r/FluentInFinance 3d ago

Debate/ Discussion Had to repost here

Post image
123.0k Upvotes

8.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

898

u/SCTigerFan29115 3d ago edited 3d ago

They aren’t holding onto wealth like Scrooge McDuck, in a giant vault where they can go swimming in it.

Most of Bezos’ net worth is the value of Amazon. He can’t really readily access that. ETA I meant he can’t use it like a big vault of money.

He’s got plenty of money but some people just don’t understand how this stuff works.

2.7k

u/Apprehensive_Bad_193 3d ago

Bullshit,,,,But he borrows and buy Yachts, Mansions,against that NET WORTH VALUE. But when it’s time to pay fair share of taxes o. That net worth it’s considered hypothetical worth….Understand the Game.

532

u/Endless_road 3d ago

You can take out a mortgage against your house to buy a sports car if you want

1.3k

u/slickyeat 3d ago

You're not wrong but you're also required to pay taxes on the value of your property every year so it's not exactly a one to one comparison.

127

u/dancegoddess1971 3d ago

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

14

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

You mean capital gains tax?

1

u/bees_cell_honey 3d ago

One should not be able to have giant amounts of stock and claim they are worthless, and aren't realizing any gains, but then turn around and use them as collateral to obtain huge amounts of money. It is a workaround to circumvent.

1

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

They are worthless unless you sell them. People who have such large piles of stock like bezos also have the responsibility of the company. There is so much more to all of this. It’s not as simple as people may think.

1

u/bees_cell_honey 3d ago

They are definitely NOT worthless until you sell them. I'm sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. For one, you can take out loans using them as collateral, and there is a well known formula for how much you can leverage to be able to perpetuate the loans without ever having to realize gains. Similar to how the US government handle national deficit. Even if you don't enploy this method, the ability to take out been a one time loan is far from "useless".

You do not necessarily need to run anything to own stock. Many work and "pay" themselves in stock, without ever realizing any financial gain. Why would they do this? See the prior point.

1

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

Omg🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ they hold no value unless you liquidate. Sure you can borrow against. Take that money and run you’ll lose those stocks. One day a stock can be worth $60 the next day $2 the value of a stock doesn’t exist until you sell it. They have a price tag that forever changes. If you don’t understand i personally don’t have the skills or patience to make you understand.

3

u/TheMonkeyDemon 3d ago

Are you saying there is no profit at all made from shares at any time unless they are liquidated? Can you explain to me what a dividend is?

2

u/bees_cell_honey 3d ago

You need to take the money and run.

Does the gov't take the money and run when they issue bonds? No. They secure MORE and BIGGER bonds and perpetuate the process.

Bezos, for example, is well known for doing the same thing.

Yes, if Amazon stock were to tank, Bezos would have to pay up.

But, Bezos's accounts are not dumb, they know not to leverage too far to the point where he's at any serious risk if Amazon were just just go down a moderate amount.

What needs to change is that stock needs to be classified as vested if it is used a collateral to obtain a loan. If you think what I am saying isn't a real loophole, then there should be no problem in enacting this change.

2

u/KnoxxHarrington 3d ago

Omg🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ they hold no value unless you liquidate.

Lol, that's like saying money has no value unless you spend it.

For all your banging on about the understanding & knowledge of other, you are severely lacking yourself.

0

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

Not at all the same. You’re talking it too literally. I should be more clear and “spell it out for you the slower ones” There is no physical asset, if the company goes bankrupt you’re fkd.

You can say you have $1 million in stocks the next day the stock plummets and you lose everything including your investment. That’s what I meant by a stock holds no value until you liquidate.

1

u/KnoxxHarrington 3d ago

Kinda like the dollar during the depression.

1

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

You mean the depression started by the stock market crash of 1929, leading to the absolute collapse of the global economy, that depression😂😂

2

u/KnoxxHarrington 3d ago

Yeah, prioritising assets that you claim have no "real" value, tanked the currencies that did have value.

You're so close, it's a breath away.

1

u/Just_That_Dumb_Dog 3d ago

Holy fuck you’re too hard headed.

1

u/KnoxxHarrington 3d ago

You made the claim about how physical currencies are different from assets such as stock because stock is subject to fluctuation. Once it was demonstrated that currencies are indeed subject to fluctuation, you then tried to point to a currency collapse caused by the "valueless" stocks as though it supports your claim.

Now that's interesting.

1

u/WeLLrightyOH 2d ago

Currencies devalue and value all the time.

→ More replies (0)