The top 10% income bracket is a household income of 234k. For a couple both making $150k each in salary, they are top 10% and paying out probably 40% of that in taxes. Elons stock probably added $200B to his net worth in the past year. He did not pay anything on it, however is able to use it as collateral to borrow against (that way he doesn’t even have to pay capital gains). The upper middle class pays most of the tax burden. And your point about services???? Elon may not take advantage of the head start program for his kids, but he sure benefited from government subsidies for electric cars (just like CEOs benefit from favorable legislation and regulation)
> however is able to use it as collateral to borrow against (that way he doesn’t even have to pay capital gains)
I really don't understand how borrowing against shares isn't counted as realizing the stocks. I mean, apart from rich people lobbying against it and such.
If I buy some stocks for $100 and sit on them until they're worth $1000, if I sell them for $1000 or take a $1000 loan against them, I've realized the $900 gain and I should pay taxes on that either way.
Because you paid taxes on something that's worthless, which is the argument against this kind of tax: the value is too dynamic and hard to determine.
If paid $1000 for the stock, then took a loan and paid interest on it, then paid taxes on the $900 gain, and now the stock is worth $0. Now all I get to take is a loss on the $100. Bad deal.
No, you also gambled that they'd keep or increase in value, potentially to get even more out of them in the future.
Again, if you didn't want to accept that risk you could have just sold the stocks instead of taking a loan.
This isn't much different from taking a loan against a house, and then due to external circumstances the house drops in value, say a landfill next door. You're not getting back the property tax you paid.
> Again, if you didn't want to accept that risk you could have just sold the stocks instead of taking a loan.
I could have reasons for not wanting to sell it. Maybe I don't want to boost up my income for the year and be subject to even more taxes or loss of benefits (i.e. ACA). Or maybe I want to keep the dividend stream.
It any case it's already overcomplicated, and I don't think we need to make it moreso by giving the govt another opportunity to take yet another slice of a transaction they had nothing to do with.
Not to mention, the lender that gave me a loan has to give the govt a slice of their income, which comes from me.
> This isn't much different from taking a loan against a house
The difference is that houses rarely lose 100% of their value. Normally they hold their value or thereabouts.
