Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea is that taking a secured loan out using an asset as collateral would be a taxable event for that asset. Doesn't that puts valuations in the hands of people who could conspire to manipulate them, creating false data points? For example, suppose you bought something for $25 a long time ago, and it has, very unofficially, appreciated to ~$100. I could lend you $100, and the contract will say that I'm only ask…
That’s an interesting take. I certainly agree with the estate / inheritance tax (the main issue is “resetting” the value to market at point of inheritance) But as for the valuation problem I think that can only stretch so far. If you put up a million shares of $TechFirm as collateral for a loan to buy a yacht, it’s hard to claim they aren’t worth what the NYSE listed them as. If instead you put up 250,000 shares as p…
How to convert between wealth and income tax
601–610 of 727 posts
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no consensus on what is "fair" to tax, you can find people arguing from 0% to 100%. And if we're talking about measures of fairness. A much better measure is something like trying to maximise the median living standard without sacrificing any one demographic. > And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none... So... where are the real resources coming from then?…
There is very little debate that you should be taxed proportionally to your total wealth; I.e. that the rich should pay more than the poor. In fact the only people trying to debate this are the rich who want to avoid paying back towards the society that enabled their success.
How else could it work? The poor don't have enough money to tax them. That's why they're poor. Schemes where the rich don't get taxed are systems that tend towards the 0% tax for everyone end of the spectrum.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no consensus on what is "fair" to tax, you can find people arguing from 0% to 100%. And if we're talking about measures of fairness. A much better measure is something like trying to maximise the median living standard without sacrificing any one demographic. > And for those particular people you're talking about the answer is very little, next to none... So... where are the real resources coming from then?…
> If we give one person enough money out of the tax pot to pay rent, that means the resources were redeployed from somewhere else that was about 1-rentworth of something. Yes, and that "somewhere else" is others' excess profit. That excess profit comes from (a) inventing or investing capital with a return or (b) paying less for goods / labor than they can be sold for. Capitalist profit has always been equal parts ing…
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
this a million times. Land easy, already being taxed. Any regulated financial instrument, also easy, take the minimum average yearly price of held assets. Tricky things like privately held companies, maybe we solve that one later, but even then there are valuations made at various points, anchor to those, be conservative in every case. If the gov primarily exists to enforce property rights... then people should pay i…
> Tricky things like privately held companies, maybe we solve that one later So I spend 30 minutes to set up an LLC and then transfer my assets to that LLC. Now, I don't hold the assets; I hold a stake in a privately-held company. Ultimately, the solution you come up with needs to be at least somewhat airtight; otherwise, it just penalizes people who spend less money on tax advisors. The generation of income is a fai…
Beneficial ownership is a well established concept in law, and this strategy simply would not work. If those assets are easily valued and liquid (stocks or whatever) then the taxes will just end up being passed through as the entity won’t be relevant for tax purposes. Sure you could try to hide assets or offshore them or whatever but you’d be running headlong into outright tax fraud at that point.
You would probably instead see less new public companies, more companies/divisions being sold to various groups under opaque structures and taken private, and a lot more weird borderline legal transactions done between private parties to pretend valuation of private companies or other assets are lower than reality.
> Gold / Picasso appreciates. How do you tax me on that? Do I submit an inventory of everything I own to the government every year? How does the government check - do they get to rifle through my stuff every December?
Yes, of course you would owe taxes on such things assuming they were over whatever exemption limits and such. The government can’t realistically check everyone. They just throw the more obvious offenders in prison when found and keep enough background “random audits” to keep folks scared enough into compliance.
And obviously the government has been making “hiding” such assets harder every year with the ratcheting up of KYC/AML laws. Over time you’d see these requirements for pretty much every major on/offramp for such assets like gold bullion dealers, coin shops, or auctions. A lot already are required to verify your identity and even report transactions. There is no more showing up to a car dealer and paying for a new car with a duffel bag full of cash, much less anonymously. Such a transaction is reported and you’d see this simply expand.
Property taxes exist at least in part because the asset is impossible to hide and more difficult than most to play games with valuation.
> And hey, here's a cool one: if my parent owns a company and puts it in their will that it's mine when they die, is that promise an asset I owe taxes on every year? It's clearly worth something: it's potential money down the line.
Presumably your parents would already be paying the wealth taxes owed on the asset in question. That someone might loan you money against a future inheritance seems immaterial but perhaps I’m missing something here?
