politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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?
If you are given a stock worth $1 you pay tax on that amount and it is treated is income. Agreed.
If the stock becomes $2 do you owe? No. Unrealized gains. That stock could do anything.
If you trade your $2 stock for a $2 Bill, you owe tax on the $1 gain. We are still tracking.
If you use your stock as collateral for a $1 loan, you already paid taxes for the "income" of $1. I could see arguing that you are "clear". I would do it like this: when you borrow against stock, I would say that the principle "value" of the loan be taxed as though you had sold the stock which is functioning as principle. So if your $1 stock is now worth $10 and you use $3 to borrow $5 (somehow, let's just assume it's not 1:1) I say you owe tax on $3 - $1 = $2. When that loan is done, if you want to do it again, you don't owe again with that batch of stock. If you take another loan same time, same terms, you also owe tax on $3 more, since you are doing $6 worth of "work".
This is still a little unsatisfactory to me, but it seems like the most fair. Either the money is usable, and therefore taxable, or it isn't.
Edit: and of course your brokerage now marks your cost basis for those stocks accordingly because it has been "realized". If you then sell those stocks for that value you're all set or if you gain or lose you could have losses or gains respectively for tax purposes. This is still wildly good because you can use the money without selling stocks.
Edit 2: The more I think about this, the more I think you should just be taxed every time on every dollar of stock you leverage. If you want to use it, divest.
Because you are a person and a business is not.
If I buy a house for 100$ 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.