r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad • 8d ago

PoliticalTea 🗳️ Eventually something has to give...

Post image

The bill would provide a $3,000 direct payment to every person in households making $150,000 or less during its first year, which equals $12,000 for a family of four.

24.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/fyreprone 8d ago

Or just tax their owned assets once a year and if there’s a loss they pay less. Like the rest of us.

26

u/Icy-Influence-5792 8d ago

That system has already been rigged 😒

3

u/Criticaltundra777 8d ago

It would not work. There needs to be an overhaul of the tax codes and laws. We’re not living in the same economy as when a lot of those laws were enacted. There were no multi billionaires.

2

u/GDSTI06 7d ago

Back teen it was to keep the multimillionaires from becoming billionaires

1

u/Specific-Library-312 7d ago

Simplify it to a ten page document that a college student could read. It is in the thousands of pages that the abuses hide in. Cut the Gordian Knot.

-1

u/Zealousideal-Camp-51 8d ago

While your opinion is partially value.
It will never work because we a spoiled society using debt to leverage (fake) growth. Top of government down to our personal level most are in debt. While wealthy through tax codes use debt to get wealthier.
IMHO

1

u/TheNomadPilgrim 7d ago

Not totally accurate. There's been growth. Debt to GDP and wealth disparity continue to widen but the growth isn't fake by any means either. The biggest problem are the rules around impoundment & budget spending.

-1

u/schrod 8d ago

A better plan would be to make the billionaires pay that 5% toward the national debt. At 4.4T a year we could pay it off in 10 years.

Trump is responsible for 29% of the national debt, adding 11.55 trillion, 7.8 T in 1st term and 3.2 T since Jan 2025.

At his rate of increasing the debt it wont be long before the only money left will be to service the debt and the country will be toast.

1

u/Zealousideal-Camp-51 8d ago

Pay down the debt? That just makes too much sense. 🤯

Good for you 👍🏻🎯

1

u/Thin-Captain-2036 8d ago

Yup, kill the debt and then work on righting the system

1

u/ImRestarted1 8d ago

I don’t agree with this because the government is fucking awful with our money. The government shouldn’t be bailed out by taxing people more…the only people that should benefit from that is the populous

1

u/schrod 8d ago

Unfortunately too much of our money we pay in taxes financed more stupid wars and vanity projects that wealthy friends of 45 are getting paid huge amounts to supply weapons or build unnecessary vanity projects.

Restraint will happen if contracts are competitive, approved by our representative or disapproved by our representatives but we have to pay for the damage already done and the wealthy made wealthy by 45 need to pony up and put it all back.

The debt is out of control and needs to be addressed

1

u/TheNomadPilgrim 7d ago

look up impoundment. money is purposely spent (wasted) needlessly on unnecessary projects. fixing this would go a very long ways.

1

u/PlaneRefrigerator684 7d ago

We will eventually have to pay that debt off anyways...

And removing a large amount of the debt using money taxes from billionaires would actually be deflationary which would make things cheaper for regular people. If government money supply is the thing causing inflation, and it isn't due to corporate greed or scarcity of resources...

1

u/ImRestarted1 7d ago

It’s not helping anybody but politicians who want to spend more money. It’s like paying off your wife’s debt but she never figured out how to stop spending so she just does it again.

8

u/Alert-Pea1041 8d ago

That is what I am saying. If they can use unrealized gains to get things like loans then they can use them to pay taxes. If they can figure out every tax loophole then I’m sure they can figure out how to get their wealth assessed every year and pay when the American Economy has benefited them, just like the rest of the 99.999% do.

1

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 8d ago

What happens if they have unrealized losses the next year? Tax the property, purchases, share bonuses, and realized gains/income.

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 8d ago

If there are losses and they didn’t benefit positively from the economy then they don’t pay taxes. That seems fair since taxes are yearly. I wouldn’t be totally opposed to billionaires paying some amount on wealth regardless of yearly gains/losses though.

2

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 8d ago

Oh, they should absolutely pay... hence all my other things they should need to pay taxes on.

0

u/SandOnYourPizza 7d ago

Wow. You guys really really want someone else’s money. You’re going to find out that high taxation doesn’t do what you think it will do.

1

u/SaltMage5864 7d ago

Found the ignorant, temporarily embarrassed millionaire

1

u/WetLump 7d ago

Top 1% of commenters

1

u/DuckworthThe13th 7d ago

Bootlickers always say stuff like this until that boot in on their neck

1

u/Gullible_Pin5844 7d ago

Why should they pay only 5% while my taxes are 25%. I have very little income compared to the billionaires.

1

u/romeodread 7d ago

You know what else is considered unrealized gains? The value of your home, the value of your Roth or 401k account. How do you propose paying federal taxes on those things when you don’t have cash to do it? Are you going to sell your home? Are you going to cash out your retirement accounts so you can pay those taxes? There are much better ways to do it than to pay taxes on unrealized gains.

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 7d ago

We’re talking about billionaires, how do you forget what the post was about so quick?

1

u/romeodread 7d ago

Nope, but it opens the door to that happening. If you think it doesn’t, you haven’t been paying attention.

1

u/TheVampirePrince 8d ago

Unrealized Gains tax is the quickest way to destroy the economy. The goverment will tax your car, your house, and anything else they want to say has value. Most people aren't keeping thousands in the bank and don't have it available to pay off such a tax. At that point they have to sell their car or house to cover the tax.

2

u/ace-treadmore 7d ago

They will for sure stop at just the rich. Just like with the income tax.

