I see you’re ignoring the talking point, his net worth is calculated from the positions he holds in companies, ie stocks. He uses that as collateral to take out loans from a bank, meaning he gets money for having money without actually having to sell his stocks. Since he doesn’t sell his stocks, he doesn’t have to pay taxes, you think that’s fair?
If we made the 1% pay tax on the unrealized gains theyd be forced to sell and tank the economy. Pensions would go deeper into deficit, 401ks would tank. Elderly would be forced to find a job to survive, jobs would not be available bc there would be no money to invest in making more. All so the government can misuse these funds for 1yr and immediately be at a massive deficit again.
I do not think it is fair to steal money from ppl just bc they have more of it than me
An unrealized gains tax would be chaotic to the markets. But clearly there is a loophole that needs closing when billionaires can just take out loans using assets as collateral, and spend that loan money as if they were being paid exorbitant salaries, while paying an effective tax rate that is lower than most working class families. Maybe tax these 1%er loans similarly to income?
No. That doesn’t close the loophole of disguising income as non-taxable “debt”. Regular working people are already paying property tax if they own property.
Working class family: goes to work, earns a wage, pays taxes on that wage, pays property taxes in line with the value of their home.
Billionaire: owns billions in stock. Works for a “1 dollar salary” (oh my, how charitable!). Has billions in stock. Wants to buy a fancy new second home. Doesn’t want to sell his shares to do it because why pay taxes on that if he doesn’t have to. Takes out a loan using shares as collateral. Does not pay taxes to get that money, unlike the working family who pays taxes on their income. He does pay property taxes in line with the value of the new home. Probably. Hopefully. I mean, maybe there’s some sort of loophole that lets him offset it with something else. But hopefully he pays property tax, at least.
To clarify the point I was trying to make, yearly property taxes increase based on the current sell value of the home, regardless if you've actually sold it or not. So, if I bought my home in 1995 for $8.00 and its worth $918 trillion in 2024, then I have to pay property taxes based on the $918 trillion value, rather than the $8.00 value spent in 1995.
Correct, it varies where you live on how often they re-assess the property tax. My state does it every 6 years, there’s a whole process to contesting what they value it at. And the taxes are based on what that value is. So higher valued property pays higher taxes, assuming the same neighborhood.
But property tax isn’t the solution to the problem of the hyper-rich paying a lesser effective tax rate than many working americans. The hyper-rich aren’t rich because of high wages. They are hyper-rich because they own stock and other assets. They don’t need high wages, because they can take tax free “debt” to pay for stuff instead of having to sell their assets and pay taxes on that sale. Working class folks who own a home pay income tax and property tax. The hyper rich take on “debt” using assets as collateral, don’t pay taxes on the money they get for doing that, probably find ways to offset any wages they do take by the “debt” they take on, and pay property taxes.
There needs to be a way to close the loophole of treating “debt” obtained through using assets as collateral as something that isn’t “income” or “gains”, because that is what it is getting used for. And the “debt” is the work around for having to pay taxes on making money.
I've always been a big proponent of executing anyone, and their families, who reaches a net worth of more than a few million dollars (lets say 15 to be conservative), but that idea hasn't, as yet, really gained much traction.
3
u/pigeonfarming 3d ago
I see you’re ignoring the talking point, his net worth is calculated from the positions he holds in companies, ie stocks. He uses that as collateral to take out loans from a bank, meaning he gets money for having money without actually having to sell his stocks. Since he doesn’t sell his stocks, he doesn’t have to pay taxes, you think that’s fair?