For me personally I was a bit on the fence because you don’t want to tax illiquid assets, since if I have a billion dollar business but all that money is in the business, that money is already doing work and in the economy which I don’t have as much an issue with. But turns out most billionaires exploit that and try to make ALL their assets seem as illiquid as possible, as to avoid having visible personal wealth. I can see reasons for voting against it but those reasons don’t cover all the ones cheating the system.
If you have a billion dollar business and you leverage $100 million for a loan, whatever you leverage ought to be taxed and considered income if you ask me.
If it isn’t liquid you can’t use it, if you can use it, it is taxable.
If I am given a stock that is worth $1. I pay taxes on the $1 because $1 is income.
If the stock goes to $2. Do I automatically owe the government more tax?
Now if I take my $1 stock that is now worth $2 and trade it for a 2 dollar bill. Do I automatically owe the government more tax?
But if I take out a $1 loan and use my $1 stock that is now worth $2 as collateral, I do owe taxes?
If you have a billion dollar business and you leverage $100 million for a loan, whatever you leverage ought to be taxed and considered income if you ask me.
Lets say I have $10,000 in total assets (car included) and I leverage my car worth $1,000 for a loan. You expect me to pay taxes on that $1,000 loan like it was income? Why would a business be different?
If I buy a house for 100$ then that house is now worth 100$, as that transaction set the market value at the time of purchase. 5 years later an assessor from the AHJ comes by and informs me it’s worth 150$ because “market”. My property tax burden has now increased as its percentage based on the market value of the house. I now owe higher taxes on unrealized gains.
If it works in property why not stocks? Is it the risk that makes the difference?
The risk the American tax payer has been forced to burden since we’ve bailed major institutions out of insolvency since 2008 (and before).
We are/have been allowing the ultra wealthy to create a system where they mitigate all their personal financial risk and then the people philosophize why it would be “unfair” to level the playing field. I don’t get it.
Yes, it might appear silly in the above hypothetical to be taxed on the same dollar 5 times but that isn’t the discussion. We are talking about a one time set rate tax on billionaire assets because it’s obvious that this game is rigged and something needs to be done.
Unfortunate, this didn’t pass as it might have been a proof of concept for the rest of the nation.
For me personally I was a bit on the fence because you don’t want to tax illiquid assets, since if I have a billion dollar business but all that money is in the business, that money is already doing work and in the economy which I don’t have as much an issue with. But turns out most billionaires exploit that and try to make ALL their assets seem as illiquid as possible, as to avoid having visible personal wealth. I can see reasons for voting against it but those reasons don’t cover all the ones cheating the system.
If you have a billion dollar business and you leverage $100 million for a loan, whatever you leverage ought to be taxed and considered income if you ask me.
If it isn’t liquid you can’t use it, if you can use it, it is taxable.
If I am given a stock that is worth $1. I pay taxes on the $1 because $1 is income.
If the stock goes to $2. Do I automatically owe the government more tax?
Now if I take my $1 stock that is now worth $2 and trade it for a 2 dollar bill. Do I automatically owe the government more tax?
But if I take out a $1 loan and use my $1 stock that is now worth $2 as collateral, I do owe taxes?
Lets say I have $10,000 in total assets (car included) and I leverage my car worth $1,000 for a loan. You expect me to pay taxes on that $1,000 loan like it was income? Why would a business be different?
Because you are a person and a business is not.
If I buy a house for 100$ then that house is now worth 100$, as that transaction set the market value at the time of purchase. 5 years later an assessor from the AHJ comes by and informs me it’s worth 150$ because “market”. My property tax burden has now increased as its percentage based on the market value of the house. I now owe higher taxes on unrealized gains.
If it works in property why not stocks? Is it the risk that makes the difference?
The risk the American tax payer has been forced to burden since we’ve bailed major institutions out of insolvency since 2008 (and before).
We are/have been allowing the ultra wealthy to create a system where they mitigate all their personal financial risk and then the people philosophize why it would be “unfair” to level the playing field. I don’t get it.
Yes, it might appear silly in the above hypothetical to be taxed on the same dollar 5 times but that isn’t the discussion. We are talking about a one time set rate tax on billionaire assets because it’s obvious that this game is rigged and something needs to be done.
Unfortunate, this didn’t pass as it might have been a proof of concept for the rest of the nation.