2 ms·
The way they do it just kicks the the can down the road. The company is "net asset value", but how do you value of the software they have, or the data they hol
by jedberg 4y ago
The way they do it just kicks the the can down the road. The company is "net asset value", but how do you value of the software they have, or the data they hold, or the paintings the company holds, or all their other assets?
When a company is sold the value of the assets is negotiated for sometimes years. And is different for every acquirer. How is the government going to do that for everyone every year?
- ceejayoz 4y ago> The way they do it just kicks the the can down the road. No, it accepts that some wealth may require estimates, eventual corrections, and occasionally court resolution. (The doc cites an example of a $2M painting hung in a kitchen being deemed non-household goods.) The "there's an edge case, therefore it can't work" argument is hard to sustain when there are countries making it work. The Swiss handle paintings, private companies, and presumably IP (I can't find specific details in here) in their system.
- jedberg 4y agoI'm not saying it can't work because of an edge case. I'm saying the system has fundamental flaws and here are some examples. And I can turn the same logic around on you: Why do you think this will work when just one country is claiming to do it successfully? Especially after other countries tried it and then repealed or at least partially repealed their wealth taxes to exclude hard to value items?