Pertinent Question on taxation on billionares.

[Bobby_2021]

Everytime I raise an argument to tax the billionares in an attempt to reduce inequality and give power to the people, I get thrown the same question.

The billionares net worth isn't tied up as cash. Instead their net worth is only becaue their stocks in their company is so large. So we can't tax them directly.

Honestly it is a good question.

For eg: If I have a T-shirt that is worth $30$, my net worth is also $30. 

Now lets say I got it signed by Roger Federer and now everyone wants it. People are willing to pay it $100 million for my shirt, but I haven't sold it yet. 

But my net worth also increased to $100 million. How shall I be taxed then? 

I want the most detailed and elaborative answer. Thank you.

[Harlen Kelly]

@Bobby_2021 Look for videos with actual economists and professionals explaining the topic of wealth tax if you want an elaborative answer. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Harlen Kelly

[StarfoxEpiphany]

@Bobby_2021

23 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

For eg: If I have a T-shirt that is worth $30$, my net worth is also $30. 

Now lets say I got it signed by Roger Federer and now everyone wants it. People are willing to pay it $100 million for my shirt, but I haven't sold it yet. 

But my net worth also increased to $100 million. How shall I be taxed then?

If you sell it for $100,000,000 you get taxed by the government.  That's called 'realized gains'.  If you don't sell it, it's unrealized gains since it's really not worth a damn until someone buys it.

[Leo Gura]

On 7/2/2021 at 2:36 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

Everytime I raise an argument to tax the billionares in an attempt to reduce inequality and give power to the people, I get thrown the same question.

The billionares net worth isn't tied up as cash. Instead their net worth is only becaue their stocks in their company is so large. So we can't tax them directly.

Honestly it is a good question.

Actually it's a terrible question because we already tax real estate and vehicles in this way.

If you buy a $10 million house or a $300k sports car, you owe taxes on its assessed value every year. If you can't afford the annual tax on your $10 mil house, gov don't give a fuck, they will repo your house.

Billionaires will have to sell off a tiny portion of their stock to pay wealth tax. How shocking!

Why do homeowners have to pay 2% annual tax but stock owners zero? What sense does this make?

[Epikur]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually it's a terrible question because we already tax real estate and vehicles in this way.

If you buy a $10 million house or a $300k sports car, you owe taxes on its assessed value every year. If you can't afford the annual tax on your $10 mil house, gov don't give a fuck, they will repo your house.

Billionaires will have to sell off a tiny portion of their stock to pay wealth tax. How shocking!

Why do homeowners have to pay 2% annual tax but stock owners zero? What sense does this make?

Seems pretty obvious. So why don't people care about this? I guess there is a lot of distraction going on so people can not focus on the real thing.

I guess this is one point where most people can agree with. That may have to be the most important mantra.
 

 

[captainamerica]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do homeowners have to pay 2% annual tax but stock owners zero? What sense does this make?

2 percent annual wealth tax seems great, assuming voting power in the company remains approx. the same somehow. It should be implemented soon. 

At 3 percent Elizabeth Warren seems nuts to me as that would take 70 percent of an individual's wealth over time (a quick guess of mine) 

Edited July 3, 2021 by captainamerica

[captainamerica]

Holistic understanding of stealing money should include communism, crony capitalism and over taxation as well. 

[StarfoxEpiphany]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Why do homeowners have to pay 2% annual tax but stock owners zero? What sense does this make?

Because they want peope to hold on to stocks instead of shifting them around every few months.  Buying and holding inflates securities prices but deflates prices in the rest of the economy.  It's a lot of money we're talking about being withdrawn from circulation so people can save.

[captainamerica]

Based on several factors about 1 percent also seems great. 1-1.5 will add up to quite a bit over time. 2 percent may not be implementable practically. (Maybe in the long term...)

I don't understand why Elizabeth Warren chose to start with 3 percent. 70 percent is stealing and the powerful leaders will definitely not allow it. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by captainamerica

[StarfoxEpiphany]

@captainamerica The companies would have to pay out a dividend to the shareholders every year to match the tax.  It'd basically be another corporate expense.  I don't know if that's a good idea since sometimes companies issue stock to do things like payoff debt.

A tax like that would really be putting a lot of nano-caps, micro-caps, and venture capital at a disadvantage.

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

On 7/2/2021 at 10:36 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

Everytime I raise an argument to tax the billionares in an attempt to reduce inequality and give power to the people, I get thrown the same question.

The billionares net worth isn't tied up as cash. Instead their net worth is only becaue their stocks in their company is so large. So we can't tax them directly.

Honestly it is a good question.

For eg: If I have a T-shirt that is worth $30$, my net worth is also $30. 

Now lets say I got it signed by Roger Federer and now everyone wants it. People are willing to pay it $100 million for my shirt, but I haven't sold it yet. 

But my net worth also increased to $100 million. How shall I be taxed then? 

I want the most detailed and elaborative answer. Thank you.

   You would be taxed based on profits made, so in the actual sale of the shirt, rather than being taxed with just holding the shirt without any sale yet. 

[Danioover9000]

   Also, I do support a legislation that imposes some degree of taxation on the billionaires, as this would make my journey to be a millionaire much easier, more profit coming my way.

