4 ms·

Tax wealth somehow, not just income. It's clear the accumulation has become a generational problem. Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do n

Tax wealth somehow, not just income. It's clear the accumulation has become a generational problem. Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have.

littlestymaar 2y ago
Even with their preposterous salaries, NBA stars would have to work for millenia without spending anything before getting Bezos-level wealth.
- SecretDreams 2y ago
  Everything about this sentence makes me sad lol
libertine 2y ago
> Tax wealth somehow, not just income. This is a critical point - in my opinion, wealth can't be at the same time a collateral to acquire more assets or to buy cheap money, and something that can't be taxed. Either tax it or make credit/debt to be considered income after a certain net worth value, like 100 million would be more than enough.
anonfordays 2y ago
>Tax wealth somehow I don't unserstand how you can tax something that varies in value by double digit percentages every week. If Elon got taxed when TSLA was $450 per share, and six months later it's now $250 per share... How much should he be taxed? Should he be provided a tax refund?
- SecretDreams 2y ago
  He can't eat with his shares. He can use them as collateral for debt. Presently, that's how he dodges taxes. You'd close that loophole.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >He can't eat with his shares. You can't eat with your brokerage account either, what is the point? >He can use them as collateral for debt. Yes, you can use your brokerage account, house, etc. as collateral for loans, this is not new or unique. >Presently, that's how he dodges taxes. What does this even mean? Loans are not taxable as you have to pay them back. >You'd close that loophole. That's not a tax... This is what happens when you get your financial understanding from reddit comments.
    - SecretDreams 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - anonfordays 2y ago
        [flagged]
        SecretDreams 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anonfordays 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - vaidhy 2y ago
      The dodgy part is what happens after someone dies. The stocks get a one-time relief from capital gains as it moves to the heir. This gives opportunity for the heirs (or the estate) to sell the stocks to pay back the loan. That is the loophole. The key here is that you need enough wealth to keep borrowing for rest of your life without touching your principle.
      - SecretDreams 2y ago
        >The key here is that you need enough wealth to keep borrowing for rest of your life without touching your principle. Correct. The OP likely knows this. Or they're totally ignorant to it. The fact that they think joe blow can execute the aforementioned strategy is vexing.
- feoren 2y ago
  We have computers in our pockets that can perform trillions of calculations per second; we have social media sites capturing terabytes or petabytes of data per second; we have LLMs with trillions of parameters. So it boggles my mind to see someone say "we can't tax wealth, that'd be too complicated! We'd have to do dozens of calculations per year!" You're imagining taxes as being one big annual chunk, but it doesn't have to be that way. It could be more like sales tax: baked directly into how these financial instruments work. You're also imagining taxes as computationally difficult, but they're absolute baby math compared to something like rendering a single 3D frame -- they're only artificially difficult for people because Intuit lobbies to keep it that way. People get infinitely creative with financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations over mortgage-backed securities, but as soon as we suggest taxing wealth people throw up their hands and go "there's no possible way to do it!"
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >We have computers in our pockets that can perform trillions of calculations per second; we have social media sites capturing terabytes or petabytes of data per second; we have LLMs with trillions of parameters. So it boggles my mind to see someone say "we can't tax wealth, that'd be too complicated! We'd have to do dozens of calculations per year!" No one is saying that it's "too complicated" to calculate someone's net wealth in basic securities. I did not make that claim. This is a poor strawman. >You're imagining taxes as being one big annual chunk No I'm not, you're talking to someone who pays taxes quarterly. >It could be more like sales tax: baked directly into how these financial instruments work. We already have that via capital gains and income taxes. >You're also imagining taxes as computationally difficult, but they're absolute baby math compared to something like rendering a single 3D frame -- they're only artificially difficult for people because Intuit lobbies to keep it that way. Again, I am not making that claim neither is anyone else. All the computation in the world doesn't solve for something that is inherently illogical. >People get infinitely creative with financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations over mortgage-backed securities These securities are logical to understand. >but as soon as we suggest taxing wealth people throw up their hands and go "there's no possible way to do it!" Again, do you get a tax refund if your tax liability went down due to depreciation? How do you levy wealth taxes on assets such as private businesses and ventures that do not have a clear appraisal value, or one at all? Most countries that levied wealth taxes has discarded them due to these difficulties, ones that compute can't solve.
- dhc02 2y ago
  Tax wealth above $100 million at ~90% upon death. In other words, make all the money you want, get as rich as you want, but it goes back to the commons when you die and can't use it any more.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    That is an estate/inheritance tax, not a wealth tax as discussed.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  You have to ask if that kind of volatility would exist in a system that taxes wealth.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have. This isn't a problem.
- SecretDreams 2y ago
  The fact that people hold this opinion is part of the problem. Nobody can see beyond how a problem effects them, especially when it comes to wealth.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.
    - SecretDreams 2y ago
      Yes, in this theoretical world where stocks trend down over extended periods of time, I could see this being an issue. In the fairy farts world of the US stock markets, we don't often see mega corps trend down. That's why every American pension is piled into SP500... Which is really driven by the growth of like 10 companies, tops.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        But that's only if they keep generating value. Plenty of companies don't do that and we forget about them. Basing one's worldview only on peak performers is the apex fallacy[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy (I know, I know, rationalwiki)
        SecretDreams 2y ago
        It doesn't need to hit peak. It just needs to be a good bit above where it was issued. Zuckerberg, e.g., could run this strategy indefinitely, even if meta dropped by 50%. He'll still defer the cap gains until his grave.

littlestymaar 2y ago

Even with their preposterous salaries, NBA stars would have to work for millenia without spending anything before getting Bezos-level wealth.

