The other option is a lefty Jan 6. You forget these are our alternative avenues rather than violence. But violence seems like the only bell that makes any noise these days sense the rest is drowned out by the massive amounts of free speech pouring into politicians’ pockets.
They are counted as income. When company grants stock, it appears in W2, for example.
The rub is when their extrapolated value changes, and this would be fine if they sold, as there is a tax system for handling that too, but there are gaps with borrowing where they can game the system by borrowing against the value instead of selling. By needlessly living in debt, they can manage their tax burden in ways unavailable to mere mortals.
Well, sure. Just have to accurately describe what to stop. Usually calls to action don’t understand the actual scheme in play, so folks ask for things that either don’t make sense or already exist. Within that context hard to fight when you don’t even know what to fight
I agree that the specifics are important, but it is honestly just tiring trying to keep track of the countless loopholes that the rich use. The end result is that I know there is horseshit going on, but I just don’t have the time to always give a thoroughly researched answer every time.
It gets tricky when you get paid once and then never get paid again, but the original thing you were paid with (i.e. company stocks) goes up in value over time, effectively replacing wages. Do we count that value increase as well? What if you get paid in cash, you buy something with that cash (could be the same company stocks), and that thing goes up in value? Or you buy another asset that your company has a lot of influence over?
The company exists without the stock market. People will still own portions of that company. The value will just be harder for the general public to determine and can be more easily obfuscated for tax purposes.
People will still own portions of that company. The value will just be harder for the general public to determine and can be more easily obfuscated for tax purposes.
Companies shouldn’t have values placed on them. They shouldn’t be bought or sold. They should all be employee owned.
The tricky part is that has implications for business control. Other people speculate the market cap into 50m and then they take over control of your company, because you are forced to sell off your stake. So an arbitrary coalition of 3 rich dudes can just take over your company on a whim, if it is vaguely important enough. A coalition of rich people is not likely going to treat the customers or employees better.
I think that’s a solvable problem. Theoretical value of a private company’s shares would need to be more flexible because the real worth won’t be known until selling your stake, or the company going public where there is a concrete value.
Sorry my intention was to convey my agreement with you but also point out a funny attribute of this avenue which could be interpreted to align with the overarching “tax the rich” theme of the OP
Yeah. Every bonus that I’ve ever seen has been raced at something like 40%. We really need to both make capital gains equally taxed to earned income and have a wealth tax.
(TL;DR: a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue, so if the goal is more taxes being paid, your suggestion is counter-productive)
The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption.
First, the tax is not adjusted for inflation, so any appreciation of assets is taxed at the nominal instead of the real value. This means investors must pay tax not only on the real return but also on the inflation created by the Federal Reserve.
Second, the capital gains tax is merely part of a long line of federal taxation of the same dollar of income. Wages are first taxed by payroll and personal income taxes, then again by the corporate income tax if one chooses to invest in corporate equities, and then again when those investments pay off in the form of dividends and capital gains. This puts corporations at a disadvantage relative to pass through business entities, whose owners pay personal income tax on distributed profits, instead of taxes on corporate income, capital gains, and dividends. One way corporations mitigate this excessive taxation is through debt rather than equity financing, since interest is deductible. This creates perverse incentives to over leverage, contributing to the boom and bust cycle.
Finally, a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption. Future personal consumption, in the form of savings, is taxed, while present consumption is not. By favoring present over future consumption, savings are discouraged, which decreases future available capital and lowers long term growth.
Not only has a low capital gains tax rate worked to encourage savings and increase economic growth, a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue.
The goal in my mind is not to necessarily increase total revenue but to erode the capacity to hoard wealth. The lower rates are gamed to increase wealth disparity, giving a distinct advantage to those who are already wealthy, over those who are not.
The wealthiest’s wealth is all invested in the economy, literally the opposite of “hoarding”.
