3 ms·
>Perhaps by realizing a portion of the gains and handing over the resulting wealth? That means the state forces you to sell your company if people start to bel
by Kon5ole 1mo ago
>Perhaps by realizing a portion of the gains and handing over the resulting wealth?
That means the state forces you to sell your company if people start to believe in it. Why can't they instead tax you once you do realize the gains of your own free will?
- scotty79 1mo agoOf course not. You can borrow money if you prefer that. They don't force you to do anything except paying what you owe.
- Kon5ole 1mo agoThis is what can happen: You start a co and have a million shares. Some guy buys a share for a thousand bucks, which means you get classified as a billionaire. Then the state says "Hey pay us ten million of that billion". When you start to sell your shares, you discover that the first guy was insane and nobody wants your shares. That 1000 bucks is all you have. And the state goes "Better borrow for that ten million you owe us" Of course the normal situation is that a company makes money and shares don't collapse in value - but what I describe can 100% happen exactly like that. It's a kafkaesque dystopian nightmare that should not be possible in a democracy IMO.
- scotty79 1mo agoYeah, paying in cash is a terrible idea. There should be option to pay it in shares.
- Kon5ole 1mo agoThat again forces someone to get rid of their creation when it gets successful, which I can't get behind. I like the idea of taxing personal loans where shares are used as security. That seems to be the main loophole for getting tax-free liquidity today.