SecretDreams 2y ago
Everything about this sentence makes me sad lol

libertine 2y ago

> Tax wealth somehow, not just income. This is a critical point - in my opinion, wealth can't be at the same time a collateral to acquire more assets or to buy cheap money, and something that can't be taxed. Either tax it or make credit/debt to be considered income after a certain net worth value, like 100 million would be more than enough.

anonfordays 2y ago

>Tax wealth somehow I don't unserstand how you can tax something that varies in value by double digit percentages every week. If Elon got taxed when TSLA was $450 per share, and six months later it's now $250 per share... How much should he be taxed? Should he be provided a tax refund?

SecretDreams 2y ago
He can't eat with his shares. He can use them as collateral for debt. Presently, that's how he dodges taxes. You'd close that loophole.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >He can't eat with his shares. You can't eat with your brokerage account either, what is the point? >He can use them as collateral for debt. Yes, you can use your brokerage account, house, etc. as collateral for loans, this is not new or unique. >Presently, that's how he dodges taxes. What does this even mean? Loans are not taxable as you have to pay them back. >You'd close that loophole. That's not a tax... This is what happens when you get your financial understanding from reddit comments.
  - SecretDreams 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - SecretDreams 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anonfordays 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - vaidhy 2y ago
    The dodgy part is what happens after someone dies. The stocks get a one-time relief from capital gains as it moves to the heir. This gives opportunity for the heirs (or the estate) to sell the stocks to pay back the loan. That is the loophole. The key here is that you need enough wealth to keep borrowing for rest of your life without touching your principle.
    - SecretDreams 2y ago
      >The key here is that you need enough wealth to keep borrowing for rest of your life without touching your principle. Correct. The OP likely knows this. Or they're totally ignorant to it. The fact that they think joe blow can execute the aforementioned strategy is vexing.
feoren 2y ago
We have computers in our pockets that can perform trillions of calculations per second; we have social media sites capturing terabytes or petabytes of data per second; we have LLMs with trillions of parameters. So it boggles my mind to see someone say "we can't tax wealth, that'd be too complicated! We'd have to do dozens of calculations per year!" You're imagining taxes as being one big annual chunk, but it doesn't have to be that way. It could be more like sales tax: baked directly into how these financial instruments work. You're also imagining taxes as computationally difficult, but they're absolute baby math compared to something like rendering a single 3D frame -- they're only artificially difficult for people because Intuit lobbies to keep it that way. People get infinitely creative with financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations over mortgage-backed securities, but as soon as we suggest taxing wealth people throw up their hands and go "there's no possible way to do it!"
- anonfordays 2y ago
  >We have computers in our pockets that can perform trillions of calculations per second; we have social media sites capturing terabytes or petabytes of data per second; we have LLMs with trillions of parameters. So it boggles my mind to see someone say "we can't tax wealth, that'd be too complicated! We'd have to do dozens of calculations per year!" No one is saying that it's "too complicated" to calculate someone's net wealth in basic securities. I did not make that claim. This is a poor strawman. >You're imagining taxes as being one big annual chunk No I'm not, you're talking to someone who pays taxes quarterly. >It could be more like sales tax: baked directly into how these financial instruments work. We already have that via capital gains and income taxes. >You're also imagining taxes as computationally difficult, but they're absolute baby math compared to something like rendering a single 3D frame -- they're only artificially difficult for people because Intuit lobbies to keep it that way. Again, I am not making that claim neither is anyone else. All the computation in the world doesn't solve for something that is inherently illogical. >People get infinitely creative with financial instruments like collateralized debt obligations over mortgage-backed securities These securities are logical to understand. >but as soon as we suggest taxing wealth people throw up their hands and go "there's no possible way to do it!" Again, do you get a tax refund if your tax liability went down due to depreciation? How do you levy wealth taxes on assets such as private businesses and ventures that do not have a clear appraisal value, or one at all? Most countries that levied wealth taxes has discarded them due to these difficulties, ones that compute can't solve.
dhc02 2y ago
Tax wealth above $100 million at ~90% upon death. In other words, make all the money you want, get as rich as you want, but it goes back to the commons when you die and can't use it any more.
- anonfordays 2y ago
  That is an estate/inheritance tax, not a wealth tax as discussed.
BobbyJo 2y ago
You have to ask if that kind of volatility would exist in a system that taxes wealth.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> Your great grandkids could cure cancer and bezo's could do nothing and yours would never have a fraction of the wealth his have. This isn't a problem.

SecretDreams 2y ago
The fact that people hold this opinion is part of the problem. Nobody can see beyond how a problem effects them, especially when it comes to wealth.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Also that this wealth is dependent on value. It's not like having cash. It's shares, whose value will go down if the company stops providing value.
  - SecretDreams 2y ago
    Yes, in this theoretical world where stocks trend down over extended periods of time, I could see this being an issue. In the fairy farts world of the US stock markets, we don't often see mega corps trend down. That's why every American pension is piled into SP500... Which is really driven by the growth of like 10 companies, tops.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      But that's only if they keep generating value. Plenty of companies don't do that and we forget about them. Basing one's worldview only on peak performers is the apex fallacy[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy (I know, I know, rationalwiki)
      - SecretDreams 2y ago
        It doesn't need to hit peak. It just needs to be a good bit above where it was issued. Zuckerberg, e.g., could run this strategy indefinitely, even if meta dropped by 50%. He'll still defer the cap gains until his grave.