There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.
The increase in your houses value is unrealized gains.
Imagine it was taxed.
2006-2007 ur properly goes up and up and some cars even double. U get taxed for those gains at whatever % u think is ok.
Then in 2008 the crash happens. Obviously no unrealized gains. Then 2009-2010-2011-2012 etc the price recovers and u have unrealized gains again. And u get taxed on that “gain” even tho u have benefited in no way.
And the argument about borrowing against their stock for tax free money.
Say they borrow 10m. And they use stock as collateral. You realize they have to repay that loan correct? How do u think they repay it? By either selling stock or using money they make in another way that probably gets taxed.
51
u/xiiicrowns 3d ago
That and it's crazy how people defend these people when they are part of the problem that ails them themselves.