Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

Why would you expect a different opinion from a bunch of communists?

Yes.

No, they can keep them, but those loopholes need to be closed. Maybe don’t allow using ownership of a company as collateral for a loan? If you want to use your massive stored wealth as money you need to sell it. You want to get it back buy it. I’m not a finance or policy person, but there has to be a way to make these people pay the propert tax on their wealth.

If you were actually against theft you would be against Bezos Musk and Gates stealing billions in profits from the people who are working for them.

Why is theft inhereintly wrong? Would you see Robin Hood as the villain of his story? It’s not a matter of whether you like them or not, their exorbitant wealth is a bad thing in of itself. Why should they sit on so much wealth when most have so little?

Just to compare, what’s your moral read on all the people we deny housing to, who regularly die of exposure while empty housing units outnumber them?

theft

the theft was them getting that rich in the first place you blinkered clown.

It’s interesting you assume I’m poor just because I’m not licking those boots.

That actually almost seems worse. He is not paying into Social Security or his local community. He is being generously compensated on stock, which is taxed differently.

Edit: I do want to thank you for providing that link. I was only finding a Forbes article about him being the highest compensated CEO of that year.

Or maybe you’re the successful owner and you reward the people that made you successful with a larger portion of that success?

I do. Fuck 'em. They already have 100 million dollars. They can go cry into that.

If you’ve gone public with the company yes, you’ve set up the situation where paying your due means giving up some control of the company. That was a you decision. But congratulations you’re worth hundreds of millions. If you find yourself thinking that’s not enough you’re deeply broken and one of the most selfish people in human history, a true 0.01%er.

And again, this is a billion dollar baseline people are talking about. This is the same as people upset about the possibility of inheritance taxes because then they’d only get $10,000,000 tax free. No one is not starting a business because of that, which was your original argument.

At some point you just have to give them a gold sticker, a “Congratulations! You won capitalism!” plaque, and leave something for the rest of humanity.

Are other people paying taxes described as “ripping” away their ownership in “x”? What a bizarre framing. Also, Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon, so he’s already given away ownership of the company. He has assets, and they should be taxed

How does Amazon exist? How do they continue to operate? They run on the Internet created by the US government, they deliver packages by flying through US airspace, and driving on roads paved by several levels of government. Their factories don’t burn down because of municipal fire departments, and aren’t burglarized because of municipal police departments. Why shouldn’t they pay for those things, which they make much more use of than you or I?

Meanwhile the downsides are invasion of privacy, destruction of the environment, poor treatment of workers and on and on.

Why do like sucking capitalist dick so much? The only way owners get so rich is because they are exploiting labor.

deleted by creator

If they can take out loans to buys islands, Yachts and overpriced tweet companies, then let them take out loans to pay tax.

They only have five figure incomes thanks to the loopholes, so that isn’t a fair level of taxation compared to their actual capital gains that they artificially keep as “unrealized” on paper. A trick unavailable to us mere mortals.

You’re a tool.

Does this solve the problem of risk though?

Let’s say I buy a share for $1000. It grows in the first year to 1100. In the second to 1200. And so on, and so forth.

Let’s say the stock does really well over the next 10 years, and it doubles in value, 100 at a time - at some point I (as an investor) will have paid 25% of that, so I’m virtually paying 1250 for that $2000. Cool, that’s what would’ve happened if I had sold.

But if the stock tanks in year 11, I’m out 1250 instead of 1000. So… Where is the incentive for me to not sell?

And this is an example for a longer time, just so the loss is visible. But I should actually sell instantly whenever I have a small profit before the yearly tax gets taken, otherwise I am risking not only losing my initial investment, but also the tax I already paid. Whereas with the current system, I only pay tax for the gains, and I can justify the risk of continuing to hold that stock for the higher gains in the future.

With your system, I have no incentive. My risk is higher the more the stock is worth. It could go down at any point, and I’m not only out the initial investment, but also the tax that the government took for doing nothing.