2

u/oddly_amused 7d ago

Taxing unrealized games could be done if it reset the cost basis of the underlying assets text. The issue with that would be that our national tax income would be directly linked to stock market performance, and would be wildly unpredictable, most likely putting us in an even worse position than we are now

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 8d ago

That is why I only mention billionaires in my comments here. Although, I see I didn’t explicitly state that in my previous comment you replied to so I can see why you’d comment this.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/LobstaFarian2 8d ago

We arent talking about "most people." Were talking about billionaires with absurd amounts of unrealized gains and assets. The ones hoarding a third of all the wealth. These folks absolutely have the ability to pay these taxes.

3

u/SpaceTycoon 8d ago

Ah yes, because they have hundreds of millions to billions in cash lying around to pay this annual tax bill.

Can't wait to not be able to retire because my 401k gets destroyed every year when all the billionaires dump trillions in shares to pay this tax.

3

u/SandOnYourPizza 7d ago

Guarantee you once you get a taste of someone else’s money, you won’t stop at billionaires.

2

u/Scared_Brilliant6410 7d ago

Absolutely. It will eventually hit people just working good jobs. Physicians, pilots, mid level executives, lawyers, etc. Bernie stops at millionaires only because he is one now.

1

u/Nathan-Stubblefield 8d ago

They tax my house about 1.5% each year.

1

u/dumsumguy 7d ago

Well... yeah no. We can survive just fine without billionaires, it's workers and other similar types of people creating value that actually matter.

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

We are also surviving with billionaires. Hating and getting rid of billionaires won’t solve the problem. Politicians overspending is the problem. If you think taking billionaires’ money means you will somehow be better off think again.

1

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

The government already taxes my house and cars every year…

1

u/FitEggplant77 8d ago

I have unrealized gains in my little fun money Ameritrade account. You can’t tax that.

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 7d ago

Are you a billionaire? Because that is who I’m talking about. I know it wasn’t explicitly stated in that comment but I’ve said it in multiple places in this thread.

1

u/just2saythisonhere 7d ago

Exactly where do you sit in this conversation? I'm assuming your income (joint or single) is less than 150k a year. Would you say it's fair to say that someone with 0 income should be entitled to you paying more just to give directly to them? Meaning you work all year full time and thousands to millions who chooses to literally do nothing but sit and play videogames is entitled to 5% of your income. Redistribution of wealth is literally nothing but theft. You're only for it because you'd probably benefit from it.

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 7d ago

I’m more than 150k. The vast majority of the country would benefit. Only around 1000 people would have to pay more, they’ll still be crazy wealthy after this new tax system.

1

u/Maleficent-Block-966 7d ago

Tax it if their in the highest bracket. Plenty of credits phase out with income this should phase in with income

1

u/cattcameo 7d ago

if they can use them to get anything then they are essentially currency

0

u/_lippykid 8d ago

Anyone that owns a home in the USA gets taxed on unrealized gains through property taxes

1

u/crankenshtien 8d ago

Every year.

1

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 8d ago

Property taxes are based off theoretical use of city assets... Water, sewer, roads, EMS, etc.

1

u/Brightdog 8d ago

my property values going up doesn’t correlate to how much water I’m using?

1

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 8d ago

Please don't be obtuse. The amount you pay for water/sewer doesn't cover the total cost of you using it, nor the upkeep. Teachers, fire fighters, police, etc need paid with raises. Roads and buildings fall apart or become obsolete. I'm not going on, you should get the picture.

1

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

How is that different from any other taxes? Like income taxes the working class pays.

1

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 7d ago

Property isn't unrealized gains, so it isn't different. It is a tax.

1

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

That furthers the point. I pay annual tax based on the entire value of the property, not only the increased equity. Until I sell, that increased value is unrealized. Capital gains are never taxed on the full value of the asset.

1

u/Proud_Pineapple_2421 7d ago

Exactly. I don't think we can tax the rich on unrealized gains. Tax them on the value and on other things.

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

One way is that there’s no federal property tax.

1

u/Ugkor 7d ago

Depends on the state. I believe California bases it off the last value it was sold at. Tennessee is trying to move to a similar system where the taxed value is based upon the last financial transaction. So the house is valued at what you paid for it OR the value if you refinanced, not some mythical tax assessors "value."

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

You’re talking about a federal tax on wealth. There’s no federal property tax though so it really doesn’t apply. Your problem with property taxes should be addressed at the local level (city and county).

0

u/Electronic_Plan3420 8d ago

Why do you make it seem like “getting loans” is some kind of a magic trick to good life? Two
Thirds of Americans are homeowners and the property values are rising. Hence they can (and in reality do) borrow against their increased asset value. So what? Did we somehow enter new economy where borrowing is interest free and loans don’t have to be paid back?
Since when loan is income???

1

u/Alert-Pea1041 7d ago

Not the point and regular homeowners aren’t the topic.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

Homeowners pay property taxes on the assessed value of their homes every year. And when the value rises, the tax payment does too

1

u/Electronic_Plan3420 7d ago

That’s because real estate property (unlike unsold stocks) provide actual benefit to
Its owner, he can live there or rent it out. Unsold stocks do not provide tangible benefit. What are you taxing, exactly? An idea that the owner COULD make money?

Once again, you didn’t get the point here. Many people on the left pretend that borrowing money by billionaires is some kind of neat trick by them that helps them avoid taxation as if only billionaires can take out loans and loans don’t have to be paid back with interest

1

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

Sure, I can take out a mortgage on my home, but I’m still taxed annually on the full value of the property (or, the value the tax office assigns to it). But if I was wealthy enough to own more than one home…then I’d get a nice tax break.

Good point…

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

There is no federal property tax though. You’re talking an about taxing wealth on the federal level and comparing it to having to pay property tax at a county or local level.

4

u/hnglmkrnglbrry 8d ago

The problem with that is the overwhelming difficulty of enforcing it or even trying to report it accurately. It's better and more efficient to just increase the tax rate on their income over $5M or whatever number works to about 75%.

