Wealth taxes are a symptom of a broken tax system. If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system, it’s already too late. Like the article says they can simply say “no” in a variety of ways, from fighting in court to simply leaving.
> If you let someone get to hundreds of billions in net worth and then realize they haven’t been appropriately paying back into the system
This is to once again mistake net worth for money. Net worth is not real. It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise. They do not have hundreds of billions. There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
There is no way to take anything like that. Net worth is quite similar with me saying you are worth 1 billion dollars, but you have zero money in the bank. What do you take, super-rich billionaire person?
The net worth is simply the sum of assets minus the sum of liabilities. Take away the assets and you take away the net worth. I can't think of an asset category that you can't transfer if you are willing to sacrifice its value (which presumably doesn't matter, because it's not real anyways)
Why not? Net worth is the estimated sell value of a list of assets. It is entirely possible to take those assets, or charge a tax based on that estimated sell value. Why would it even be a little difficult, let alone impossible?
And certainly ceejayoz was being a bit glib by suggesting we take all of it, but it would not be remotely insurmountable to tax billionaire wealth.
Net worth is the estimated value, not sell value. For example, Tesla shares owned by Elon don't have the same value if Elon is leaving, they are less worthy.
Because that would involve seizing assets? The parent meant it's not "real" in the simple-minded sense that people think it is: the average person imagines Elon Musk and other billionaires have a checking account that keeps increasing by tens of thousands of dollars per second because that's the only frame of reference they have. The reality is the wealth is mostly tied up in assets that ain't exactly liquid. Yes yes, they apparently have access to this supposed infinite money glitch where banks will endlessly loan them money without requiring interest payments (which would require liquidating assets for payment and therefore triggering a taxable event, the very thing people think never happens for billionaires). But the fact of the matter is the wealth isn't money in a bank, and therefore not "real" in the sense the parent was referring to. But it is at the same time something they would miss if it was just "taken away", much the same way you'd miss the numbers in your 401k if voters decided you had a few too many millions saved up for retirement.
Assets are real, but not the valuation of them. This sort of basic error, which seems to only appear on the "tax net worth" side, is good evidence that this is not a reasoned position, and thus you will not be reasoned out of it.
A painting can be valued. A vintage car can be valued. A movie script can be valued. Each is an asset; each may see its value change dramatically over time. But you can still estimate its worth.
the government seizes dollars in the form of taxes, which are still assets, no?
these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now
That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.
> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
Don't try to deflect or move the goalposts. My point is you stated "we know Musk's net worth" when we don't. This is a false claim.
>No
Yes.
>It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
A valuation of his publically known stakes at a specific point in time, not his net worth.
binlog · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
This is to once again mistake net worth for money. Net worth is not real. It is not a good measure of the money someone may be able to realise. They do not have hundreds of billions. There is nothing to tax until they sell some shares.
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
Good way to find out it this is the case: take it away. Not real, right? Why would they mind?
AdrianB1 · · focus · HN ↗
Avicebron · · focus · HN ↗
Is it Zuck's networth or salary that makes it possible for him to own his ranch in Hawaii?
wongarsu · · focus · HN ↗
delecti · · focus · HN ↗
And certainly ceejayoz was being a bit glib by suggesting we take all of it, but it would not be remotely insurmountable to tax billionaire wealth.
AdrianB1 · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
This is, ironically, more of a guess/estimate than determining Musk's net worth is. We don't actually know that!
8note · · focus · HN ↗
whats the complication? if its not worth anything whos gonna worry, especially if the government then compensates you in dollars
AdrianB1 · · focus · HN ↗
xienze · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
Oh, are those real now?
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
Valuing assets is a routine, widespread thing.
You can't just handwave away the fact that the real world exists.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
A painting can be valued. A vintage car can be valued. A movie script can be valued. Each is an asset; each may see its value change dramatically over time. But you can still estimate its worth.
8note · · focus · HN ↗
these other assets like musk's stocks are still quite divisible, and theyre as liquid as the government wants them to be. just because musk hasnt written the liquidity into his government sponsored contracts doesnt mean the government cant say yes, 10% of your private spaceX stock is liquid and belongs to donald trump now
its real and thus it is taxable
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
Take what away? I'm saying if I own 51% of Tesla, you cannot tell what amount of money that amounts to until I sell it.
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
C'mon, man.
throwawayfifo · · focus · HN ↗
No we don't.
>It's public knowledge!
No it's not. We estimate his net worth based on public filings. We know next to nothing about his nonpublic holdings.
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk
That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
throwawayfifo · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
throwawayfifo · · focus · HN ↗
"with an estimated"
You made my point for me, thank you.
>That the estimates vary a bit on the edges
We don't know that. It could vary widely, intra-day even.
>doesn't mean they've no value.
I did not make this claim.
>It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
ceejayoz · · focus · HN ↗
If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.
> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
throwawayfifo · · focus · HN ↗
Don't try to deflect or move the goalposts. My point is you stated "we know Musk's net worth" when we don't. This is a false claim.
>No
Yes.
>It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
A valuation of his publically known stakes at a specific point in time, not his net worth.