3 ms·

I am speaking for myself here, but the way I see it, the issue is more the way in which taxation is exercised than the taxation itself. If I was in Elon's seat

I am speaking for myself here, but the way I see it, the issue is more the way in which taxation is exercised than the taxation itself. If I was in Elon's seat, I personally wouldn't mind paying 20 or 30% of my income in taxes. But vesting shares should not qualify as income. What should qualify as income is me selling those shares. In other words, If I am awarded 1B$ in shares that I have no plan on selling short term, I still have to liquidate 20-30% of those shares just to pay taxes, which may have a pretty high negative impact in term of voting rights. Why could the taxation not occur when I am selling instead?

nrmitchi 6y ago
> But vesting shares should not qualify as income. What should qualify as income is me selling those shares I believe that the logic here is the same reason AMT was introduced in the past. I vest $1M in shares. I get a loan against those shares for 500k. I now have 500k in cash, that I have paid no taxes on. Someone will definitely give me that loan because _worst case_ I have to sell the underlying shares, pay tax, and still pay back the loan. When that loan is due? Refinance against the same shares that I still haven't sold. If you have a lot of assets, you can always get a loan against those assets. You can kick the can down the road long enough to, effectively, never pay taxes. Or you just kick it long enough for some sort of "tax holiday". Real estate lets you do this with refinances and 1031 exchanges all the way until you die (at which point the cost basis resets, and your heirs will most likely pay no tax).