5 ms·

If my wealth comes from owning a percentage of a company (say I own 30% of AMZN) what is the way to tax me other than taking my shares, i.e. the Gov would take

If my wealth comes from owning a percentage of a company (say I own 30% of AMZN) what is the way to tax me other than taking my shares, i.e. the Gov would take certain percentage of my shares? And if we go that route how many years would it go by before Gov owned majority of shares of most companies? Lots of people scream that we should tax the wealthy but I do not follow how you tax someone whose wealth comes from large ownership of a big company...?

kalenx 6y ago
I don't see how you came to your conclusion. Gov would tax you as they do now (including when you receive shares for instance), by asking you money. It is up to you to find it. If your assets are illiquid, then it is your problem not the government's one -- and in some cases it can indeed be quite unfair, e.g. for some startup employees.
mattnewton 6y ago
Simple, it’s progressive, so if you are very wealthy and own 30% of the company you might need to sell 5% to pay off wealth taxes over a few years, and you sell them to people or institutions, with less wealth (and therefore less wealth taxes due). It wouldn’t end up with the government owning the shares, it would end up with people at a tax advantage relative to you owning the shares. Whether or not that is a good idea, I don’t know.
TheDong 6y ago
Let's look at jeff bezos for example. He sells over a billion dollars worth of amazon stock each year [0] (those numbers have increased slightly since then actually). Fine, he pays some of that to the government, and maybe sells slightly more. I don't see the problem. If, in fact, your wealth only comes from ownership in a company and you have no other source of wealth, then yes you would be encourages to sell your shares to pay the wealth tax. I don't see why this is a problem. That's kinda the point of a wealth tax, that yes you do get taxed on your wealth. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-bezos/bezos-is-selling-1-billion-of-amazon-stock-a-year-to-fund-rocket-venture-idUSKBN1772ZQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-bezos/bezos-is-sell...
- coliveira 6y ago
  Exactly. Some people seem to believe that wealth in shares of a company are in some way different from other types of wealth. Just sell shares an you'll be fine with your taxes. By the way, if you're the controller of a company, you can sell shares without voting power (this has always been a possibility).
  - bdangubic 6y ago
    I have $1,000,000,000 in my checking account. This is my wealth. I am not going to be taxed a single penny on this money. Why tax my "shares" wealth and not my wealth from my checking account? And if I have my shares, I don't want to sell them. I currently own X number of shares of dozens of companies, I don't have IRS breathing down my neck to sell them, why should Bezos have them breathing down his?! I pay taxes when I sell my shares, not just due to the fact that I own them...
    - TheDong 6y ago
      > I have $1,000,000,000 in my checking account. This is my wealth. I am not going to be taxed a single penny on this That's the point of a wealth tax, to in fact tax that checking account too. You seem to misunderstand how it would work and what the intent is. It doesn't treat your checking account differently from company ownership; both are wealth, a wealth tax suggests taxing both. > I don't have IRS breathing down my neck to sell them, why should Bezos have them breathing down his? You shouldn't if you're not wealthy (as in you have under 20 mil net worth). If you're wealthy, you can afford to pay a wealth tax, and your money will help those poorer. Why shouldn't we be taking money from the rich and helping the entire country? Why should our country continue to have a wider and wider economic divide? Anyway, the IRS absolutely would breath down your neck to give them money if you owed them taxes. If all your assets were stock, and you somehow triggered a large tax liability, you'd have to sell some stock to pay the IRS. That's already true. It's perfectly possible to trigger a tax liability larger than your liquid assets now, and have to sell stock to cover it. But that's rare now. And with a wealth tax that would still be rare. Most people with 20MM+ net worth have liquid assets, or the ability to easily liquidate assets. You're arguing about an edge case that almost certainly doesn't effect you in any way.

kalenx 6y ago

I don't see how you came to your conclusion. Gov would tax you as they do now (including when you receive shares for instance), by asking you money. It is up to you to find it. If your assets are illiquid, then it is your problem not the government's one -- and in some cases it can indeed be quite unfair, e.g. for some startup employees.

mattnewton 6y ago

Simple, it’s progressive, so if you are very wealthy and own 30% of the company you might need to sell 5% to pay off wealth taxes over a few years, and you sell them to people or institutions, with less wealth (and therefore less wealth taxes due). It wouldn’t end up with the government owning the shares, it would end up with people at a tax advantage relative to you owning the shares. Whether or not that is a good idea, I don’t know.

TheDong 6y ago

Let's look at jeff bezos for example. He sells over a billion dollars worth of amazon stock each year [0] (those numbers have increased slightly since then actually). Fine, he pays some of that to the government, and maybe sells slightly more. I don't see the problem. If, in fact, your wealth only comes from ownership in a company and you have no other source of wealth, then yes you would be encourages to sell your shares to pay the wealth tax. I don't see why this is a problem. That's kinda the point of a wealth tax, that yes you do get taxed on your wealth. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-bezos/bezos-is-selling-1-billion-of-amazon-stock-a-year-to-fund-rocket-venture-idUSKBN1772ZQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-bezos/bezos-is-sell...

coliveira 6y ago
Exactly. Some people seem to believe that wealth in shares of a company are in some way different from other types of wealth. Just sell shares an you'll be fine with your taxes. By the way, if you're the controller of a company, you can sell shares without voting power (this has always been a possibility).
- bdangubic 6y ago
  I have $1,000,000,000 in my checking account. This is my wealth. I am not going to be taxed a single penny on this money. Why tax my "shares" wealth and not my wealth from my checking account? And if I have my shares, I don't want to sell them. I currently own X number of shares of dozens of companies, I don't have IRS breathing down my neck to sell them, why should Bezos have them breathing down his?! I pay taxes when I sell my shares, not just due to the fact that I own them...
  - TheDong 6y ago
    > I have $1,000,000,000 in my checking account. This is my wealth. I am not going to be taxed a single penny on this That's the point of a wealth tax, to in fact tax that checking account too. You seem to misunderstand how it would work and what the intent is. It doesn't treat your checking account differently from company ownership; both are wealth, a wealth tax suggests taxing both. > I don't have IRS breathing down my neck to sell them, why should Bezos have them breathing down his? You shouldn't if you're not wealthy (as in you have under 20 mil net worth). If you're wealthy, you can afford to pay a wealth tax, and your money will help those poorer. Why shouldn't we be taking money from the rich and helping the entire country? Why should our country continue to have a wider and wider economic divide? Anyway, the IRS absolutely would breath down your neck to give them money if you owed them taxes. If all your assets were stock, and you somehow triggered a large tax liability, you'd have to sell some stock to pay the IRS. That's already true. It's perfectly possible to trigger a tax liability larger than your liquid assets now, and have to sell stock to cover it. But that's rare now. And with a wealth tax that would still be rare. Most people with 20MM+ net worth have liquid assets, or the ability to easily liquidate assets. You're arguing about an edge case that almost certainly doesn't effect you in any way.