Off topic galore

[Dave EV]

Pardon me, I misread the propublica quote of 70k in 2015 and 2017, then nothing in 2018. 2016 was a $1B exercise.

Regardless.....the propublica article you cite has him paying 3.27% in taxes, and that was before his wealth did the mega 12x in 2020.

So to date we're at what.....<1%? Is a capitalist democracy sustainable when the wealthiest person in the mix is paying <1%?

This is where you get to have philosophical arguments on the differences between income taxes and wealth taxes.

Most wealth in the USA is taxed at around 1% (property tax, for example - I'm sure someone could come up with a more accurate range).

I think you will have a hard time arguing for a wealth tax on unearned capital gains here.

Most are quite OK with paying taxes on capital gains - Elon included (he's going to pay quite a bit this year).

Similarly, most are quite OK with paying estate taxes - Elon included (I suspect he's expecting to spend most of his wealth by the time he dies).

I think most people would also be OK with some sort of tax on loans taken out against things like stock (usually done by the wealthy to avoid taxes).

So the question is - what kind of wealth tax do you think is reasonable?

And to bring it back on-topic - what would the effect of this wealth tax be on the long-term stock prices of TSLA?

 

[ls7corvete]

Not saying I want to tax his wealth, just saying it's not currently being taxed.

Then do not quote a person's taxes as a percentage of their wealth. Period.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This is where you get to have philosophical arguments on the differences between income taxes and wealth taxes.

Most wealth in the USA is taxed at around 1% (property tax, for example - I'm sure someone could come up with a more accurate range).

I think you will have a hard time arguing for a wealth tax on unearned capital gains here.

Most are quite OK with paying taxes on capital gains - Elon included (he's going to pay quite a bit this year).

Similarly, most are quite OK with paying estate taxes - Elon included (I suspect he's expecting to spend most of his wealth by the time he dies).

I think most people would also be OK with some sort of tax on loans taken out against things like stock (usually done by the wealthy to avoid taxes).

So the question is - what kind of wealth tax do you think is reasonable?

And to bring it back on-topic - what would the effect of this wealth tax be on the long-term stock prices of TSLA?

I don't advocate for any European style wealth tax, let alone the one proposed recently. As a poker player, I don't believe in taking money from folks who simply played by the rules.

I would like to see rational adults agree that becoming the wealthiest person in the world while paying nearly zero federal taxes is unsustainable. I mean....if we can't even agree that's a problem, what the point of debating solutions?

Elon is the king. I'd give him my money to do with it what he chooses, and in many ways I do! But he's not the only billionaire doing this. He's one ethical guy in a pool of 700 scumbags.

Elon will quite obviously be spending all his money going to Mars. Maybe he'll pay a bit of tax along the way, maybe he won't. He hasn't so far. The point is that he could get away with paying nearly no tax through his entire life if he wanted to, and that's a problem.

 

[Knightshade]

I don't advocate for any European style wealth tax, let alone the one proposed recently. As a poker player, I don't believe in taking money from folks who simply played by the rules.

....your poker analogy is pretty confusing here.

Folks who play by the rules lose money all the time.

And everyone playing loses money to the rake in a casino.

I would like to see rational adults agree that becoming the wealthiest person in the world while paying nearly zero federal taxes is unsustainable. I mean....if we can't even agree that's a problem, what the point of debating solutions?

You again seem unable to distinguish or admit the difference between realized and unrealized gain.

If we can't even agree those aren't the same thing, what's the point of debating anything?

Elon will quite obviously be spending all his money going to Mars. Maybe he'll pay a bit of tax along the way, maybe he won't. He hasn't so far.

He hasn't REALIZED THE GAINS yet so he there's been no taxes in need of paying.

The point is that he could get away with paying nearly no tax through his entire life if he wanted to, and that's a problem.

Sure. As long as he never actually realized those gains.

Why, specifically, is that a problem?

 

[Dave EV]

I don't advocate for any European style wealth tax, let alone the one proposed recently. As a poker player, I don't believe in taking money from folks who simply played by the rules.

