101–110 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust politicians to redistribute money fairly and with accountability?
What is the alternative? It seems that now we are trusting the rich to pay their share, which--as a percentage of their wealth--is a rounding error in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust politicians to redistribute money fairly and with accountability?
What is the alternative? It seems that now we are trusting the rich to pay their share, which--as a percentage of their wealth--is a rounding error in practice.
I wonder what people think of Norwegian system where everyone’s tax information is public. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/09/04/in-norway...
I like my privacy. Having people know I make over $x00k a year would invite all sorts of bad things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust politicians to redistribute money fairly and with accountability?
I have my vote. I have nothing over a billionaire.
But what is the solution? Most wealth of people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is tied to ownership shares in their companies. I don't think it's fair to force them to sell shares so they can cover higher taxes. I also fear efforts to extract more tax money from them will ultimately just raise the bill for the middle class. The ultra wealthy can afford to hire a team of accountants to find the loopholes while small bu…
One solution- if someone is taking out personal loans that function like income, let’s tax it like income. If someone really wants to live on 80k a year, that’s fine. But if they’re reporting 80k income but spending 10M, maybe they should be paying their fair share on that. Edit- this has the benefit of completely avoiding the issue of unrealized gains and sticks to the issue of income...
What happens when they pay the loan back?
Does the lender get a deduction?
> But if they’re reporting 80k income but spending 10M, maybe they should be paying their fair share on that.
A tax on spending (i.e. a sales tax) is a much more efficient means to achieve this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason we do have the second amendment if they don't. Like, it was literally written in the constitution for this purpose.
It was literally written because the United States government did not have a standing army and there were no immediate intentions to create one. Every other reason is secondary to that one.
From the Federalist No. 46:
> Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that taxing unrealized capital gains is a fundamentally flawed approach. However, the problem with the current system is that these ultra-wealthy people just end up borrowing against their equity, avoiding selling if possible. I think it would make sense to count borrowing against equity as tax-wise equivalent to selling that same equity. With that loophole closed, together with raising the capital gains tax,…
Borrowing against your stocks isn't a loop hole. You eventually have to pay the loan back, when you do, you sell stock, pay taxes on the profit of the sale, and use the rest to pay the loan. You didn't avoid anything, you just deferred it until later. By the way, if the bank "forgave" the loan, and said you don't have to pay it back, that forgiveness is taxed - usually in a form 1099. So there isn't a loop hole there…
No. You can roll indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a reason we do have the second amendment if they don't. Like, it was literally written in the constitution for this purpose.
It was literally written because the United States government did not have a standing army and there were no immediate intentions to create one. Every other reason is secondary to that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my vote. I have nothing over a billionaire.
If your vote is as powerful as you claim, then explain to me how the wealth disparity has increased over time, and that most politicians weren't complicit in that process. Your politician allies are not your allies. Do you think it is difficult to lie to constituents and double-deal, especially when all of your peers are doing the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do tax capital gains. You pay taxes when you sell. Do you mean tax unrealized capital gains? There is a reason you don’t owe taxes on a stock you haven’t sold yet. For one thing, what if you have to pay tax at one valuation, and then it goes down later.
This isn't really true. If you receive RSUs as part of compensation, you have to pay taxes according to the value of the stock at the time of vesting. You also have to pay tax when you sell the stock equal to the difference in price from vesting. You might get a refund or you might pay more taxes when you sell, but there is precedent to paying taxes on stock that you currently hold.
Why would we want to do more of that?