4 ms·
I never understood this argument. What does it even mean not having billionaires. These “billionaires” are share holders in their own company. They don’t have l
by potato-peeler 1y ago
I never understood this argument. What does it even mean not having billionaires. These “billionaires” are share holders in their own company. They don’t have liquid cash worth billions.
It’s the value of the shares that make them billionaires.
Is the politician suggesting they should liquidate their shares? Who will own the company then? Will they keep changing ownership and diluting shares if it reaches billion dollars?
This argument doesn’t even make sense.
As far as taxes go, these are unrealised gains. Even for Capital gains to trigger, there has to be some kind of transfer/sale. And transfer/sale has a different meaning in tax and legal language.
- RestlessMind 1y ago> Even for Capital gains to trigger, there has to be some kind of transfer/sale. The way rich people avoid capital gains tax is to borrow against their stocks. So they get to enjoy their wealth without paying back to the society.
- potato-peeler 1y agoLending against securities is available for general public. Don’t know what your complaint is? > So they get to enjoy their wealth without paying back to the society. Why is there an expectation for “someone” to be a guardian of society? Isn’t the govt functioning? I am sorry to say, conversations like these are pretty common in echo chambers.