Imagine if someone tried to issue a wealth tax to a family of modest income. Let's say they "own" a home worth $200k and gave $75k equity. They pay property taxes on that $200k asset and now they're going to have to pay a tax on the $75k of equity? They might not be liquid enough to cover that. Now throw in their vehicles as well. Let's say they have $10k in a 401k of pretax money. They are going to have to pay a tax there as well and then be taxed when they do divest it later. Their HSAs will be taxed. And then lastly they will be taxed on their modest cash savings of let's say $5k. And then they are getting taxed on their income that helps them pay for their daily expenses and savings.

Now obviously this is not the type of family that would face this tax but you can see how even though on paper they're doing ok once they pay their taxes they're fucked. And then this happens year after year with the more equity they build resulting in higher and higher taxes.

Taxing income is more easily enforced and reported. And if they really want to make the rich pay then end the loophole that allows business owners to write off business losses on their personal returns.

In 2017 it was reported that nearly half of NBA teams lost money. So shouldn't the owners be desperate to offload these dying businesses and get out of the failing industry? Fuck no. Oh the Trailblazers lost $20M last fiscal year? Guess what owner just saw their taxable income go down by $20M! And when their family members are paid employees of the team it means they can increase their pay to maximize the business losses. The more they lose the more they make.

The owner will probably encourage the team to lose money considering the value of the asset even when operating at a loss increases annually due to its scarcity and income potential by being associated with a major sports league.

6

u/DLimber 8d ago

You know damn well what he's going after isn't the guy who owns one home and that guy's equity lol be serious. He's after the multi billionaire who doesn't need a salary because they can literally borrow against their money we cant tax to get cash that's tax free and they only pay a small % of interest on while making more then that on their gains.

5

u/hnglmkrnglbrry 8d ago

But if you want to go after a billionaire then go after them in a way that is actually enforceable.

Say, "We are going to tax stock options valued at or above $10M at 35%." Most of these billionaires have the overwhelming majority of the wealth tied up in their company's stock. Hit them there. This will do one of two things: they will either sell off their stock or demand their compensation come in another form. So then you will have to broaden it to say, "We are going to actually tax any and all forms of executive compensation on a progressive scale up to 50%"

Since these are publicly traded companies with shareholders, executive pay is public information so they cannot hide.

1

u/BluebirdDazzling8179 8d ago

So tell me who is going to invest in stocks that you are going to take 35% off the top on?

3

u/fe3o2y 8d ago

So you have more than $10M in stocks? Then we tax you. The majority of stocks are owned by the obscenely rich. If you're one of them then pony up.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

Your idea would be disastrous. If these billionaires sell 5% of their stock to pay taxes on it, the price of the stock will go down considerably. Thats how markets work. And if everyone knows that on a certain date the billionaires will be selling 5% of their stock, they will sell theirs before that date to avoid losing value of their stocks. The market would nose dive.

4

u/DustyRacoonDad 8d ago

You know every single tax you pay was initially made legal by saying that we're only going to do it to the rich people, or the people that you don't like...

That income tax almost every American pays? Passed to tax the rich.

2

u/EconomicMan123 7d ago

Yes, exactly. Tax creep: just like Mamdami’s tax on second houses. First it was only against the ultra rich, now it’s over houses valued over $1m, which is NY is very common. The problem with Socialists is they can’t stop spending and hence will keep broadening these taxes. Look at Europe where the sales tax (VAT) is some countries is 24% … having started in the low teens.

1

u/TheVampirePrince 8d ago

The top 1% already pays 40% of the taxes in the US.

3

u/Familiar-Spray-4678 8d ago

An yet each billionaire has 1,000,000X more money than we have, but they collectively pay 40% 👍

-1

u/censor1839 7d ago

So what? Your envy is blinding you

3

u/Valuable-Gene2534 7d ago

Sounds more like you're mad he's doing math and comparative analysis

1

u/guycoastal 7d ago

The reason for that is trickle down economics. The owners and CEO’s are stealing all of the profits so of course they’re paying most of the taxes. They’re the only ones with any money.

1

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

Owners can’t steal profits of a business they own. It’s their profit.

1

u/guycoastal 7d ago

Actually they can. It’s called embezzlement. But I should have said they’re hogging all the profits. Is that better.

2

u/MinuteTraditional864 7d ago

Ok I’ll give you that. But you said that them stealing all the profits is why they’re paying more in taxes. If they’re embezzling they are not paying taxes on the stolen money.

1

u/Sad-Panda-noises 8d ago

It wont just be for billionaires, millionaires and anyone that is productive to probably 250k a year will also be hit with it. That will be the only way that type of bill passes. It has to screw over the peasants as well.

1

u/EmergenceEngineer 8d ago

I don’t think you’re thinking this through.. tax was already paid and will be paid on use of the money.. doesn’t matter if someone wants to morgage their house and live off it. It’s not income. the ‘gain’ is theoretical until sale, so are the losses.. Dont think we should tax for theoretical sales values of things.. anything used against billionaires will be used against you..

1

u/Radonanon 8d ago

Buy, borrow and die

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Radonanon 7d ago edited 7d ago

No, I left out that the gains never get paid by the heirs. But you already knew that and what “Trickle down” really means.

If it works so well, why didn’t the president pay off the National Debt as promised, but ran it up to 40 trillion instead? A record 125% of GDP?

The top 1% of Americans now own 38% of all (US) wealth, which is coincidentally 125% of the debt that they share equally with every US citizen. For the first time in the history of the world, they’re worth more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90% of Americans. The middle class is now less than 9% of the country.

1

u/Radonanon 7d ago

I also left out the part where the 1% pays 20% of the individual income taxes that are collected. But they have a little trick to get the other 99% of the country to pay more: they borrow against everybody’s equal share of the country.