I would like to see rational adults agree that becoming the wealthiest person in the world while paying nearly zero federal taxes is unsustainable. I mean....if we can't even agree that's a problem, what the point of debating solutions?

I honestly don't understand your point.

Elon is playing by the rules. And he will be paying quite a bit in taxes in 2021 - greater than 50% tax rate on his shares sold so far this year. And he will pay quite a bit more in taxes later as he exercises more stock options. Someone else can do the math on his 2021 tax vs net worth, but a quick estimate is that he'll pay ballpark $10 billion in taxes this year, so probably still low single digits in terms of tax / wealth ratio.

Yes - he didn't pay much in the last 5 years relative to his wealth. And still won't have paid much even after 2021 relative to his wealth. But if you aren't in favor of a wealth tax, what solution are you proposing?

 

[Curt Renz]

I don't advocate for any European style wealth tax, let alone the one proposed recently. As a poker player, I don't believe in taking money from folks who simply played by the rules.

I would like to see rational adults agree that becoming the wealthiest person in the world while paying nearly zero federal taxes is unsustainable. I mean....if we can't even agree that's a problem, what the point of debating solutions?

Elon is the king. I'd give him my money to do with it what he chooses, and in many ways I do! But he's not the only billionaire doing this. He's one ethical guy in a pool of 700 scumbags.

Elon will quite obviously be spending all his money going to Mars. Maybe he'll pay a bit of tax along the way, maybe he won't. He hasn't so far. The point is that he could get away with paying nearly no tax through his entire life if he wanted to, and that's a problem.

It's not as though Elon had been storing his wealth as coins in a counting house. His apparent wealth "on paper" grew because people buying similar TSLA shares kept bidding them up. He wasn't drawing money away from poor people. Meanwhile, he kept his wealth in the stock market to boost his companies, their products, the economy and jobs. He lives rather frugally. Eventually the government gets its money when the shares are sold, likely at a higher level. For any unsold when he dies, the large estate will be heavily taxed. Let's be patient.

 

[Stretch2727]

I don't advocate for any European style wealth tax, let alone the one proposed recently. As a poker player, I don't believe in taking money from folks who simply played by the rules.

I would like to see rational adults agree that becoming the wealthiest person in the world while paying nearly zero federal taxes is unsustainable. I mean....if we can't even agree that's a problem, what the point of debating solutions?

Elon is the king. I'd give him my money to do with it what he chooses, and in many ways I do! But he's not the only billionaire doing this. He's one ethical guy in a pool of 700 scumbags.

Elon will quite obviously be spending all his money going to Mars. Maybe he'll pay a bit of tax along the way, maybe he won't. He hasn't so far. The point is that he could get away with paying nearly no tax through his entire life if he wanted to, and that's a problem.

I always thought the main reason we avoided a wealth tax is you could end up in the situation where have to sell part of your business to pay taxes. Think family businesses and entrepreneurs. It's easy to say billionaires should pay taxes on wealth, but where do you draw the line?

Think of what may have happened to Tesla if Elon had to pay a 20% wealth tax every year. He would own a whole lot less of Tesla and the direction of Tesla may have been totally different. Him owning so much has given him the leeway to make decisions for the long term he might not have otherwise made.

The government will eventually get to tax the wealth, it is just a question of short term or long term.

Just think if you start a business and were forced to sell a large % every year because it is doing well. No one would start a business.

 

[Skryll]

It's not as though Elon had been storing his wealth as coins in a counting house. His apparent wealth "on paper" grew because people buying similar TSLA shares kept bidding them up. He wasn't drawing money away from poor people. Meanwhile, he kept his wealth in the stock market to boost his companies, their products, the economy and jobs. He lives rather frugally. Eventually the government gets its money when the shares are sold, likely at a higher level. For any unsold when he dies, the large estate will be heavily taxed. Let's be patient.

