Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 75 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,360
13,682
146
Taxing assets is a tough nut. As it stands they're taxed when liquated, which seems like a logical way of doing things.
If Musk paid a wealth tax on his Tesla stock and the company went down the crapper would he get a refund? He never actually had the money that asset was worth, so why would he owe a tax on it? Until the stock is sold the value is whatever the market decides it is.
How about all liquid assets beyond say $100M, tied to inflation, gets taxed 100%. So doesn't matter if you've got billions in stock, if you sell them they go poof. Also permits the tinydicks to keep buying their toys.

Oh, and nothing beyond that limit can be passed to another in the form of inheritance.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,969
5,585
136
How about all liquid assets beyond say $100M, tied to inflation, gets taxed 100%. So doesn't matter if you've got billions in stock, if you sell them they go poof. Also permits the tinydicks to keep buying their toys.

Oh, and nothing beyond that limit can be passed to another in the form of inheritance.
Confiscation isn't a great motivator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,155
21,281
136
The problem is how billionaires game the system. They take out loans against their assets on which they don't pay much interest compared to any taxes they would pay. They live lavishly while paying a far lower effective tax rate than the average person. They can then game the system along with tons of loopholes and deductions.

The fact is Buffett has said it and the tax returns of billionaires show it, and conservatives are fine with it, including greenman
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,156
11,025
136
Confiscation isn't a great motivator.
The force of a stable government is, though.

Yes, billionaires can go anywhere in the world. But billionaires also want protection of themselves and their investments. The US offers that in spades, generally speaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
Taxing assets is a tough nut. As it stands they're taxed when liquated, which seems like a logical way of doing things.
If Musk paid a wealth tax on his Tesla stock and the company went down the crapper would he get a refund? He never actually had the money that asset was worth, so why would he owe a tax on it? Until the stock is sold the value is whatever the market decides it is.
He is realizing the value of that wealth by taking loans on it. Therefore it should be taxed. He lives off loans against his stock, this is realizing the value of the stock but using a loophole to get out of the taxes.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,969
5,585
136
He is realizing the value of that wealth by taking loans on it. Therefore it should be taxed. He lives off loans against his stock, this is realizing the value of the stock but using a loophole to get out of the taxes.
At some point the loans have to be repaid. He'll have to liquidate his assets and pay back what he borrowed, along with the taxes due.
I don't have a fundamental issue with a wealth tax, but punishing success is never a good idea.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
At some point the loans have to be repaid. He'll have to liquidate his assets and pay back what he borrowed, along with the taxes due.
I don't have a fundamental issue with a wealth tax, but punishing success is never a good idea.
They will come due when he dies, and his estate passes the stocks on to his kids with a new cost basis.

I don't think taxing people on realized gains is punishing them. Even if they realize the gain via low interest loans instead of selling the asset.

I personally don't love a wealth tax, but all the other taxes need to be tightened up and leveraging like Elon does either shouldn't be legal or should be taxed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,220
18,684
146
That's the point. With a confiscatiry system like we had in the 50s and 60s there was massive incentive to reinvest in business instead of siphoning off profits and looting assets for personal gain.

We need to get back to that.

u mean, maga? ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: uclaLabrat

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,735
26,885
136
That's the point. With a confiscatiry system like we had in the 50s and 60s there was massive incentive to reinvest in business instead of siphoning off profits and looting assets for personal gain.

We need to get back to that.
Oddly enough wage growth kept pace with productivity growth during that time and the middle class did really well. It’s the shift to supply side economics that has hollowed out the middle class and made it more difficult for people to move into the middle class.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,686
1,962
136
He is realizing the value of that wealth by taking loans on it. Therefore it should be taxed. He lives off loans against his stock, this is realizing the value of the stock but using a loophole to get out of the taxes.

Musk sold Billions in stock in 2021 when exercising options and if news stories are correct, he has a $10B tax bill for his 2021 taxes.

At some point I do agree that we should tax loans taken out against stock above a certain amount as income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,156
11,025
136
Musk sold Billions in stock in 2021 when exercising options and if news stories are correct, he has a $10B tax bill for his 2021 taxes.

At some point I do agree that we should tax loans taken out against stock above a certain amount as income.
Why not tax it, period? By taking a loan out against a stock, you are realizing value from it.

Edit: Something like 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans, so when we're talking about taxing it, there's a very specific set of people who are benefitting from this existing practice, and they aren't "middle class" by any stretch of the imagination
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
Why not tax it, period? By taking a loan out against a stock, you are realizing value from it.

Edit: Something like 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans, so when we're talking about taxing it, there's a very specific set of people who are benefitting from this existing practice, and they aren't "middle class" by any stretch of the imagination
And people that are leveraging against their stocks for personal expenses are probably all nearly in the top 1%. I mean, I've got a nice 401k and IRAs, but I doubt anyone would give me a personal loan against them that was big enough to live on.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,686
1,962
136
Why not tax it, period? By taking a loan out against a stock, you are realizing value from it.

Edit: Something like 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans, so when we're talking about taxing it, there's a very specific set of people who are benefitting from this existing practice, and they aren't "middle class" by any stretch of the imagination

Tax what? The loan or unrealized gains on a stock?
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
At some point the loans have to be repaid. He'll have to liquidate his assets and pay back what he borrowed, along with the taxes due.
I don't have a fundamental issue with a wealth tax, but punishing success is never a good idea.
Actually, no they don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,686
1,962
136
Any stock leveraged. Tax it and update the cost basis.

So say lets do a hypothetical.

Someone has 10,000,000 shares of Tesla and it currently trades at $1,000 share. This person decides to leverage this stock and gets a loan for $2B.
You would update the cost basis on all the shares used as collateral and they would owe taxes based on the updated cost basis of any stock they leverage for the loan?
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,586
2,946
136
Why not tax any assets? Hell, pick an arbitrary value and exempt it (total assets over 10, 50, even 100 million) and exact a set percentage of total value, say 0.5-1%. If your assets are underwater it incentivizes selling to leverage the carry-forward loss.

We charge property taxes every year on assets, dont see why liquid assets are any different.

And cap gains can go away too. What a ridiculuous tax treatment.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Why not tax any assets? Hell, pick an arbitrary value and exempt it (total assets over 10, 50, even 100 million) and exact a set percentage of total value, say 0.5-1%. If your assets are underwater it incentivizes selling to leverage the carry-forward loss.

We charge property taxes every year on assets, dont see why liquid assets are any different.

And cap gains can go away too. What a ridiculuous tax treatment.
It is such bullshit that we tax idle income less than we tax income created by actually producing something.
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
I follow tech dirt which regularly deflates tech arguments (long):

There’s a lot of misinformation being spewed about this case, but let’s go through the details of why Musk is basically in deep shit, and will be lucky if he’s able to escape this by paying “only” $1 billion.

As we’ve said, contrary to the claims you will hear from Musk’s buffoonishly clueless supporters, this has nothing to do with how many spam accounts are on Twitter and whether or not Twitter is accurately counting them. That wouldn’t be an excuse to void the deal in the first place, because Twitter offered him the chance to understand those numbers and Musk rejected it both before and after the deal.