5 ms·

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securit

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

Terretta 2y ago
> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing nebulous public good, perhaps it could be thought of as NOA and SOA fees: Nation Owners' Association fees, and State Owners' Association fees. You can look for a different neighborhood, or contribute to improve this one.
- bjtitus 2y ago
  Who are these non-wealthy individuals who can't afford ramen but hold over $100 million in assets of _publicly traded companies_? > the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. This was a representational issue, not non-transactional taxation. Property taxes existed in many colonies 100 years before the revolution.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    It is accurate that the latest incarnation*, the supposed Harris version, within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradeable assets (i.e., not shares of private startups or real estate). Not usually mentioned: even for this illiquid group there would still be an additional deferred tax of up to 10% on the unrealized capital gains upon exit. * Once passed, anything like this is unlikely to escape tinkering until it matches most other versions, that are not limited to "tradable". Look at how worried farms are, for example, another relatively cash neutral but cap gain increasing growth (ahem) business.
- andy_ppp 2y ago
  It’s hard to put into pithy terms but check out Citibank’s former top trader on wealth inequality and why we need to find a way to tax back some of the wealth from the rich: https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - swader999 2y ago
    Thanks for this, watched a few of his videos and I think it will really change my view on tax going forward.
- consteval 2y ago
  > without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable Correction: without SEEMING exceptionally wealthy or even ramen profitable. By, say, kneecapping your own profit. So that you don't pay as much taxes. Which is the entire problem we're trying to solve. In practice, these people ARE wealthy. Just perhaps not on paper (depending the paper you look at). Of course when you observe their life, they are obviously filthy rich. So we have an accounting problem. The papers don't accurately reflect the reality.
Terretta 2y ago
> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. On the contrary, many variations of proposals (they keep popping up) cover partnerships or other forms of company holders as well. Even in the Harris plan, though not usually talked about, even for the illiquid not-tradable group there would be a new deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit. To be fair, "exit" implies an ability to pay that.
fooker 2y ago
> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it In that case, this is the end of public companies as we know it.
sbsudbdjd 2y ago
"Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy." Can be a public good if it's spent well. The US has spent how many trillions killing innocents the last 25 years? How many trillion were spent building ridiculous layers of redundancy on our nuclear deterrent (that we then smashed)? Public good!
kcb 2y ago
So no more publicly traded companies. Now they only way to invest is to be in an elite social circle.

Terretta 2y ago

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing nebulous public good, perhaps it could be thought of as NOA and SOA fees: Nation Owners' Association fees, and State Owners' Association fees. You can look for a different neighborhood, or contribute to improve this one.

bjtitus 2y ago
Who are these non-wealthy individuals who can't afford ramen but hold over $100 million in assets of _publicly traded companies_? > the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. This was a representational issue, not non-transactional taxation. Property taxes existed in many colonies 100 years before the revolution.
- Terretta 2y ago
  It is accurate that the latest incarnation*, the supposed Harris version, within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradeable assets (i.e., not shares of private startups or real estate). Not usually mentioned: even for this illiquid group there would still be an additional deferred tax of up to 10% on the unrealized capital gains upon exit. * Once passed, anything like this is unlikely to escape tinkering until it matches most other versions, that are not limited to "tradable". Look at how worried farms are, for example, another relatively cash neutral but cap gain increasing growth (ahem) business.
andy_ppp 2y ago
It’s hard to put into pithy terms but check out Citibank’s former top trader on wealth inequality and why we need to find a way to tax back some of the wealth from the rich: https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- swader999 2y ago
  Thanks for this, watched a few of his videos and I think it will really change my view on tax going forward.
consteval 2y ago
> without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable Correction: without SEEMING exceptionally wealthy or even ramen profitable. By, say, kneecapping your own profit. So that you don't pay as much taxes. Which is the entire problem we're trying to solve. In practice, these people ARE wealthy. Just perhaps not on paper (depending the paper you look at). Of course when you observe their life, they are obviously filthy rich. So we have an accounting problem. The papers don't accurately reflect the reality.

Terretta 2y ago

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. On the contrary, many variations of proposals (they keep popping up) cover partnerships or other forms of company holders as well. Even in the Harris plan, though not usually talked about, even for the illiquid not-tradable group there would be a new deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit. To be fair, "exit" implies an ability to pay that.

fooker 2y ago

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it In that case, this is the end of public companies as we know it.

sbsudbdjd 2y ago

"Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy." Can be a public good if it's spent well. The US has spent how many trillions killing innocents the last 25 years? How many trillion were spent building ridiculous layers of redundancy on our nuclear deterrent (that we then smashed)? Public good!

kcb 2y ago

So no more publicly traded companies. Now they only way to invest is to be in an elite social circle.