeatist pretending the most militarised and police ridden country in the world has no power to enforce laws it could write.
Opposite to that notion I think if the US had any interest in fairness in taxation, especially on a more global scale, it could easily get all the common tax havens/financial secrecy jurisdictions, to fold to essentially whatever demands if has. But again it seems like the US government strangely doesn't really want that either.
Which is still the central issue the US government is more captured by the billionaire class than a lot of people like to think they are, and it's never just the dem or just the reps, it's large portions of both parties that are essentially captured in this way, or just fall into it because preserving the status quo is easy.
If US government decides to take over private stocks or tax them, US companies will exit US and American economy will die instantly. You can't tax wealth, it's impossible and doesn't make any sense.
Why do countries have wealth taxes and completely reasonable economies when it's supposedly impossible. I'm not saying let me design a US wealth tax I'm saying wealth taxes do make sense, do exist and at least do something and the US could certainly implement them given sufficient political will.
Two of the 5 OECD countries that have wealth taxes are neighboring countries to mine, they do have industry, services etc. certainly not dead places.
Also I've never seen any (proposed) wealth tax start at anywhere lower than 1M in assets and with higher than 1% taxation so I just don't see how any of the opposition is genuine. Why would there be such opposition to a topic that only impacts a few percent of the countries population. And that at the same time is actually properly understood by even fewer people.
Also have you ever moved country with a several billion dollar company, with the US federal government after you for taxes, I don't imagine it'd be particularly easy or cheap, the US has many massive subsidies for local companies, and some otherwise tax favorable conditions in some of it's states, I doubt it would be an easy decision for many of these owners.
Countries were trying to tax wealth since Ancient Rome times and it NEVER worked. 12 OECD countries had some kind of wealth tax. As of 2021 only 5 have it. I bet you that in 20 years none will.
The thing is that asset value is not money. It's just a number someone got out of their ass. And this value is volatile, it can change in any direction any day. And you have pretty much zero control over it. Here's an example from UK where I live. A lot of people bought homes to live in London in 1990-s for tens of thousands pounds. Today these houses are valued at over a million. You want to target those who have over 1M in assets? Well, most of London is now fucked for no reason and without any wrongdoing. How do you expect a nurse in retirement to pay such tax?
OK, you put a limit higher to target Bezos. But Bezos doesn't have cash to pay 1% from his billions. He will have to sell shares. That will tank Amazon share prices and potentially destroy the business. And who would want to buy shares and invest with taxes like that?
By the way, the five countries are Colombia, France, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. France is already abandoning this stupid tax, Norway started to think about it. Economies of Colombia and Spain are in ruins partially thanks to this tax. And Switzerland... Well, Swiss are gonna Swiss. Their economy is very non-standard.
Yes I've read the Wikipedia article as well thank you very much but you still don't seem to accept that taxes can and should be used to regulate the economy. That's the entire point frankly. Some business should be destroyed because it's bad for the people at large. Some people should need to get rid of one of their houses so that it doesn't remain empty half the year. That's the point.
And even if Norway and France abandon this policy and Spain and Columbia are supposedly in ruin couldn't their collective healt and happiness not be better even despite a smaller economy. Is it impossible for you to imagine a world where a smaller economy is better for it's people than a larger one.
And on the other side of the coin wouldn't you think not being sovereign over the world reserve currency and the largest economy in the world make it a lot harder to protect yourself effectively from capital flight.
It's also real money, otherwise Musk couldn't have bought Twitter for $44 billion. He sure didn't have that amount on his bank account but he still bought it all the same, thus giving him a substantial soft power through information.
True, but that would mean to tax billionaires by taking money from their lenders?
I don't know, it just feels very convenient that wealth is considered money whenever is useful to the rich, and turns back into "wealth" a second later.
What I find unacceptable is the double standard. I'll keep the Musk example: a few banks and a few private companies made loans (which need to be reimbursed with real money) for Musk buying Twitter. A part of the exchange money came from the value of his own shares of Twitter (deducted from the 44b). Before that he has sold lots of Tesla shares which apparently gave him $20b in cash
Why do we accept that this not-money money can be turned into real money whenever convenient, but cannot be taxed the rest of the time?
There's a problem with how we accept to think of financial money. If it can't be taxed, then out shouldn't be defined as being an equivalent of real-economy money. Or maybe it should be evaluated in a more realistic way?
Not saying I have easy answers, but there's clearly a problem IMO.
Details of how they go about paying it is not really any of my business as long as it gets paid.
"Sorry grandma, you have to eat cat food now because Elon was forced to sell his majority stake in Tesla crashing your pension plan."
Elon would have triggered a taxable event using his wealth to buy Twitter.
And now Twitter is down to $4b. Because wealth is not money.
I think you meant to say “wealth is not income”. That’s the whole point of it being a “wealth tax”. That said, there’s pretty sound law arguing that wealth taxes are unconstitutional. There are far better ways to effect similar change, such as capital gains tax reform, and closing transfer tax exemption loopholes.
No, I said what I meant. Wealth is not money. Even if we try to express wealth in a monetary value, it's not money. And there's nothing to tax.
The IRS doesn’t care if you’re paid in money or not. Taxes are levied on things of value, i.e. wealth. That’s why non-monetary compensation like free lunch or other perks are still taxed using an equivalence value. It’s also why compensation in the form of stock options are still taxed as income. If only “money” proper were taxable, everyone would be paid in gift cards or precious metals.
Well, your IRS is insane. Here in the UK gifts are not taxed, that's why companies often buy cars and bicycles for employees - this way both company and worker save shit loads of money in taxes.
Here in the UK gifts are not taxed
Yes they are, however there is an annual exemption of £3000. Amounts above this are subject to taxation. There is a similar exemption in the US - $17,000 as of 2023.
that's why companies often buy cars … for employees
I believe you’re talking out of your ass.
Bikes - https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/
Cars - https://comcar.co.uk/
Yes they are, however there is an annual exemption of £3000
No, they are not. This exemption is for inheritance tax. Gifts are tax free no matter the value. The way this works is that all gifts made during 7 years before death count as your inheritance estate https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts
Basically if you're not planning to die in 7 years, you can gift a billion in one transaction and pay zero taxes
That’s not how it works. Gifts over £3000 are always taxed. Additionally, gifts given within 7 years prior to death are subject to inheritance tax.
Bikes … Cars …
A company car is not compensation to an employee. They might be permitted to use it for personal use, but employers are supposed to report this fractional use which is then taxed. Whether that’s enforced or not, I don’t know, but the law is that personal use of a company-provided car is supposed to be taxed. The employee also doesn’t own the car - if they leave the company, the company keeps the car.
Bicycle tax savings is a separate thing entirely. Many benefits that promote healthy lifestyles receive special tax treatment; it’s not taxed that way just because it’s not cash.
Mate, I sent you proof links. If you don't have anything to support your argument - just shut it, ok? You're talking out of your arse.