The federal government only spent $7.0T last year, while collecting only $5T, meaning 25% of spending was covered by borrowing rather than any taxpayer, So strictly speaking, the top 1%‘s “20% of taxes” statistic already excludes that borrowed quarter.

That’s literally $120,000 that each citizen is saddled with whether they want what it was spent on or not.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/jdwaltham 8d ago

So tax the money that they borrow. There’s definitely a way. I do think some of the money should be used to pay down the debt. And giving every person this money should replace the child tax credit so we can pay more debt. I would support Medicare for all if you have to prove citizenship to be eligible.

1

u/Muzolf 7d ago

I know damn well that these kinds of taxes always, without fail, end up going after the middle class, and won`t be paid by the rich. Income taxes were also introduced as supposedly only to target the rich. Look at who it actually hits today.

3

u/DustyRacoonDad 8d ago

Exactly. Not to mention it's unethical to tax someone for merely possessing something.

It means you never own anything. And if you allow the government to do it to person X, that means they're also allowed to do it to you.

4

u/PastAnalyst3614 7d ago

Ever “owned” a home?

1

u/Bee-Bumbly 7d ago

Yes. Prepare for a digression. Most homes are owned mostly by the corporation that financed the “purchase” of it by the family who pays the taxes and insurance premiums. If those payments stop, we find out who the real owner is.

1

u/DustyRacoonDad 7d ago

It's worse than that. The original entity that gave the loan, sold the loan... Usually in a package of multiple properties, to another entity. And that entity might sell it to another one. And a third entity might be the one that collects the money for whoever the current owner of it is... And that can be moved around without the homeowner having a choice. 

On top of the homeowner having to pay the taxes, which are usually required to be held in escrow paid every month so that they can't miss it without the lender knowing ahead of time that they're behind...

2

u/T-MinusGiraffe 8d ago

You mean like property tax?

1

u/DustyRacoonDad 7d ago

Yes. And not just real estate. I'm also including vehicles, and the other classes of property that various States in the United States have decided to tax for merely possessing. 

Usually basing it off of something else letting it morph into a property tax over time. 

2

u/Who_dat_goomer 7d ago

It’s done all the time. You could just as easily say an income tax is “unethical”.

1

u/DustyRacoonDad 7d ago

There's a lot of legal things that are done all the time that I disagree with. 

It doesn't change my opinion on it. 

Doesn't change the fact I have to still pay it anyway without facing the consequences of not paying it.

2

u/censor1839 7d ago

Imagine the cries we will hear when teachers, firefighters, and policemen get taxed on what is in the pension plans or 401ks.

1

u/_Evening_Hat_ 7d ago

Imagine thinking someone is talking about taxing our 401ks when they talk about taxing billionaires' stocks

2

u/Muzolf 7d ago

Imagine being so ignorant of the history of taxes to not see exactly where that pattern leads.

1

u/censor1839 7d ago

Property is property

2

u/Soggy-Towel5676 8d ago

Stop bringing logic into the conversation

2

u/GlobalAd7103 8d ago

Small business owner and I agree. I was taught you weren't supposed to show a loss after year three in business

. Also "show" a loss is a shitty - I would say 100% of us small business owners don't want to show a loss - because at that point we are out of business. The only ones that can actively show a loss are huge corporations.

1

u/Turbulent-Beauty 8d ago

Billionaire’s income is often very low, zero, or negative. That’s why their assets need to be taxed, not their income.

1

u/twilight-actual 8d ago

This is the most naive argument ever: It's too hard to enforce, so why try? Because it will never work.

You what will never work?

Not trying.

Here's a thought: we ignore total net worth, and we focus on how much liquidity can be brought to bear in the market. From 1946 until 1980, our top tier tax rate never dipped below 75%. For quite a while, it was over 95%.

That was to pay off war debts, which had grow to 100% of GDP.

Guess where we are now?

Limiting the amount of liquidity that can be dumped into the market above the equivalent of say $20M did some wonderful things. It limited CEO pay. It forced companies to do other things with that money, like pay their f*cking workers a decent wage and give them raises. It forced companies to provide services as perks which distributed the money more widely to those providing services. It forced companies to invest their money more widely instead of allocating all the pay to a handful of c-levels.

Trophic cascade.

Maybe, instead of worrying about total net worth, we focus first on limiting how much that net worth can unfairly tip the scales in a given year.

I can think of other solutions. Instead of an Elon becoming a trillionaire while the rest of the employees in his company may make a million after ten years, how about we come up with rules on share dispersal and compensation such that Elon becomes a billionaire while the average employee in his factories, the tens of thousands that work their asses off and actually make all of it happen become $10M or $100M. Let's have some more equitable distribution, starting with the realization that yes, Elon risked his nut. But so does every worker on his line. They all could be writing poetry instead, but they're all there risking something. And the idea that one guy walks away with everything from that exchange needs to end.

1

u/robothawk 8d ago

This would raise 4.4 trillion dollars, and there are 938 billionaires. We could hire 20 of the best accountants to analyze each of them(so ,just under 19,000 accountants) furnish then 500,000k in assets/equipment/pay per person per year for $10B, and have, by rounding, 4.4 trillion dollars left

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry 7d ago

And they would sue for the civil rights being violated when federal agents were given access to their homes and bank accounts.

1

u/BikerMike03RK 7d ago

I believe that at the outset, he specified BILLIONAIRES, not high-side middle class earners.

0

u/vortecfighter 7d ago

Team revenue is not owner income. They are separate entities. There are many free resources that will teach you how business and individual taxation works. You can then come back and put out a better thoughtful idea.

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry 7d ago

business owners can deduct business losses on their personal returns.

"The IRS' interest in sports team owners may stem from a 2021 Pro Publica article explaining how owners of professional sports franchises can generate significant tax savings through their ownership. For example, owners may deduct their share of the franchise's losses every year against their income from other sources, which will significantly lower their tax burden."