“The lower rates are gamed to increase wealth disparity” is false–they are that way to encourage entrepreneurship and the like, the things that keep the economy strong. The fact that those who create the things that strengthen the economy become wealthy faster than those who don’t is a feature, not a bug. A rising tide lifts all ships. And make no mistake, one’s assets appreciating in value takes nothing away from those who haven’t invested–the latter group’s level of wealth is not affected by the former’s. In other words, the wage my job pays me does not change based on how wealthy other people’s assets are, from the billionaires, down to even a neighbor whose house has appreciated in value.
Wealth disparity is not inherently a bad thing–a century ago, the ‘gap’ was much smaller, as was the number of billionaires, but the average person’s wealth was also MUCH lower.
The wealthiest’s wealth is all invested in the economy, literally the opposite of “hoarding”.
The economy is more than the NYSE and bought politicians.
“The lower rates are gamed to increase wealth disparity” is false–they are that way to encourage entrepreneurship and the like, the things that keep the economy strong.
Don’t know what to tell you there. The money doesn’t buying legislation to keep workers in places of economic instability doesn’t really encourage entrepreneurship or reduce its inherent risks. Entrepreneurship is also pretty well dominated by the wealthy who can afford the Russia, largely due to inherited wealth.
The fact that those who create the things that strengthen the economy become wealthy faster than those who don’t is a feature, not a bug. A rising tide lifts all ships. And make no mistake, one’s assets appreciating in value takes nothing away from those who haven’t invested–the latter group’s level of wealth is not affected by the former’s. In other words, the wage my job pays me does not change based on how wealthy other people’s assets are, from the billionaires, down to even a neighbor whose house has appreciated in value.
Wealth disparity is not inherently a bad thing–a century ago, the ‘gap’ was much smaller, as was the number of billionaires, but the average person’s wealth was also MUCH lower.
Wealth disparity is the root of most crime and human suffering. Also, the years leading into the Great Depression may not be a good reference point on average wealth.
You know what, I didn’t think that we’re going to see eye to eye on these matters, regardless of how much back and forth we have. I hope you have a pleasant day and eventually see an increase in empathy that shifts your worldview.
Bonuses don’t get taxed any differently. What happens if your employers payroll software sees additional income above your wages and without any tax-exempt lines (like health insurance) subtracting from taxable income. It ends up calculating a higher tax withholding rate. Or it doesn’t and just calculates the maximum marginal rate by default because it’s a stupid program.
Come tax time a dollar of income is a dollar of income. Your tax burden is calculated in total income and bonuses are treated no differently than wages.
Your tax return is just leveling out with the government. You’re paying the same amount of tax over the whole course of the year, and when you file the taxes, any refund or payment is a surplus or deficit of what you paid versus what you owed.
The loophole is that they aren’t paid that amount in maximum wage anyway. The actual wage is some degree of modest. They just get paid in bonuses and stock options, which don’t count for one reason or another.
There are many options for a company that hits performance metrics. The big ones would be re-inveermemt back into the company after the employee and shareholder compensation reaches the limit. A company with several departments that see a growth in their budgets will improve the value of the company and at the same time will see improvements to quality of life for the employees.
More ideas for excise wealth:
spinning off functions from the parent company to become other companies
a flat, one time bonus for all employees
expansion of employee benefits
social program investments, like parks, schools, recreation centers, local sports teams, libraries, etc.
community improvement projects (which are constantly underfunded)
If the extra wealth was actually allowed to trickle throughout the people, it would be an explosion of improvements to community health and well being. Businesses would directly help the people who patronize it, leading to more recognition (ie free advertising) for the companies who contribute the most.
There are many, many options for how to weigh the value the of a company, the performance of its books, and find a way to keep the business thriving while not sucking out the money of its customers.
I don’t know what that means- but how do these options not still increase the wealth of the company and therefore increase the wealth of the owners of the company
Re-investment. I figured a typo like that would be safe to assume but oh well.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
A wealth cap and a maximum wage in my opinion. The idea of a minimum wage without a maximum wage is odd to me to begin with.
