3 ms·
You had me for one second with that argument. But if you sell off your company, you would still get rich and be taxed - so why wouldn't you stay on board and yo
by planb 4y ago
You had me for one second with that argument. But if you sell off your company, you would still get rich and be taxed - so why wouldn't you stay on board and your goal is not to get richer, but to create the best business you can?
- spullara 4y agoYou have to sell the business to pay the tax. That is why wealth taxes are pretty dumb without carve outs for many kinds of assets.
- FabHK 4y agoWhy not sell 49% of the business?
- kansface 4y agoThe percentage doesn't matter. You have to pay taxes on the stock you own (ie, your startup). You do that by selling the stock. As the value of the company increases, you are forced to sell off increasingly large chunks of your stake to pay the bill thereby loosing ownership (control) in the process.
- FabHK 4y agoWith an estate tax, the value is assessed once, I'd assume (at death/inheritance), then due to be paid. You might have to sell of a third or whatever of the fortune/company, and keep the majority. Sure, over successive generations, the family might lose control of their original fortune/company, but that is compatible with the intention of the tax.
- kansface 4y agoYou'd lose control much, much faster than that at the sort of rates being proposed. Even 1% per annum would destroy control well within a career, let alone a generation considering exponential growth. edit: Just noticed that you are talking about estate taxes and I'm talking about wealth taxes...