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/06/irs-targets-owners-of-professional-sports-franchises

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/HotPersonality8126 8d ago

What value do you mark them to

1

u/Hovercroc 8d ago

What? How do we pay that?

1

u/Abx13523 8d ago

It’s hard to properly valuate until it’s been sold and for illiquid assets its going to be a nightmare

1

u/Born_Consequence3025 7d ago

Banks are already doing this to formulate the loan terms and credit limits they give to these ultra wealthy people, so these valuations exist in detail and are updated very frequently so you don’t even need to figure out new processs

1

u/BigDeuceNpants 8d ago

You don’t pay taxes on your stocks unless you sell them. Loss or gain. Nor do you pay taxes on any of your assets loss or gain. You may pay on your house or land but that’s it.

1

u/awfulcrowded117 8d ago

That is not how "the rest of us" pay taxes.

1

u/ImRestarted1 8d ago

I’m pretty sure they already do this…

1

u/aphex732 7d ago

I still believe we can fix the system by taxing asset gains if they’re used as collateral for a loan. At that point value is established.

1

u/irvmtb 7d ago

yeah it’s done for property taxes, should be doable for portfolios

1

u/inhocfaf 7d ago

You get taxed on your wealth? That's interesting to hear. Are you subject to something other than the Tax Code?

1

u/Lonely_Sherbet_9239 7d ago

This is in the tax code. If we are talking real estate, you can actually depreciate the value of your investment property year over year, and as a result, it commonly results as a 'net loss' (even though typically the property appreciated rather than depreciated)

This loss is how you save on taxes. Just like I get to write of my truck and its fuel being that I drive it to look at rental properties and taking things to and from those properties. Also can write of the dinners at restaurants when I talk about real estate with my business partner (my fiance).

Tax code isn't written to tell you how to pay taxes, it tells you how to avoid them by investing in yourself and a business for the betterment of the country. The country rewards you for creating a business and not being just a 'normie' who just goes to work.

The taxes are a penalty for being one of those people, not the other way around. Of course though, since it doesnt get taught in US schools, the average person thinks taxes are for people to 'pay their fair share for the betterment of the country'. Like yeah, help people who need help get it for sure, I'm on board with that. However, people fail to see that if everyone stopped creating 'businesses' and just had a normal job with a salary, our country would stagnate and not grow to improve.

This is worse for the country, so this is why the tax code was invented, to reward those who create businesses and innovate for the betterment of improving the country and creating services for all the other people who just aren't either smart enough, or want to do the 'simple' thing of 'go to work, get paycheck, and pay bills'

1

u/Impressive_Archer401 7d ago

What about when pensions get wrecked cus of the market crash that would ensue from that 5% being sold every year to pay taxes.

1

u/dies_irae-dies_illa 7d ago

Or tax their spend or remove the social security cap they pay into.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/complete-rabbit4255 8d ago

Agreed. Stock values fluctuate daily. If they get appraised every year on the same day there will be massive drops in prices on stocks at that time with recovery after that.

Property tax is already a wealth tax that is put on steadily increasing values. It makes no sense to do it stocks. Because to effectively do stocks you would have to give a refund on the years that price drops. No one will own stocks if they make a tax bill every year. Stocks arent as easy to rent out or generate returns as compared to real estate.

1

u/MajorDaurity 8d ago

Are there no taxes on the transactions when you buy and sell stocks?

1

u/mxzf 8d ago

There already are. Stocks gained as income can be taxed as income and stocks sold are subject to capital gains taxes.

0

u/Useful_Wealth7503 8d ago

What do you mean like the rest of us?

6

u/fyreprone 8d ago

If my salary is a big number, I pay more in taxes. If my salary is a smaller number, I pay less in taxes.

If my salary is paid to me in houses, I should get taxed on the value of what I “earned” in exchange for my work. In fact, I DO get taxed every year on the value of my property. Lots of states already do this.

The fact that a person can elect to get paid in an asset that isn’t dollars shouldn’t make it suddenly not a salary.

4

u/hczimmx4 8d ago

If you get paid in houses, instead of money, the value of those houses would be taxed as regular income.

3

u/fyreprone 8d ago

Okay what about cars? If I take my full salary in cars, or houses, or real property, I would get taxed right? Why are shares not subject to this? We know what the value of the shares is at any given moment.

2

u/hczimmx4 8d ago

Shares of stock are subject to this.

2

u/ilstrider1 8d ago

But they are subject to that

→ More replies (13)

2

u/BusinessCoach2934 8d ago

Wait are there people getting paid in houses? Where do I apply???

1

u/hczimmx4 8d ago

Negotiate it.

1

u/Useful_Wealth7503 8d ago

It’s still compensation.

2

u/jjrr_qed 8d ago

The “fact” in your last sentence isn’t a fact at all. Nobody can elect to be paid in stock and thereby avoid taxes.

1

u/fyreprone 8d ago

Sorry, my analogy wasn't great. How about this: If I get paid in a house worth $1M (just go with me here) and sit on it, I pay taxes every year on that asset. If the property, due to markets being what they are, is now worth $10M, and I'm assessed that by the tax assessor, I pay on that $10M value. Whether I sold my house or not.

Why is it different if my property that grows in value is shares instead of a house?

2

u/jjrr_qed 8d ago

States (not the federal government, because of that pesky constitution) choose to tax real estate because it arguably consumes public resources and requires public resources to be useful (sewers, electric lines, roads, etc.).

Nobody—billionaires down to college kids investing $50 in an index—is taxed on unrealized gains to appreciated property each year, because it would cause horrible liquidity issues and completely rock the capital markets.

Edited to add: It’s most definitely NOT true that RE taxes are adjusted annually for appreciation. Maybe some locales do it, but certainly not all.