[captainamerica]

@StarfoxEpiphany What is your approach for taxation?

I like that you think about it from the perspective of businesses as well.

[Epikur]

Quote

the top tax rate gets bumped to 9.65% from 8.82% for single filers who make more than $1 million. Those who make between $5 million and $25 million would be taxed at around 10.3% and for those making more than $25 million the rate would be at 10.9%. Wealthy earners are expected to get hit with those new taxes in the next tax season, with the rates expiring in 2027.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/new-yorks-wealthiest-look-for-exits-as-state-readies-hefty-tax-increase-.html

[StarfoxEpiphany]

13 hours ago, captainamerica said:

@StarfoxEpiphany What is your approach for taxation?

I like that you think about it from the perspective of businesses as well.

Way too much of the US federal budget comes from printing bonds - out of thin air - and the banks buy them with money which is also - printed out of thin air.  So right now, my main concern would be to have the government print money instead of the central banks so there's no interest expense on things like 20 year treasury bonds. 

This would hold the government directly responsible for inflation which is in itself a tax.  The public would think twice before supporting wars or often irresponsible spending programs. 

Lincoln and Kennedy were the only two presidents that tried this and both were assasinated.

Edited July 6, 2021 by StarfoxEpiphany

[captainamerica]

@StarfoxEpiphany I am for taxation of Billionaires as long as it is not so much that it is basically stealing money. (Bill Gates agrees with both of these points as well. ) As long as it is done in a proper way that doesn't hurt businesses. They are not criminals for creating value at scale and inventing great products. 

I also believe that there are many issues with Wall st., Democratic Leadership and their vision around policies, etc. that are ignored. Solving them will be the real big win that people are looking for. Higher taxation is not going to solve much of the problems at scale, it is important though I believe. Hopefully, it is done properly.

For eg., the middle-class assets allocation in the US cannot be solved unless proper financial (and overall) education is implemented. When financial education is zero, people cannot be empowered. That is like saying water is wet. This is one of the major causes of financial problems at scale, and there is no alternative or shortcut to solving this.

Edited July 8, 2021 by captainamerica

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

They are not criminals for creating value at scale and inventing great products.

They don't have to be criminals to justify a 100% tax.

There is no reason whatsoever that society should allow billionaires to exist. There is no right to be a billionaire.

A conscious society would recognize that any individual holding over a billion dollars is harmful to the society as a whole, simply in principle. In the same way individuals holding nuclear weapons is harmful to society as a whole and it is thus not allowed.

What you have yet to realize is that just the very fact of holding a billion dollars harms the billionaire, his family, his friends, his colleagues, and society at large. It is like being morbidly obese. It is not good for you and it is a poor allocation of social resources.

See, if you had a billion dollars and you mother was dying of cancer due to inability to pay for her doctor, but you desired to hoard your billions, we would call that a sick situation.

Well, that's what's happening in society at large today. And you are justifying it as normal and even as a right of yours.

[Opo]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They don't have to be criminals to justify a 100% tax.

There is no reason whatsoever that society should allow billionaires to exist. There is no right to be a billionaire.

A conscious society would recognize that any individual holding over a billion dollars is harmful to the society as a whole, simply in principle.

Oh shit. 

What changed your mind? 

[captainamerica]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They don't have to be criminals to justify a 100% tax.

There is no reason whatsoever that society should allow billionaires to exist. There is no right to be a billionaire.

A conscious society would recognize that any individual holding over a billion dollars is harmful to the society as a whole, simply in principle. In the same way individuals holding nuclear weapons is harmful to society as a whole and it is thus not allowed.

@Leo Gura No. Your understanding of it does not fit in the current evolution of society in just the US alone.

For eg. Kings existing today would be harmful in countries like the US, India, etc. But centuries, millennia ago that was what gave people the security to do their trades. 

Can you take a psychedelic and ask it to show the existential use of Billionaires? From my understanding of spirituality, if there are 50 planets similar to us most of them will have Billionaires or equivalents. It is that embedded. Even across species. 

I am not asking about a policy for 500 yrs from now. What about today?

Edited July 8, 2021 by captainamerica

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Opo said:

Oh shit. 

What changed your mind? 

I have always been for the taxation for the rich. Nothing has changed.

7 minutes ago, captainamerica said:

@Leo Gura No. Your understanding of it does not fit in the current evolution of society in just the US alone.

For eg. Kings existing today would be harmful in countries like the US, India, etc. But centuries, millennia ago that was what gave people the security to do their trades. 

Can you take a psychedelic and ask it to show the existential use of Billionaires? From my understanding of spirituality, if there are 50 planets similar to us most of them will have Billionaires or equivalents. It is that embedded. 

Now you're conflating matters. Of course I am perfectly aware that billionaires today exist for a reason and it could not be otherwise. Just like slavery existed for a reason and it could not be otherwise 200 years ago.

But that does not mean slavery would last. Neither will billionaires. They will go extinct like kings.

This conversation is not about the absolute domain, it's a discussion about policies we should adopt in the relative domain in the future.

I am not here morally judging billionaires. I am pointing out that the situation for society is dysfunctional and unwholesome. A more conscious society would curb such foolishness.