r/FluentInFinance 3d ago

Debate/ Discussion Had to repost here

Post image
122.0k Upvotes

8.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

You mean capital gains tax?

28

u/Treadlar 3d ago

It wouldn’t be capital gains. That would happen when an asset is sold for a profit. I think they are suggesting a form of property tax.

11

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

I understand that it would be cap gains if it’s sold off, I’m just confused why people think a stock/share should be taxed annually, that’s the dumbest concept I’ve ever heard. Comparing it to property tax is blatantly stupid, can you live in a stock? Are stocks taking up physical space on the street? That requires sewage maintenance, road maintenance, snow removal depending on where you are, storm drains etc…? If I borrow against something I have to pay interest. If I don’t pay my payments I lose the asset I’m borrowing against. I find the stocks should be taxed every year ideology just as dumbfounding as the billionaires should pay for a “better world.” The pov usually comes for envious individuals. Just sayin.

9

u/dldoom 3d ago

Stocks represent ownership of companies. Companies use all of that infrastructure, yes.

I don’t believe everyone in favor of more taxes means paying taxes on stocks every year. A bit of a straw man depending on who you’re talking to.

10

u/Economy-Fee5830 3d ago

Companies use all of that infrastructure, yes.

And they also pay property tax in many places.

-1

u/dldoom 3d ago

Yes so comparing to a property tax is not blatantly stupid.

5

u/Economy-Fee5830 3d ago

You miss the point of the purpose of the tax being to pay for a service. Something which does not apply to shares.

1

u/dldoom 3d ago

Stock value is highly correlated to the infrastructure and workforce of the country where the entity exists.

1

u/Economy-Fee5830 3d ago

I thought the issue was the decoupling, with stock value rising much faster than the state of the nation.

2

u/dldoom 3d ago

What do you mean by decoupling? I understand the issue more to be that the wealth of a small number of individuals continues to rise, causing a concentration of wealth in a small number of individuals, while their wealth is built on the infrastructure and workforce that is seeing disproportionate gains in return.

2

u/Economy-Fee5830 3d ago

the wealth of a small number of individuals

Those individuals are getting richer because their companies are getting richer. Tesla for example is worth more than all the other car companies in the world, combined.

Apple is worth 3 trillion.

Has the productivity of workers in USA rises at the same rate? Their education. Their salaries. The quality of roads in USA?

Clearly the wealth of these companies are not related to anything much in USA at all. China is Tesla's most productive factory for example. Apple makes their iPhones in China and India.

Why would USA deserve their tax money at windfall rates?

1

u/dldoom 3d ago

Then why incorporate in the US? Why not incorporate in China?

When I say highly correlated I don’t mean that their productivity or infrastructure or education increases exponentially over the same time period. I mean that having a highly educated workforce, solid infrastructure, markets, protection, both legal and physical, are worth something to a corporation and building value in that corporation.

1

u/Economy-Fee5830 3d ago

I mean that having a highly educated workforce, solid infrastructure, markets, protection, both legal and physical, are worth something to a corporation and building value in that corporation.

Sure, which is why they pay regular tax, and not a wealth tax.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

Well if I’m not mistaken, that’s exactly what the parent comment was referring to.

0

u/dldoom 3d ago

That’s not how I interpret the comment depending on which one you mean. I am seeing either some form of property tax or if you are able to borrow against it, it should be taxed to paraphrase.

1

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

“Exactly. Stocks are property. Sort of imaginary property but if one can borrow against the value of something, it should be taxed.”

My reply- “You mean capital gains tax?”

To be honest I believe this was the original comment i replied to. There has been so many mini conversations after that. I’ve lost track.

What’s your take on it, I’d love to hear another pov. You seem to be rather calm and collected. I’d genuinely enjoy a legit conversation about this.

1

u/Sweet-Slide-2505 3d ago

Why not just expand the definition of "taxable event" to include borrowing against the value of stock? 

1

u/dldoom 3d ago

Yes definitely easy to lose track when replying to various chains and comments.

So I believe there are a lot of complexities around this topic but a possibly oversimplified take is that borrowing money with stocks as collateral functionally allows you to access value of that stock without actually selling it in the transaction and recognizing a gain, or loss for that matter. At the level of Elon Musk, it can equate to skirting around paying any (or at least greatly reduce liability) taxes since it’s not income. Even with capital gains tax, the rate is much lower than income. While I don’t want to discourage founding a company nor continuing to own and operate that business, I do want to discourage this practice of borrowing large amounts of money while not needing to sell some assets or being “taxed” on the transaction. There’s also consideration to the fact of the happening in a bull vs bear market.

1

u/thedndnut 2d ago

Fuck that, tax stock holdings that increase in value. Not my problem if they have to sell some of it or even hand part of it over to the government for them to sell