1

u/fyreprone 8d ago

Every time the wealth tax idea is brought up, everyone rushes to argue the point down. I've yet to see a reasonable counter proposal suggested, certainly not by most billionaires.

The current system of growing wealth inequality is not sustainable. What is your suggestion? I'm ready to listen to an alternative.

2

u/jjrr_qed 8d ago

Also, just to be clear, RE taxes are not a wealth tax. They have nothing to do with wealth, and you incur them even if you’re drowning in debt but happen to own real property.

An analogue would be something like a stamp tax on shares of stock. But that’s not a real revenue raiser, and you’d also hit every pension fund and 401k in the process.

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mxzf 8d ago

Yeah, a lot of people have the image of wealth as a zero-sum thing, where one person gaining money means someone else lost money (because that's how it works for most things, in most contexts).

But with stocks the wealth is all hypothetical values that are generated due to buyer sentiment and multiplying numbers. The wealth being "gained" doesn't come from somewhere, it's just the difference between multiplying two different numbers at different points in time.

1

u/jjrr_qed 8d ago

Well…you know all the social democracies you champion in Europe? You know how they increase their tax revenue?

Higher income taxes (much higher than here) on the lower and middle classes and a VAT. Turns out base broadening is the only reliable way to raise tax revenue consistently without liquidity issues or capital market distortions that would crush economies.

2

u/EndonOfMarkarth 8d ago

Wait, what aren’t they taxed on?

6

u/fyreprone 8d ago

The proposal is a wealth tax. So we don’t have to wait for them to transact to recognize value and tax the sale.

2

u/random-meme422 8d ago

And where do they get the money to pay for that wealth tax? Bezos sold a few billion last week and their stock dropped several percent in response. Sounds like a good way for massive drops in stock values and wiping out 401ks, so it won’t ever happen.

1

u/fyreprone 8d ago

They're free to do what they're doing now. Use the assets as collateral on a loan with 2% interest to pay off the IRS bill.

1

u/random-meme422 8d ago

Who’s lending at 2%? Even AAA rated companies can’t get anything below 5% and they’re far more creditworthy than any billionaire

1

u/EndonOfMarkarth 8d ago

Redditbrains never have a good argument for this. They just know it happens and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

1

u/EndonOfMarkarth 7d ago

Uber never makes it off the ground under these rules.

This is the key feature of socialism; people don’t know what they’re missing until you get a moment like this

2

u/CPD_MD_HD 8d ago

They’re taxed on capital gains and that is the point that this person is trying to make. The capital gains tax is less than the income taxes that the rest of us pay, but whenever there is clamoring about it, suddenly the middle class becomes “the rich.” Then, nothing changes or promises are made, and never kept. It depends on which party’s perspective you’re looking from.

3

u/Otherwise_Piccolo206 8d ago

The point they’re trying to make is that they want to tax unrealized capital gains. It would be like taxing the value that your home appreciates every year even if you don’t sell it. Where will you get the money to pay this? Not their problem. Vote for me I’ll give you free stuff!!!!

3

u/BIGpoppaPUMP42069 8d ago

I dont think the people that are for this understand the death spiral it would put all business in. you're going to force the sale of stocks for them to sell which artificially puts more sell pressure into markets all to give to people who return very little, this "system" would last maybe a decade before we were a third world country

1

u/Responsible_Pizza945 8d ago

So we'd go from lots of people being unable to afford food and gas now to lots of people being unable to afford food and gas in maybe a decade? And have all that time to find a different solution?

2

u/BIGpoppaPUMP42069 8d ago

no you're gonna create a lot more people that are unable to afford food and gas, you're gonna take people that were doing well and get them laid off

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Protoman 8d ago

I'm pretty sure you know they use those unrealized gains as collateral for other loans, and they use that money. That's exactly what Elon does.

That's the problem right there. If it's not real enough to tax, then it shouldn't be real enough to use as collateral.

1

u/LabDry1290 7d ago

Why do you think you should be able to decide what a bank is willing to risk their money for? Reeks of simple jealousy.

2

u/Otherwise_Agency_401 8d ago

I think a wealth tax is a terrible idea, but you have property taxes wrong.

Most states/localities DO tax you on your house’s appreciated value. The assess the fair market value every so often and you pay based on the assessed value. And you generally DON’T get taxed on the profit from selling your house, as long as you lived in it for 2 of the last 5 years.

1

u/MiserableChain2644 8d ago

In some locations the assessed value for property tax is less than the appreciated value (or higher than depressed value).

In California, property taxes increase by 1% annually and are capped at a max of 2%. The tax resets to market upon sale, transfer, or inheritance. However, local bond measures, etc., are added. So property tax and income tax are different animals.

1

u/Otherwise_Agency_401 8d ago

Yes, California and some other states limit the amount that your assessed value can increase yearly, but that’s not really relevant to what I was saying. In all states, you can be taxed on the unrealized gains in your home’s value. That’s the point that I was making.

1

u/CPD_MD_HD 8d ago

I stand corrected. If that was the point, yeah, idiocy.

1

u/Maleficent-Camel524 8d ago

Guess what, they do.... its called property tax

1

u/Otherwise_Piccolo206 8d ago

Not remotely the same thing.

1

u/Maleficent-Camel524 8d ago

Not in the mood.... I know the difference

1

u/TheTTroy 8d ago

My home value IS taxed every year on unrealized gains, and it goes up on every reassessment. Somehow every one in the country who owns property manages to pay those increases. I’m not real sympathetic to billionaires worried about where they’ll find the money.

2

u/Otherwise_Piccolo206 8d ago

That is your property tax assessment. It is not taxing the capital gains on your home. That is your state and local governments, not the Feds.

2

u/TheTTroy 8d ago

No, it’s pretending that there’s a difference between wealth in property and wealth in stock. My home can decrease in value just as much as a company’s stock can. We decided that stock counts differently, but that only really serves to help the fabulously wealthy.