What the ultrarich just heard: “So you’re okay with us getting rid of minimum wage, then!”
You’re probably right, sadly.
Sorry guys, I checked the legislative schedule and they said they don’t have anything for a maximum wage or wealth cap.
But they did say if we can get 200 million to sign a petition they will ignore it indefinitely. Hope that helps.
Don’t forget to protest vote in November ensuring nothing ever changes.
The other option is a lefty Jan 6. You forget these are our alternative avenues rather than violence. But violence seems like the only bell that makes any noise these days sense the rest is drowned out by the massive amounts of free speech pouring into politicians’ pockets.
They’ll just claim aren’t paid in wages, see it’s a performance bonus. Totally not a wage. That’s for the poors.
We also need to end bullshit loopholes like that. Bonuses, benefits, stocks, everything and anything in-between needs to be counted as income.
Doesn’t matter if your employer pays you in bananas or bitcoin, everything the employer does to reward an employee must be counted.
They are counted as income. When company grants stock, it appears in W2, for example.
The rub is when their extrapolated value changes, and this would be fine if they sold, as there is a tax system for handling that too, but there are gaps with borrowing where they can game the system by borrowing against the value instead of selling. By needlessly living in debt, they can manage their tax burden in ways unavailable to mere mortals.
That’s the exact kind of shit we need to end.
Well, sure. Just have to accurately describe what to stop. Usually calls to action don’t understand the actual scheme in play, so folks ask for things that either don’t make sense or already exist. Within that context hard to fight when you don’t even know what to fight
I agree that the specifics are important, but it is honestly just tiring trying to keep track of the countless loopholes that the rich use. The end result is that I know there is horseshit going on, but I just don’t have the time to always give a thoroughly researched answer every time.
It gets tricky when you get paid once and then never get paid again, but the original thing you were paid with (i.e. company stocks) goes up in value over time, effectively replacing wages. Do we count that value increase as well? What if you get paid in cash, you buy something with that cash (could be the same company stocks), and that thing goes up in value? Or you buy another asset that your company has a lot of influence over?
Seems to be another good reason to abolish the stock market. The difficulty of tracking that stuff vanishes if it doesn’t exist in the first place.
The company exists without the stock market. People will still own portions of that company. The value will just be harder for the general public to determine and can be more easily obfuscated for tax purposes.
Companies shouldn’t have values placed on them. They shouldn’t be bought or sold. They should all be employee owned.
That’s why it’s a wealth cap. That’s net worth, not income.
You exceed the 20m cap, you have to pay the excess to taxes. If it’s locked in company shares, you have to sell them and pay that in taxes.
The tricky part is that has implications for business control. Other people speculate the market cap into 50m and then they take over control of your company, because you are forced to sell off your stake. So an arbitrary coalition of 3 rich dudes can just take over your company on a whim, if it is vaguely important enough. A coalition of rich people is not likely going to treat the customers or employees better.
I think that’s a solvable problem. Theoretical value of a private company’s shares would need to be more flexible because the real worth won’t be known until selling your stake, or the company going public where there is a concrete value.
Thankfully bonuses are already taxed very highly.
That’s so missing the point, I can’t help but think you’re a cheerleader for the billionaire class.
If there is a maximum wage but no maximum bonus their income would be all bonus to get around the maximum. The thing we’re discussing.
Sorry my intention was to convey my agreement with you but also point out a funny attribute of this avenue which could be interpreted to align with the overarching “tax the rich” theme of the OP
Yeah. Every bonus that I’ve ever seen has been raced at something like 40%. We really need to both make capital gains equally taxed to earned income and have a wealth tax.
The capital gains tax isn’t lower than income tax just because. There are very specific reasons:
(TL;DR: a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue, so if the goal is more taxes being paid, your suggestion is counter-productive)
The goal in my mind is not to necessarily increase total revenue but to erode the capacity to hoard wealth. The lower rates are gamed to increase wealth disparity, giving a distinct advantage to those who are already wealthy, over those who are not.
