Elon's poll tax

I suppose in your hypothetical model.

Where there are people who actually contribute nothing to the public good. You have a good argument about fairness when contrasted against those that pay.

But who are those people do have a number for them as well.

Also after taxes what would be the net worth of those top 10%

Why should I be concerned about things that are none of my business?
Your net income, after taxes is not my business.
My net income, after taxes, is my business.

He has stock options he will have to exercise anyway, soon, so the whole poll thing was a good troll on his part.

Gotta love Elon !

I read somewhere like, the stock options were worth 6 dollars and some change when he got them, now one share is worth around 1200 bucks… Something about over a billion dollars in taxes he will owe…

Gaslighting or some other form of logical/thinking fallacy.

Gaslighting has a really specific meaning. I have been using it to describe other forms of… purposeful (or not) forms of argumentation I’ve been observing all over the interwebz.

1 Like

Now, that is paying a lot of income tax, should that occur.

You are taxing the money from income, you have to look at the whole picture, the entire money pile. And a small minority are getting most of it. So they pay a luxury tax form the priveledge of getting a lot more pie.

That is not a luxury tax, that is a tax on their income.
A luxury tax is a tax placed on expensive, non-essential goods, and is only applied to those who purchase those expensive, non-essential goods.
A luxury tax is an indirect tax, placed on the price of the good.
The phrase “luxury tax” has a specific meaning in the domain of taxes, tax law, and accounting.

Gaslighting is deliberately misinterpreting the course of events in order to confuse an individual so as they also change their recollection to suit yours.

How do you do that when their is a written record of everything we are discussing.

I wasn’t using the specific meaning.

More that the progressive income tax schemes are based on similar principles.

that’s why I wrote it might not be the right term.

Let’s inject some facts, maybe.

So some sort of tax on stock holdings that have appreciated in value would be essentially forcing someone to sell their property. Because stocks represent shares of ownership in a company, right?

So, let’s imagine how that might work.

Each year, you’d have sell some stock or other property to pay the taxes owed, right? Because the super-rich or whatever have their net worth in mostly property (stocks, real estate, etc).

Guys like Elon, who have stock options, end up having to exercise those options eventually, then they pay capital gains as appropriate.

So, this is a common problem in these “discussions”.

A nice guy, like @Lant3rn , starts a discussion over something he doesn’t understand very well. I mean, we all do it, it’s fun, and often educational.

Then starts equating some sort of capital gains tax on the sale of property with a luxury tax.

And nobody logically thinks out how you would “fairly” tax wealth held as property, that fluctuates according to market forces (think stocks, bonds, and real estate), nor what some of the unintended consequences of that might be.

I don’t have the answers, that’s for sure.

An area that could use serious reforming is hedge funds, how they are traded, and how that market is manipulated…

Something something “dark trading”…

Hedge funds that are short sellers, which are the ones generally reviled by the public and the long positions, bring liquidity to the markets, and expose fraud in the markets, and expose systemic weakness in the vehicles they short.
We cannot fault George Soros for breaking the bank of England, it was already broken.
He merely pointed it out publicly, and then showed his confidence in his assertion, by putting his money where his mouth is.
Ironically, it is the regular banking system, and regular investment vehicles that form the foundations of the usual miscreants in the market, by (1) getting greedy with leverage, and (2) not making full disclosures and very careful explanations about the vulnerabilities in their leveraged vehicles to the general investing public.
In fact, sometimes they make vehicles so complicated, that they may be deliberately hard for they themselves to value in any way relating to real value, versus speculative tulip valuation.

1 Like

I do not agree with taxing unrealised gains on owned stocks.

Do you own stocks?

Yes I do.

If they can tax unrealised gains, do you think I should be able to claim unrealised dependents?

I can understand why you would not want unrealized gains on stocks that you own to be taxed.
It is after all, your property.
You bought that property so that it would appreciate in value.
And, for instance, whether you were taxed on the unrealized gains,
or whether additional corporate income taxes were applied to that company,
in either case, that would reduce the yield of your investment, in some cases,
to where it was not really producing a yield for you from a long term investment perspective, particularly.
At a certain point of diminished yields, there is no reason to make investments,
because the risk, or trouble, may not be worth the time, effort, etc.

1 Like

Good, it makes literally zero sense.

So, how is all this “wealth” supposed to be taxed?

Prima Nocta on your women, and a minimum number of your children sent to join the Kings Army, and the best of your produce to support his table.

Basically this boils down to politicians in the US wanting some way to get their grubby little paws deeper into the piggybank of the US (and world) economy, to fund even more, grander spending programs.

The government in general does that. Look at the social security “trust fund”. Raided…

1 Like