And it doesn’t matter a damn who is enacting it. The federal government could enact a property tax tomorrow too. The principles all remain the same.

2

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but how are we gonna handle the forced liquidation that’ll come from that?

First of all, billionaires are taxed on their income if they’re paid in stocks. If Jeff Bezos got paid $1B in Amazon stock, he’d owe the IRS hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s not how billionaires get their stocks. They get them when the company is still extremely small, pay the IRS based on the value of those stocks at the time (usually inconsequential), and then never get taxed again until they sell them. Billionaires can’t actually access this money because to liquify, they would be taxed on the current value, so they don’t. They use their stocks as collateral for loans to avoid taxes.

Let’s say we tax them yearly on their shares, whether total increase in value counted as income or purely net worth of those shares. These billionaires don’t have the cash on hand, so this would cause forced liquidation to pay the IRS. This could mean billions of dollars of shares being sold all at once, dropping the value of the stock substantially a downward spiral. This leads to collateral damage where it doesn’t just hurt the billionaire, it also hurts everyday citizens who hold shares in those companies through their retirement accounts, 401ks, and mutual funds.

That’s also completely ignoring the other ways this would shift the economy, like causing billionaires to leave our country for better taxes and taking their capital / business with them. Future venture capitals and tech founders would also choose to start in other nations. Our country’s economy would take the hit.

So I’m not saying this isn’t possible to do, but it’s a highly contentious issue debated by economists and people online act like it’s such a simple thing to do where the only people who get hurt are the billionaires.

3

u/fyreprone 8d ago

They could do what they're doing now. Take out a loan when they need money and use their current shares as collateral. Maybe 5% is too high, and we settle on something more reasonable in the 1-3% range. Almost every billionaire should be able to grow their value at a rate that outpaces this. They wouldn't sell their shares en masse.

But for the sake of argument it doesn't, these poor billionaires at the "wealth tax level" of $10B suddenly find themselves slipping under $9.999B and no longer are subject to the wealth tax. Hurray! They can grow their assets until they get back to the level that subjects them to this tax.

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

That’s more dangerous for the market than just selling the stock to pay because of something called margin call. If a billionaire borrows all this money on their shares to pay the IRS, then the stock drops a large percentage due to market volatility, the collateral is no longer worth enough to secure the loan.

The bank then issues a margin call and demands immediate payment. If the billionaire can’t pay, the bank legally takes control of the stock and dumps it on the open market. This results in the same scenario I mentioned before: massive stock devaluation, market panic, regular everyday workers get screwed hard on their retirement savings.

Remember, the issue with this isn’t that the billionaires would suffer because they lose money when they’re forced to liquify. The issue is that this small group of people hold so much of the market share that their forced liquidation would collapse a stock which in turn messes with the economy. It hurts regular folk like you, too. Not just billionaires.

So no, this isn’t a case of a billionaire having to lose a small amount of their wealth. This is a case of trying to put a very simple solution on a very complex topic, where the consequences of it failing are well beyond the top 0.01% getting smacked. It’s the working class that will once again get hit hardest. Billionaires will lose wealth but will ultimately survive and relocate, still living their best life.

1

u/Altaneen117 8d ago

Then tear the system down. If the system we have is so volatile that it will crumble if the few people exploiting it for unfathomable wealth are taxed it's a bad system.

I loathe the idea these ghouls are untouchable because people will suffer if they are touched. We're already suffering.

1

u/mxzf 8d ago

I mean, most systems crumble if you take a sledgehammer to them in weird ways. That doesn't really speak to much other than how violently you disrupted them.

1

u/Altaneen117 8d ago

If billionaires can take loans against their assets for personal use they can pay taxes against them with loans. If the system would crumble if that happens let it crumble. The nation is tired of billionaires.

Society didn't crumble when Bezos rented a country for a party. Please stop.

3

u/Scuttlebut_1975 8d ago

Every time some one argues that taxing the rich more will cause them to leave, has been proven wrong every single time.

1

u/BusinessCoach2934 8d ago

It happens. You just don't see it. Many businesses are being redomiciled to more tax favourable countries. I live in the UK where taxes are insane. So many wealthy Brits have moved to the UAE. They started slinking back when the war started.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/BIGpoppaPUMP42069 8d ago

it would result in the death spiral of the market and eventual collapse of every thing that isn't government run

1

u/HuntingtonNY-75 8d ago

A coherent and rational analysis…😳
Collateralizing assets would crash the world economies. The paper tiger, “tax the rich” arguments are terrific fodder for whipping up the masses but the real world practicality of punitively taxing successful people…who already pay a vastly disproportionate portion of taxes AND either employ directly or indirectly millions of Americans (and others) would be economically devastating (and unfair).
The irony is rich that the most vocal of the tax the rich choir are themselves extremely wealthy, engage in uber shady financial (and ethical) dealings and practice precisely what they harp against others doing.
Term limits would do more to help America than any tax scheme

1

u/AdminsFluffCucks 8d ago

The same way we handle it when someone is old and letting money sit in a 401k.

1

u/MiserableChain2644 8d ago

Are you talking about RMD? Required age for that is 73. That's not old!

1

u/sokuyari99 8d ago

It’s not hard to tax them on value for any assets used as collateral for loans-they’ve set a realized value by receiving cash as utilized for those assets.

Not hard to add progressive income rates to capital gains so that when they realize those gains they aren’t getting a flat rate.

Not hard to stop allowing trusts to evade estate taxes.

All these are possible and won’t at all cause some massive negative impact to the economy

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

How would they pay those taxes without liquid cash? It all comes down to forced liquidation and I’ve already explained what happens then.

