2 ms·
I agree with you, but I do think something has to be discussed about the the issue with shares. Selling shares to pay tax does seem strange, the impact of losin
by didibus 6y ago
I agree with you, but I do think something has to be discussed about the the issue with shares. Selling shares to pay tax does seem strange, the impact of losing ownership just to pay tax is weird to me.
Seems it make more sense to tax when the shares are sold, but with a percentage based not on your taxed income, but your whole asset holding. Or just to tax the companies themselves more heavily.
- patmcc 6y agoRight, but I'm saying no one would actually sell off their shares to pay the wealth tax (I mean, maybe some would in some years). They'd borrow against the assets, or take dividends, or whatever.
- didibus 6y agoI get that, but it seems quite cumbersome and complicated to me. There's got to be a simpler solution that won't involve borrowing. That's where a simple change on income tax like I described I feel might be nicer. The end result is the wealthier do get taxed more, but the taxing still only happens at liquidation. Whereas currently this isn't the case. Since a wealthy person can cash out 10 million a year, be taxed on that to the same extent as someone else who made 10 million, yet the next year the wealthy person total wealth could have gone up, making it they can cash out 10 million year over year forever and still grow richer, all because they always get taxed the same as someone who is less wealthy but of a similar income.