While this is all true, there is also the aspect of him doing what makes most sense to people in his position, which is to not draw an income and not sell stock as income, but to get a personal loan against the ever increasing share value as collateral, and since a loan is no income, and the interest rate is below the value creation of the company and subsequently stock price, this is possible to keep going on for a long time, and not taxed at all.

Some billionaires may buy more houses and yachts and jets and politicians for that money, and Elon may be more frugal but the fundamental problem remains.

Thats kind of a loophole that is not being addressed, and taxing unrealized gains does not sound like the way to solve that either.

 

[Lessmog]

I always thought the main reason we avoided a wealth tax is you could end up in the situation where have to sell part of your business to pay taxes. Think family businesses and entrepreneurs. It's easy to say billionaires should pay taxes on wealth, but where do you draw the line?

Think of what may have happened to Tesla if Elon had to pay a 20% wealth tax every year. He would own a whole lot less of Tesla and the direction of Tesla may have been totally different. Him owning so much has given him the leeway to make decisions for the long term he might not have otherwise made.

Just think if you start a business and were forced to sell a large % every year because it is doing well. No one would start a business.

Skirting the political minefield here, but one aspect to consider is why Bernie suddenly stopped harping on "millionaires and billionaires" -- once he crossed one of those lines. After, he only mentioned "billionaires" with similar frequency. Hmm, as we say.

 

[st_lopes]

While this is all true, there is also the aspect of him doing what makes most sense to people in his position, which is to not draw an income and not sell stock as income, but to get a personal loan against the ever increasing share value as collateral, and since a loan is no income, and the interest rate is below the value creation of the company and subsequently stock price, this is possible to keep going on for a long time, and not taxed at all.

Some billionaires may buy more houses and yachts and jets and politicians for that money, and Elon may be more frugal but the fundamental problem remains.

Thats kind of a loophole that is not being addressed, and taxing unrealized gains does not sound like the way to solve that either.

If you make taking a loan out against shares a taxable event then you’ve effectively taxed unrealized gains and you’re back at square one.

The government will gets its pound of flesh. When Elon sells or dies. Until then they’re getting their nibbles through all the other forms of direct and indirect tax. Not to mention the tax paid by the financial institution on insurance income and loan placement fees they’ve charged Elon.

 

[Curt Renz]

While this is all true, there is also the aspect of him doing what makes most sense to people in his position, which is to not draw an income and not sell stock as income, but to get a personal loan against the ever increasing share value as collateral, and since a loan is no income, and the interest rate is below the value creation of the company and subsequently stock price, this is possible to keep going on for a long time, and not taxed at all.

Some billionaires may buy more houses and yachts and jets and politicians for that money, and Elon may be more frugal but the fundamental problem remains.

Thats kind of a loophole that is not being addressed, and taxing unrealized gains does not sound like the way to solve that either.

Eventually, the loan would have to be paid back with interest, likely by selling shares and realizing gains or liquidating an estate. Hence, the patient taxman gets his winnings.

 

[UnknownSoldier]

All this talk of billionaire taxes completely ignores heads of state who are extremely rich, but because they literally run their countries they can keep all their money forever. The House of Saud is worth anywhere from $1.4 TRILLION to $2 TRILLION depending on the price of oil today. Vladimir Putin is quietly estimated to have raided billions from the Russia he rules over. Obviously, no one dares talk about taxing despotic heads of state.

There are also very wealthy old families of Europe who for some reason always get ignored. The most infamous example are the Rothschilds, once the wealthiest family on Earth and who knows they probably still are but they are also low key. Most of the European royal families, though they no longer rule over anything, are also like this. No one ever talks about taxing European old money.

Actual creators, entrepreneurs, founders, we all know their names. They have created value for humanity and yet the media has put the spotlight on them for not paying taxes. Strange how the media never mentions all these other hyper-rich people. All the yachts parked at the French Riviera and in Monaco aren't owned by the American tech entrepreneurs. They are owned by despots, Arab royals, and European old money.

That's the reality of this world, and always has been.