And now let’s apply this to someone who is investing in the stock market to save money long-term (10-20 years). They will have a pretty diversified portfolio. Some companies will do well, some will stagnate, some will go under. Overall, they will statistically be turning a profit.

But that’s with the old system. Because with the one you propose, the losses will be even higher. All the companies that eventually go under and don’t turn a profit for your stocks will be not only costing you the initial investment, but also the subsequent profitable years. So people holding on to the stock can end up costing immeasurably more.

And an even worse scenario: stock “fads”. Look at gamestop, or better:nvidia’s recent rise. If I’m an Nvidia stockholder, I’m selling instantly. Otherwise I’m stuck paying the tax at the end of the year, and then am left holding worthless stock, once the price normalizes. Which is something that might happen anyway, but at least I have the choice of when to pull out, instead of it being forced onto me by the government.

And now let’s extend that example to the company itself. With everyone causing the price to rise, selling will be forced on everyone as well. In today’s system, some investors will ignore the price jumps and stick with the company. In your proposed system, those investors won’t be able to afford that, because the tax they would pay at the end of the year will be unreasonable. So they will ALL sell. The company stock will be worthless. Nobody will even buy it for a while, until it normalizes - you can’t risk the spikes and the tax that comes with them.

And let’s look at those billionaires now, and how this would affect them. In the first instance, they’d need to pay billions in taxes. How will they do that? They’ll probably sell stock. So the prices will drop for that stock, since the market will be overflowing with it. And this will hurt every single other small-time investor who bought stock in that company some years ago, paid tax for the increases, only to now have that stock worth a lot less. Except those guys aren’t billionaires and won’t have a few billion dollars remaining, they’ll get shafted by the state and be left with a lot less.

And none of those things even approaches the probably biggest problem of all: we’re taxing virtual gains, not actual gains. If I’m a person on the stock market and need to pay taxes for all my stock, okay, the state gets a bunch of money. And now let’s consider the stock market crashes and all my stock is worth less than before. All the money I paid to the state is actual cash, but it’s based on a value that doesn’t exist anymore. So it’s not real. We literally introduce money into the economy. Forget the risk to the end-user, we’re actually causing inflation here. If I spend $1000 on shares, the company improves its practices and this results in it turning a profit therefore making it worth $2000, I pay $250 on tax, and the company then goes back to its original practices, they sustain losses and the price drops back to $1000, for all intents and purposes everything about the situation has stayed the same, but the economy now has $250 more, for no reason. Forget about my personal loss, but this is the type of shit that can bury a country within the year. We devalue the currency because we added to it without having any actual change to attribute to the increase. There’s more money in circulation out of nowhere. Prices rise and salaries rise and inflation wreaks havoc. Today this type of action is already existing, but it’s in a controlled environment. A bank will provide x% interest on a deposit, but they will use that money to make more than what they give you on different markets. The government will tax you x%, but will tax your actual salary, not pretend money in the sky. Assuming these entities follow the law, inflation should be low enough to be manageable in those scenarios. But this? This is a net gain of currency. This is pure inflation, with no rhyme or reason.

I see very many downsides, with the only upside being that the state can get its money a bit faster, and even get money when the consumer loses (stock prices fall after tax is paid). But that just means consumers won’t participate in the stock market anymore, or that they will and it will backfire into inflation eating the country up.

Closing the loopholes is the same thing as increasing the taxes on the rich.

Just try it and they will find a sad story of some business owner losing the family business because the loophole “serves a vital purpose” and then congress will rush to hell save those family farms.

That’s the reason no loopholes ever get closed.

This movie has been on repeat for decades.

The only way to really solve it is a smarter divide and conquer approach. Separate, stricter rules for the billionaire class that only apply to them.

That way the small business owners stay out of range and have no incentive to help change the narrative.

Actually we’re just primordial bacteria in a puddle of mud, this proves that anarcho-capitalism is correct