3 ms·
It still seems problematic. Even if my company goes public, if I haven't actually sold the shares and made any money, why should this be taxed? If there are l
by d23 5y ago
It still seems problematic. Even if my company goes public, if I haven't actually sold the shares and made any money, why should this be taxed? If there are loopholes that let the founder avoid those taxes at sale time, fix those, but otherwise why should we effectively take away ownership of a company just because someone has built it up successfully.
- dsizzle 5y agoOne loophole is the step-up basis that applies when the owner dies. Not sure why that wasn't targeted instead (maybe because the current plan produces revenue more quickly?).
- tedunangst 5y ago"Billionaire tax" plays better than "death tax" so we get tax policies that fit into 30 second commercials, not those that make economic sense.
- abeyer 5y agoSo why not a "dead billionaire tax"? The heirs to fortunes seem likely to get even less sympathy than the ones who actually built them.
- Msw242 5y agoReads like a cash grab to me.