The exodus from the left

[Frankfooter]

You are correct. The vast majority of Elon's wealth is in stock options. So, he isn't necessarily liquid (as in, has ready access to just billions in cash), and if he sold those options, he would be crushed by income and capital gains taxes. So, instead, he uses his stock options as collateral and borrows money from lenders. This is not considered income, and in some circumstances can be written off from his actual income tax. So, he can buy Twitter without having to tap into his actual fortune and pay income tax on that...

The issue here is that the wealthy have access to the greatest tax attorneys and accounts in the country. They know the legal loopholes, and can aggressively game the system so that on a proportional rate a minimum wage worker probably pays a significantly larger percentage in income taxes. Basically, since Elon and other billionaires (like Zuck, Bezoes and Ellison) tend to see the majority of their compensation in stock options, it is incredibly difficult to get them to pay their fair share of taxes. And, with the GOP making it easier for them to get tax breaks, they are paying even less today than before Trump took office. Is that good for the US, where the top 1% pay a tiny fraction of their actual income c compared to the dude who manages a Subway restaurant?

The major issue here is that Elon can avoid paying into the system that would help people. Now, I know there are MANY differences to how Americans and Canadians view taxes, or how that income is spent by the governments. Canadians are more socialist, and want that money to provide a social safety net and good schools. This includes things like universal healthcare, paid maternity leave and EI benefits. This social assistance is virtually unknown in the US. Sure, they have Medicare, but that's being rolled back. They have SNAP, but again, that's being rolled back. I'm not here to argue that our system is too generous, but you can see how getting just a bit more from the ultrarich could solve a lot of the issues the US faces. Or, at the bare minimum, force these captains of industry to pay their workers better.

The biggest issue is that in the states, all bills are passed for the favour of the rich, because they have paid for them.
So the rich get bills passed that have them pay less taxes, suffer less regulations and allow them to rip everyone else off to get richer.

Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

 

[Frankfooter]

trump sent $20 billion to Argentina to help a populist zionist.
He won't send anything to Alaska.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1978489762408534423

 

[Frankfooter]

The right asked for cuts to DEI funding.
This is what they asked for.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1978493941067489704

 

[K Douglas]

You really don't know?

- Politicians pass bills that favour the rich, because they are funded by the rich
- this allows them to establish monopolies across major industries or control by 2 or 3 corporations that set prices together
- this allows them to attack unions and lower wages all around you
- this allows the rich to get bills cutting social services cut all around you
- this creates more poverty and more desperate people which creates more crime
- this allows the rich to pass deregulation bills that take away industry protections
- this allows people like Mariam Adelson to get trump take away citizens rights and send billions in cash to Israel and Argentina
- this defunds cities and states and contributes to the rotting infrastructure in america
- this results in the most expensive and worse health care in the western world, the only one with a declining mortality

I'd go on, but you won't consider this as possible.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1977843592107557160

You're delusional. Corporatism exploded under Obama's watch. That's what creates monster corporations and monopolies/oligopolies. Its done through the regulatory process. Musk has no vested interest in cuts to social services or defunding cities. Your hatred of anyone who has succeeded financially is morbid. Its not a zero sum game.

 

[squeezer]

@The Oracle, Ory, we have proof Trump wears a diaper all day thanks to your favorite podcaster brought to you from your favorite soy boy podcaster!!!!

ps...you're Ory!

Joe Rogan REVEALS SHOCK Story About Trump BEHIND THE SCENES!

 

[Frankfooter]

You're delusional. Corporatism exploded under Obama's watch. That's what creates monster corporations and monopolies/oligopolies. Its done through the regulatory process. Musk has no vested interest in cuts to social services or defunding cities. Your hatred of anyone who has succeeded financially is morbid. Its not a zero sum game.

Obama grew it, but the GOP exploded corporatism.
Now the government is owned by AIPAC.

Citizens United started it.

 

[WyattEarp]

You are correct. The vast majority of Elon's wealth is in stock options. So, he isn't necessarily liquid (as in, has ready access to just billions in cash), and if he sold those options, he would be crushed by income and capital gains taxes. So, instead, he uses his stock options as collateral and borrows money from lenders. This is not considered income, and in some circumstances can be written off from his actual income tax. So, he can buy Twitter without having to tap into his actual fortune and pay income tax on that...

Yes, this pledging of assets to access money bothers me too. I would like to see an effort to minimize essentially using unrealized capital gains to borrow money.

