6 ms·

This analysis includes as income a portion of the value of un-taxed stock gains, so it's not a traditional measure.

phendrenad2 5y ago
I don't understand how people keep making this mistake, unless it's not actually a mistake, and is just a way to generate outrage-inducing headlines.
- secabeen 5y ago
  It's the latter. There is probably some value in taxing unrealized stock gains. If you purchased Google stock via options at the IPO, and have still yet to sell it, it would be reasonable to consider a portion of that profit locked in, and somehow tax it. It would be complicated, and challenging, but leaving that stock entirely untaxed until it is sold or inherited incurs different problems.
  - fIoat 5y ago
    One thing to consider is how having a large amount of stocks allows you to borrow on margin and move other people's money around in ways the less wealthy cannot. I wonder if the aim here is to tax the power, not necessarily the wealth.
    - phendrenad2 5y ago
      I'm all for taxing people whenever they benefit from their wealth. Stocks sitting in an account somewhere? Those aren't benefitting the owner. Stocks used to borrow money? Now they become a tangible benefit, and we can figure out how much to tax that event.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >It's the latter. It is not media companies creating clickbait headlines to induce outrage and get clicks. In this case, it is the President using taxpayer resources to mislead the public. While the former is problematic, the latter is far worse as it reduces trust in the whole system of governance.
    - secabeen 5y ago
      > In this case, it is the President using taxpayer resources to mislead the public. While the former is problematic, the latter is far worse as it reduces trust in the whole system of governance. Perhaps, but I can't think of any policy remedy that would prevent this. Leaders have made misleading statements to their people since time immemorial. It is incumbent on us to develop our critical thinking skills so we can call those leaders out on their misleading statements (as you are doing here), and allow that understanding to impact who we support and elevate to those positions of leadership.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        There isn't a policy solution, but people on both sides of the aisle need to call out intellectual dishonesty in order to preserve or raise the bar of General discourse. It's not okay if someone lies or Miss leaves just because it furthers your sides political agenda
- closeparen 5y ago
  Generally the tax discussion is related to the wealth inequality discussion, and paper gains are definitely included in wealth inequality.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  It isn't a mistake, but it also isn't just to induce outrage. I think it is outrageous that after a certain amount of wealth you can literally never sell your stock and never need to pay taxes on it.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    So what? Do you get to take the stock with you at the end of your life? Or does it go to someone else, who will have to either hold it for their entire life, or sell it and pay that taxes? What am I missing?
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      Step-up in basis means that a lot of the growth is never taxed.
      - duped 5y ago
        There's still the estate tax.
    - fulafel 5y ago
      If it got taxed in these ways, wouldn't it make the number in the headline higher? Even if held until end of life there are enough billionaires dying per year that it would even out.

I don't understand how people keep making this mistake, unless it's not actually a mistake, and is just a way to generate outrage-inducing headlines.

secabeen 5y ago
It's the latter. There is probably some value in taxing unrealized stock gains. If you purchased Google stock via options at the IPO, and have still yet to sell it, it would be reasonable to consider a portion of that profit locked in, and somehow tax it. It would be complicated, and challenging, but leaving that stock entirely untaxed until it is sold or inherited incurs different problems.
- fIoat 5y ago
  One thing to consider is how having a large amount of stocks allows you to borrow on margin and move other people's money around in ways the less wealthy cannot. I wonder if the aim here is to tax the power, not necessarily the wealth.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    I'm all for taxing people whenever they benefit from their wealth. Stocks sitting in an account somewhere? Those aren't benefitting the owner. Stocks used to borrow money? Now they become a tangible benefit, and we can figure out how much to tax that event.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >It's the latter. It is not media companies creating clickbait headlines to induce outrage and get clicks. In this case, it is the President using taxpayer resources to mislead the public. While the former is problematic, the latter is far worse as it reduces trust in the whole system of governance.
  - secabeen 5y ago
    > In this case, it is the President using taxpayer resources to mislead the public. While the former is problematic, the latter is far worse as it reduces trust in the whole system of governance. Perhaps, but I can't think of any policy remedy that would prevent this. Leaders have made misleading statements to their people since time immemorial. It is incumbent on us to develop our critical thinking skills so we can call those leaders out on their misleading statements (as you are doing here), and allow that understanding to impact who we support and elevate to those positions of leadership.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      There isn't a policy solution, but people on both sides of the aisle need to call out intellectual dishonesty in order to preserve or raise the bar of General discourse. It's not okay if someone lies or Miss leaves just because it furthers your sides political agenda
closeparen 5y ago
Generally the tax discussion is related to the wealth inequality discussion, and paper gains are definitely included in wealth inequality.
UncleMeat 5y ago
It isn't a mistake, but it also isn't just to induce outrage. I think it is outrageous that after a certain amount of wealth you can literally never sell your stock and never need to pay taxes on it.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  So what? Do you get to take the stock with you at the end of your life? Or does it go to someone else, who will have to either hold it for their entire life, or sell it and pay that taxes? What am I missing?
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Step-up in basis means that a lot of the growth is never taxed.
    - duped 5y ago
      There's still the estate tax.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    If it got taxed in these ways, wouldn't it make the number in the headline higher? Even if held until end of life there are enough billionaires dying per year that it would even out.