4 ms·
Is this really... true? I get that there's this idea in people's heads that you couldn't tax for example some incredible rare art collection, because who is to
by SilverBirch 4y ago
Is this really... true? I get that there's this idea in people's heads that you couldn't tax for example some incredible rare art collection, because who is to say it's true value and you damage the owner by applying such a tax burden they actually have to sell the art. But let's take a step back. Where is the real money? Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Page, Brin, Ellison, Ballmer, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg. Further down the list the same thing is true - the people with wealth actually have the vast majority of their wealths in companies. It's not difficul to liquidate, it's not difficult to value them, it's actually quite comically easy. Even the guys who actually do have enormous art collections are almost all art dealers, they can and do liquidate their investments all the time.
On to the core question: how much is the stock in the non-public company you work at really worth? I don't know, sell it and we'll find out. A SWE with illiquid stock probably actually has a much shorter timeframe of when they want a liquidity event than the US government has.
The truth is that the reason it's difficult to tax rich people is because the first thing anyone does in this conversation is talk about how hard it would be, without thinking for a second if it actually would be hard. Let's lay aside any talk of real wealth taxes, and just stick to our current tax system, Elon Musk borrowing against his Tesla stock is not a taxable event. Let's change that today. It's specific, easy, would immediately drive revenue, and doesn't require any innovation around true wealth taxes. But... we won't, because it's not difficult, the government just doesn't want to do it. What does that mean? The burden of tax is primarily put on income not wealth, meaning your SWE with non-public stock is already getting absolutely pounded with taxes on their income instead.
- WalterBright 4y agoBorrowed money is not income.
- nmfisher 4y agoNo, but it is an avoidance mechanism specifically designed to avoid tax on income. If an independent third party has deemed your stock sufficiently valuable (and stable) to lend money against, then you should be taxed on that loan. You can get a credit when you repay the loan (to offset tax on the income you used to repay).
- renonce 4y agoNot familiar with the US tax code, but if Musk borrows $1b with a portion of his Tesla stocks as collateral, will he be charged capital gains tax by assuming that these stocks are now worth $1b?
- prottog 4y agoIn the US and most places, you are only liable for capital gains tax on realized gains. The shares have to change hands before a tax is due.
- WalterBright 4y agoWhen you die, the value of the stock at time of death gets whacked by inheritance tax, which is 40% at the federal level and 20% at the state (in Washington) level.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 4y agoYou'll have to realize the gain eventually, and pay the tax.
- nmfisher 4y ago1) You wouldn’t work for payment of an unspecified amount at an indeterminate future date. “Eventual tax” is not the same as “tax now”. 2) Likewise, paying a 2022 debt in 2027 dollars makes their effective tax rate even lower. 3) I don’t get to defer my income tax payments until a favourable year of my choosing, neither should the rich 4) that’s what the credit is for.
- bmitc 4y agoThe point is to force it as such and/or tax elsewhere.