4 ms·

Especially when the stated concern is actual income already realized. Why not just tax the income?

• __loam 2y ago
  Because ultra rich people like Bezos can dodge taxes by taking loans against their unrealized gains indefinitely.
  • randomdata 2y ago
    Yes that’s the stated concern. The proceeds of a loan is realized income. Why not tax it? It is understandable why it wasn’t taxed historically, but as the article says, the market is changing.
    • Gormo 2y ago
      Yeah, it makes a lot more sense to treat liquidity achieved by collateralizing capital gains on assets as realized gains, and tax it as income, then to allow for blanket taxation of unrealized gains. But I'm still not sure what problem any of this is trying to solve in the first place. Does anyone seriously think this would solve the federal budget deficit?
      • randomdata 2y ago
        Taxes aren't really for budgetary matters. A government can simply print money for that. Taxes are mostly for: 1. Data collection. 2. Behaviour incentivization/disincentivization. 3. An avenue for money destruction. With inflation concerns still lingering, #3 is on minds. We also are coming to recognize that we don't actually have a great handle on how much wealth is out there, which is no doubt why this seeks to tax the wealth and not the associated income. But I suspect the greatest driver is that the general public are increasingly coming to think that the rich are not behaving in desirable ways and want to change their behaviour, with this being an appeal to that.