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the government mandates it under threat of violence, it’s called a tax. It could also be classified as an insurance premium, but a government mandating it is the key characteristic of a tax. But the fact that the government reduces the annuity amount by increasing retirement age and benefit purchasing power means it is not insurance either. It is wealth redistribution from the working to the non working.
Yeah, that's how insurance works: it is wealth distribution from those who have not become (yet) an insurance case to those who have not. If you have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax? The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?
In the context of differentiating between wealth redistribution and insurance, insurance does not redistribute wealth, insurance redistributes risk since underwriting in a competitive marketplace ensures you only a premium commensurate to your risks.
For example, the government mandates only liability insurance up to $x, for which the premium for the same coverage can be vastly different depending on each person's driving history. While this can be considered a tax because the government mandates it, one can see how this is not wealth redistribution since the "tax" being paid is at least partly dependent on one's risk profile.
Contrast this with a government mandated defined benefit pension contribution equal to a percentage of one's earned income, with a known fact that one's contributions will reflect their benefit less and less as the years go on. That is far more "wealth redistribution" than "insurance".
Another example is in the US, health insurance premiums are more tax than an actuarially calculated premium based on health risk. This is because health insurers are not allowed to price health insurance based on health risks. It is explicitly a redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and sick, due to the maximum age rating factor and inability to underwrite based on pre-existing health conditions.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people have been borrowing with their stock as collateral to access their wealth tax free for decades.
The debt doesn't just go away, and interest is paid on it. It's not "free". Etrade's best rate is 10.45%. If your stocks go bust, you're still on the hook for the margin debt.
Assets are used as collateral for loans that don’t require any repayment until death. Generally the borrower can borrow up to 75% of their collateralized asset, and that loan is not taxed. When they die the assets are passed to heirs and stepped up to their current value as the new cost basis. They’re sold to repay the loan and interest. No taxes paid on the loan “income”, no taxes paid on the capital gains, 3-5% interest paid for the outstanding balance of the loan and I’m sure some of that gets taxed. Because the collateralized asset stays invested the entire time, it usually grows faster than the interest that will eventually be paid.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most of these 5% gains are unrealized (e.g. inflation in the value of their assets) and untaxed. The worst part is that even when they need to realize their profits, they have schemes that allow them to avoid taxes (guess how much taxes Musk paid for his $20B realized profits from his Tesla shares he sold to buy Twitter).
But strangely politicians generally aren't pushing for targeted corrections to reduce those loopholes-- e.g. impugning realizing gains when you take a loan on assets beyond certain thresholds just as currently happens when you create a constructive sale with options trades. When assets are encumbered by loans or as collateral one could force the tax realization of gains at some rate which then adjusts the cost basis.…
You are just not paying attention enough. They do talk about loopholes, and push to close them during the legislative process.
They just don't talk about the loopholes details a lot because you don't get elected by talking about technical details in the tax code: “Force the tax realization of gains at some rate which then adjusts the cost basis when assets are encumbered by loans or as collateral” isn't a slogan that makes you win an election.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#608And this seems to be an intentional category error.
The idea is to redistribute from the ultra wealthy to everyone else. Why would you then pretend that these methods should be convertable?
Just keep the conversation simple:
- Everyone with more than 10m in assets pays wealth tax on the value above 10m.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they have to try to rent it out, after all. Not really. It's also a plan to hold onto real estate as market prices rise, flip for profit later, and not deal with all the issues that renters bring (management and maintenance costs, bringing up and keeping to code, potential damages and law suits, etc). Keeping a floor or two active for Air BnB type short churn rentals while shuttering the bulk of a building can make…
Because a PE can have longer time horizons than a landlord or a real estate company?
Ownership of rentable property that is empty is a thing across the board, at least here in Australia where (stupidly(?)) investment rules and returns have made multiple property ownership a sound investment that grows regardless of occupancy.
Don't even need a long ( > 10 year ) time horizon, flipping on a two or five year scale still makes money regardless of renters being present or not.
Re: How to convert between wealth and income tax
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not all that matters. The main reason to have taxes is to fund the government, not to make society a more just society. And thinking that billionaires will just take a wealth tax as served, and perhaps will ask "can I have some more" is one way to think about this, but probably not the best way. A better way to think is that action might be followed by reaction. There is no manifest destiny for California to b…
California already has very high taxes. I think marginal tax rates are higher in California than for UK tax residents, certainly for CGT, and roughly similar for income tax. I'd say the fact that California remains the epicenter of tech despite its high taxes suggests concentration of talent matters far more than tax rates.