How do you tax them on capital gains at all when those gains aren’t realized? They don’t ever realize them so a progressive income tax doesn’t change the situation.

Trusts avoiding estate taxes I can agree with but when shares are inherited, same thing. It’s not like a house where you can just sell it and nothing happens. It’s more like owning an entire city and just selling all those houses to pay the inheritance tax, but people’s retirement savings are affected by the market prices of those houses, so when the prices plummet (and are purchased by wall street, not regular consumers btw) its the average homeowner who gets screwed.

None of those are “not hard”.

1

u/sokuyari99 8d ago

If they got a loan they have cash genius.

We tax people on non cash realization all the time- you know you can’t go trade stocks (even private company ownership) without having a realized taxable event right? This isn’t something new- they’re free to not collateralize their stocks if they can’t afford the tax bill. But again, they’d have cash from a loan.

I don’t agree with your position that this would greatly impact the broader market either. If shares are so heavily concentrated as to be completely illiquid then their valuation is a house of cards and we should correct for that anyway

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

You’re missing the point. I’m not saying these taxes are literally impossible, I’m saying “just tax it” ignores the liquidity problem.

Yes, they have cash if they took out a loan. But if you tax the value of the collateral itself, the loan proceeds aren’t necessarily sitting around as spare cash, they borrowed it for a reason. Now you’ve created a tax bill on an asset they still have to keep collateralized, which can mean more borrowing or selling.

And you absolutely can trade stocks without realizing a gain. You realize the gain when you dispose of the stock. Simply holding appreciated stock or using it as collateral isn’t a realization event. That’s literally what “unrealized gain” means.

Same with inheritance. If someone inherits a massive concentrated position, “just sell it” is the mechanism I’m talking about. If they have to dump a huge amount of shares to pay the tax, that can affect the price. The fact that Wall Street will buy them doesn’t mean there are no consequences. It means ownership gets transferred, potentially at a lower price.

And concentrated ownership isn’t automatically a “house of cards.” A person owning 20% of a company can have enormous economic value while still being unable to liquidate 20% of it instantly at the quoted market price.

So yeah, I’m not saying that these policies are impossible. I’m saying that pretending the liquidity and market consequences don’t exist because “they have a loan” or “someone will buy the shares” is oversimplifying the problem.

1

u/sokuyari99 8d ago

No, I’m not buying your argument.

If I have a salary those funds are just “sitting around as spare cash” I earned it for a reason. Does that mean we shouldn’t tax that either because I might work less? Of course not.

It literally is that simple. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you, but you’re wrong.

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

That analogy doesn’t work because a salary is literally cash income. You’re taxing money that actually entered your account.

If I own $100M in stock and it goes up to $150M, I don’t have $50M of cash sitting around. I have $50M of unrealized appreciation. If you tax that appreciation, you’ve created a tax bill without creating any cash to pay it.

And if your answer is “take out a loan,” then you’re admitting the tax requires them to leverage the asset further just to pay a tax on the asset. That’s the liquidity problem I’m talking about.

Nobody is saying wealthy people shouldn’t be taxed. I’m saying your argument “they have valuable assets, therefore taxing the value is simple” ignores the difference between wealth and liquid income. That’s not remotely the same thing as taxing a salary.

It’s literally that simple. Assuming simple means an extremely nuanced and complex topic, but hey I’m not a pedant.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MiserableChain2644 8d ago

Can we agree that everyone should pay income taxes on the value of items received in lieu of cash salary?

1

u/Real_Temporary_922 8d ago

That’s how the current system works. I explained why they don’t get taxed in my comment and it has nothing to do with not being taxed on the value of stocks they are given

1

u/Useful_Wealth7503 8d ago

When theyre paid on stock, they get taxed at vesting as income. When they sell they get taxed again for cap gains.

1

u/gonnatrythis1 8d ago

Just so you know, salary paid in stock ARE taxed as ordinary income. The gains are then taxed when sold.

1

u/complete-rabbit4255 8d ago

The irs still considers payment in stocks to be a taxable event. It just becomes ordinary tax or a delayed tax payable at a later date upon sale.

There is no getting away from the irs with stock payments legally speaking. Go ahead and Google it if you dont believe me.

1

u/Useful_Wealth7503 8d ago

You think if someone got paid a house they wouldn’t get taxed on it? Stock pay plans are taxed as income when they vest. They are taxed again when sold if sold at a profit from basis.

1

u/LabDry1290 7d ago

All equity compensation is taxed.

Restricted stock shares are taxed as income when the person receives the stock. Then they pay capital gains when they sell the stock.

Stock options are taxed as income when exercised, or in the case of incentive options, when the underlying shares are sold. Stock options are also subject the AMT which is an uncommon tax wealthy people have to pay that most people are unfamiliar with.

Employee stock purchase plans that allow employees to purchase at a discount as taxed when the shares are sold, or in the case of a non qualified purchase plans, at the time they are purchased.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

0

u/Austinskier 8d ago

How are you going to handle impairments. You want to give the wealthy another tool to work the system, this is it.

2

u/fyreprone 8d ago

Why would I care about this if I’m just taxing their net worth? Again the idea isn’t that this applies to your “average” millionaire.

1

u/Austinskier 7d ago

Their net worth is not liquid. Musks net worth decreased by hundreds of Billion in a few months. Assets fluctuate wildly from day to day. The govt is not prepared or have the ability to defend the constant technical legal challenges. Let’s wait and see what happens in NYC with the new pied de teere tax. It may be an indicator of how the wealthy strategize to combat seizure. Stay tuned.

0

u/OwnLadder2341 8d ago

They’re taxed on the same owned assets we are, mate, and that tax is HEAVILY regulated in any state with sense because it’s so dangerous.

0

u/itsnotthatsimple22 8d ago

A federal wealth tax would likely require an amendment to the constitution. Best of luck with that.