I've tried to answer this problem in my own mind but I am not a tax attorney. Beyond let's tax the billionaires more, there's the matter that this type of borrowing is far more common then people realize. People use appreciated stocks and real estate to borrow money all the time. In fact, it's rather easy for anyone to borrow against the appreciated value of stocks. Real estate requires an appraisal and some paperwork. I think this also works under Canadian tax law as well.

There should be better efforts to tax all wealthy individuals and deal with those complexities. However, buying Twitter with borrowed money is a tricky example. An extremely wealthy individual can likely walk into a sales office at the mega yacht marina and sail away with a big ass yacht with a downpayment and no income tax consequences.

 

[JohnLarue]

Yes, this pledging of assets to access money bothers me too. I would like to see an effort to minimize essentially using unrealized capital gains to borrow money.

eliminate the taxes on capital gains then
it is the punitive taxation of gains that drives the borrowing against the assets

profit taking and recycling of those profits into the economy would increase as there ate many investors who do not wish to assume the risk / obligations of a rally big loan

I've tried to answer this problem in my own mind but I am not a tax attorney. Beyond let's tax the billionaires more, there's the matter that this type of borrowing is far more common then people realize. People use appreciated stocks and real estate to borrow money all the time. In fact, it's rather easy for anyone to borrow against the appreciated value of stocks. Real estate requires an appraisal and some paperwork. I think this also works under Canadian tax law as well.

it is a risk / reward trade off to borrow against assets

There should be better efforts to tax all wealthy individuals and deal with those complexities. However, buying Twitter with borrowed money is a tricky example. An extremely wealthy individual can likely walk into a sales office at the mega yacht marina and sail away with a big ass yacht with a downpayment and no income tax consequences.

or he/ she could borrow against unrealized gains, buy a company and turn it around , employing thousands


i do not agree with

There should be better efforts to tax all wealthy individuals

its their money and as long as they earned it legally and assumed the risk to earn it they should get to keep it

exactly what does the government do and exactly wk=hat risks does a government assume in order to claim 50%+ of the profit ?
nothing

once claimed the govt just wastes much of it

 

[WyattEarp]

i do not agree with its their money and as long as they earned it legally and assumed the risk to earn it they should get to keep it

exactly what does the government do and exactly wk=hat risks does a government assume in order to claim 50%+ of the profit ?
nothing

once claimed the govt just wastes much of it

That might be all true, but we all live in societies that require taxation. I personally think that taxing individuals based on their wherewithal to pay makes sense.

One can always debate tax rates.

 

[JohnLarue]

That might be all true, but we all live in societies that require taxation. I personally think that taxing individuals based on their wherewithal to pay makes sense.

One can always debate tax rates.

I personally think that taxing individuals based on their wherewithal to pay income makes sense.
One can always debate tax rates.


taxation of wealth is a disincentive for individuals and society to create wealth
wealth creation is fundamental for individuals and society to be prosperous and create higher standards of living

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, this pledging of assets to access money bothers me too. I would like to see an effort to minimize essentially using unrealized capital gains to borrow money.

I've tried to answer this problem in my own mind but I am not a tax attorney. Beyond let's tax the billionaires more, there's the matter that this type of borrowing is far more common then people realize. People use appreciated stocks and real estate to borrow money all the time. In fact, it's rather easy for anyone to borrow against the appreciated value of stocks. Real estate requires an appraisal and some paperwork. I think this also works under Canadian tax law as well.

There should be better efforts to tax all wealthy individuals and deal with those complexities. However, buying Twitter with borrowed money is a tricky example. An extremely wealthy individual can likely walk into a sales office at the mega yacht marina and sail away with a big ass yacht with a downpayment and no income tax consequences.

Its a bubble on bubble economy now. The states managed to avoid a total meltdown over the lack of profit by the ubers and spotify silicon valley bubble. But the AI bubble is much bigger, judging by the price of gold everyone knows its coming.

Canada made it through 2008 because we held back on deregulating banks, this time will be harder except that the tariff wars have already started us diversifying from the states.

For the states I have no idea whether switch to autocracy/oligarchy is reversible. Its likely beyond a tax remedy at this point. More likely is that it will lead to the boogaloo bois crash that butler has been dreaming of for years, though its more likely that a Russian style autocracy will result than any kind of fix.

I have no idea how you fix america now.

 

[Frankfooter]

That might be all true, but we all live in societies that require taxation. I personally think that taxing individuals based on their wherewithal to pay makes sense.

One can always debate tax rates.

