4 ms·
The only way this is possible is if the assets are still accruing value in sufficient excess of loans made against the assets. So long as this happens, it's fin
by jeremy_arnold 5y ago
The only way this is possible is if the assets are still accruing value in sufficient excess of loans made against the assets. So long as this happens, it's fine for the realization to be 1,000 years off. The IOU doesn't expire, and the gov's carrying costs are lower than the gained value of their share in this scenario.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y agoSo your argument requires the US being the first empire to maintain a consistent tax policy for millennia, while we watch the heirs of billionaires hoard all this wealth and enjoy living in the lap of luxury (and assume they won’t manage to change the rules sometime between now and the end of time)? It’s not convincing. Also, couldn’t you make the same argument that wage income, and every other kind of tax should be deferrable if the money gets invested? We should all just not pay the government and the government should give us an IOU until eternity? I suppose the modern monetary theory people would be on board.
- jeremy_arnold 5y agoAs I've said elsewhere, if the US wants to set some max window for realizing gains, that could be fine. ProPublica and others are welcome to write opeds arguing for it. People can debate that on its own merits. The difference between this and deferring wage income is that wages don't need to be liquidated. And that's not a small difference.
- md_ 5y agoWorth noting that the IRS taxes earned income even if granted as stocks or options, forcing liquidation. Your arguments against forcing liquidation apply equally to RSUs, yet the real-world treatment is different.