 

[Lessmog]

All this talk of billionaire taxes completely ignores heads of state who are extremely rich, but because they literally run their countries they can keep all their money forever. The House of Saud is worth anywhere from $1.4 TRILLION to $2 TRILLION depending on the price of oil today. Vladimir Putin is quietly estimated to have raided billions from the Russia he rules over. Obviously, no one dares talk about taxing despotic heads of state.

There are also very wealthy old families of Europe who for some reason always get ignored. The most infamous example are the Rothschilds, once the wealthiest family on Earth and who knows they probably still are but they are also low key. Most of the European royal families, though they no longer rule over anything, are also like this. No one ever talks about taxing European old money.

Actual creators, entrepreneurs, founders, we all know their names. They have created value for humanity and yet the media has put the spotlight on them for not paying taxes. Strange how the media never mentions all these other hyper-rich people. All the yachts parked at the French Riviera and in Monaco aren't owned by the American tech entrepreneurs. They are owned by despots, Arab royals, and European old money.

That's the reality of this world, and always has been.

Sultan of Brunei comes to mind, for some reason. He also owns the whole country lock, stock& barrel. Discretely, as do they all.

 

[thesmokingman]

....your poker analogy is pretty confusing here.

Folks who play by the rules lose money all the time.

And everyone playing loses money to the rake in a casino.






You again seem unable to distinguish or admit the difference between realized and unrealized gain.

If we can't even agree those aren't the same thing, what's the point of debating anything?





He hasn't REALIZED THE GAINS yet so he there's been no taxes in need of paying.




Sure. As long as he never actually realized those gains.

Why, specifically, is that a problem?

It's insanity that you have to point all this out. If they tax the richest for unrealized gains, guess whose next? Yeap, the rest of us would be next. And well I don't think anyone is gonna raise their hand and agree to paying tax on *sugar* you haven't realized yet. Anyone?

 

[alloverx]

Be ironic if at some point in the future Tesla shares go down substantially and the IRS had to refund Elon billions due to a wealth tax somehow getting enacted.
Bernie being a millionaire is sadly typical of most federal politicians who often are in office far too long.

 

[JRP3]

And well I don't think anyone is gonna raise their hand and agree to paying tax on *sugar* you haven't realized yet. Anyone?

Not raising my hand but property taxes already do this.

 

[2daMoon]

Not raising my hand but property taxes already do this.

Property (real estate) taxes are more likely to directly support the infrastructure that enjoyment of the property depends upon.

There is no such feedback loop supporting many/most other forms of taxing property ownership.

This is what makes taxing gains via commerce the most efficient method to tax wealth. Only by levying tax upon the profit made by sales resulting from good management of the property (stock, business, etc.), rather than upon the current estimated value of the property, will the inspiration to dream and create be preserved.

It is paramount that taxation avoids stifling the incentive which the reward of success brings, and which promotes the growth and production that positively affects all in the grand scheme of things.

Punishing those for their success who have the savvy and expertise to innovate, create jobs, devolop new technology, and generally make the world a better place will only take away from the boons that worthy end goal provides for everyone overall.

 

[Buckminster]

Wealth taxes are inevitable. As a TSLA super bull I think you have to acknowledge that. TeslaBots, self driven vehicles etc. UBI is going to happen and needs to be paid for. The sensible thing would be to start with 1% to initiate a smooth change of paradigm.

Feeling like a leftie here is a strange feeling when I am now used to disguising my UK centrist politics in a UK where everyone I meet is to the left of me.

 

[JRP3]

It is paramount that taxation avoids stifling the incentive which the reward of success brings, and which promotes the growth and production that positively affects all in the grand scheme of things.

Punishing those for their success who have the savvy and expertise to innovate, create jobs, devolop new technology, and generally make the world a better place will only take away from the boons that worthy end goal provides for everyone overall.

Taxes have been much higher in the US in the past and are so currently elsewhere and it does not stifle innovation and growth. No one says "I'm not going to create something because it might make me rich and I'll have to pay more taxes".

 

[goinfraftw]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1465347002426867720