Progressive taxation was the norm until Reagan and neoliberalism.
That kept the rich from becoming all powerful and allowed the government to pay for services.

 

[silentkisser]

Yes, this pledging of assets to access money bothers me too. I would like to see an effort to minimize essentially using unrealized capital gains to borrow money.

I've tried to answer this problem in my own mind but I am not a tax attorney. Beyond let's tax the billionaires more, there's the matter that this type of borrowing is far more common then people realize. People use appreciated stocks and real estate to borrow money all the time. In fact, it's rather easy for anyone to borrow against the appreciated value of stocks. Real estate requires an appraisal and some paperwork. I think this also works under Canadian tax law as well.

There should be better efforts to tax all wealthy individuals and deal with those complexities. However, buying Twitter with borrowed money is a tricky example. An extremely wealthy individual can likely walk into a sales office at the mega yacht marina and sail away with a big ass yacht with a downpayment and no income tax consequences.

It goes beyond just that. About 10 years or so ago, France tried to make the billionaire class pay more in taxes. Sounds great on paper. But, as mentioned, these people have the best tax lawyers and accountants, so they could find loopholes so large that, if I recall correctly, the French government actually saw law tax revenue from these people.

There are no easy answers. And, to be honest, if you have THAT much cash, the taxes probably don't really even hurt that much. I mean, think of a regressive tax jurisdiction like Texas. Sure, the wealthy pay less, but the poor are the ones that have a much higher tax rate. Which also feels very unfair...

 

[richaceg]

Progressive taxation was the norm until Reagan and neoliberalism.
That kept the rich from becoming all powerful and allowed the government to pay for services.

 

[Frankfooter]

 

[Frankfooter]

It goes beyond just that. About 10 years or so ago, France tried to make the billionaire class pay more in taxes. Sounds great on paper. But, as mentioned, these people have the best tax lawyers and accountants, so they could find loopholes so large that, if I recall correctly, the French government actually saw law tax revenue from these people.

There are no easy answers. And, to be honest, if you have THAT much cash, the taxes probably don't really even hurt that much. I mean, think of a regressive tax jurisdiction like Texas. Sure, the wealthy pay less, but the poor are the ones that have a much higher tax rate. Which also feels very unfair...

I'm not sure if that's true in France but it is true that in other places like Denmark and Norway they tax the rich the way Canada and the US used to and they can afford to take care of their own people.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1959127282305450103

 

[silentkisser]

I'm not sure if that's true in France but it is true that in other places like Denmark and Norway they tax the rich the way Canada and the US used to and they can afford to take care of their own people.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1959127282305450103

I used to know a guy who was an auditor at the CRA. He dealt with companies, not individuals. From his experiences, he told me the way the tax code is written, companies are able to interpret to try and get the maximum breaks. His job was to try and push back on that, and get them to pay what they're owed. The language used in the tax code is broad and can be ambiguous, allowing a lot of different interpretations. I think part of that is on purpose, to allow it to appear strong, but give corporate Canada the ability to push boundaries...

 

[Frankfooter]

I used to know a guy who was an auditor at the CRA. He dealt with companies, not individuals. From his experiences, he told me the way the tax code is written, companies are able to interpret to try and get the maximum breaks. His job was to try and push back on that, and get them to pay what they're owed. The language used in the tax code is broad and can be ambiguous, allowing a lot of different interpretations. I think part of that is on purpose, to allow it to appear strong, but give corporate Canada the ability to push boundaries...

About 50 years ago most tax revenue came for corporations but now its individuals.
That was to make us 'competitive'.
That's always been about downward pressure on wages.

 

[xmontrealer]

I used to know a guy who was an auditor at the CRA. He dealt with companies, not individuals. From his experiences, he told me the way the tax code is written, companies are able to interpret to try and get the maximum breaks. His job was to try and push back on that, and get them to pay what they're owed. The language used in the tax code is broad and can be ambiguous, allowing a lot of different interpretations. I think part of that is on purpose, to allow it to appear strong, but give corporate Canada the ability to push boundaries...

I used to work in a company with annual gross revenue of over $100 million a year. It no longer exists.

Our financial officer told me that the accounting department would leave obvious small "nuggets" for the CRA to find in their annual audit of our financial records, so that whoever the government sent could "discover" them and justify the expense of the audit. None, of course, could rise to the level of criminality or tax fraud.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

MAGA:
You have a donkey.
They tell you, you have a cow.
You agree that you now have a cow.
You claim that they have made cows great again.
lmfao.