Wealth disparity is not inherently a bad thing–a century ago, the ‘gap’ was much smaller, as was the number of billionaires, but the average person’s wealth was also MUCH lower.
The economy is more than the NYSE and bought politicians.
Don’t know what to tell you there. The money doesn’t buying legislation to keep workers in places of economic instability doesn’t really encourage entrepreneurship or reduce its inherent risks. Entrepreneurship is also pretty well dominated by the wealthy who can afford the Russia, largely due to inherited wealth.
Wealth disparity is the root of most crime and human suffering. Also, the years leading into the Great Depression may not be a good reference point on average wealth.
You know what, I didn’t think that we’re going to see eye to eye on these matters, regardless of how much back and forth we have. I hope you have a pleasant day and eventually see an increase in empathy that shifts your worldview.
Bonuses don’t get taxed any differently. What happens if your employers payroll software sees additional income above your wages and without any tax-exempt lines (like health insurance) subtracting from taxable income. It ends up calculating a higher tax withholding rate. Or it doesn’t and just calculates the maximum marginal rate by default because it’s a stupid program.
Come tax time a dollar of income is a dollar of income. Your tax burden is calculated in total income and bonuses are treated no differently than wages.
Your tax return is just leveling out with the government. You’re paying the same amount of tax over the whole course of the year, and when you file the taxes, any refund or payment is a surplus or deficit of what you paid versus what you owed.
Doesn’t Section 31.3402(g)-1(a)(1)(i) state otherwise?
Bonuses are supplemental wages and are taxed at 25% unless you net over 1 million.
Section 904(b) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418)
While I have nothing against a “maximum wage”, the wealth tax is much more important.
Not a maximum wage, a maximum controled assets. On the board of 100 billion dollar company, no one can own more than 1% of the voting shares.
Find yourself with more assets than you can split among owners? Better start reinvesting it into the company and your employees.
Not a max wage. A max multiple of minimum wage.
You can only ever make more than 5x/10x/etc… the minimum wage. They want more money? Then everyone needs to make more money.
They can feel free to increase their riches, but tie it exclusively to the rest of the population.
i mean technically your maximum wage is what you earn - number of employees * minimum wage
The loophole is that they aren’t paid that amount in maximum wage anyway. The actual wage is some degree of modest. They just get paid in bonuses and stock options, which don’t count for one reason or another.
What does a maximum wage and wealth cap even mean? What happens when you start a company and it gets too successful?
Probably a bit extreme but taxes could scale up in a way that the more you earn, the harder it is to earn even more, so your wealth reaches a plateau
or maybe minimum wage has to scale to the wealth of a company
But wealth isn’t a wage. The value of the company goes up, do you have to sell the company?
There are many options for a company that hits performance metrics. The big ones would be re-inveermemt back into the company after the employee and shareholder compensation reaches the limit. A company with several departments that see a growth in their budgets will improve the value of the company and at the same time will see improvements to quality of life for the employees.
More ideas for excise wealth:
spinning off functions from the parent company to become other companies a flat, one time bonus for all employees expansion of employee benefits social program investments, like parks, schools, recreation centers, local sports teams, libraries, etc. community improvement projects (which are constantly underfunded)
If the extra wealth was actually allowed to trickle throughout the people, it would be an explosion of improvements to community health and well being. Businesses would directly help the people who patronize it, leading to more recognition (ie free advertising) for the companies who contribute the most.
There are many, many options for how to weigh the value the of a company, the performance of its books, and find a way to keep the business thriving while not sucking out the money of its customers.
I don’t know what that means- but how do these options not still increase the wealth of the company and therefore increase the wealth of the owners of the company
Re-investment. I figured a typo like that would be safe to assume but oh well.
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
I thought that, but that doesn’t change the wealth of the person assuming the investment is successful.
Valuations are often very wrong, and missing for privately held companies.
Divested and given to who?
Measuring the value of a company would be valuations just like now with shares equaling the value of the company. The owner would be divested from the company as it increased in value to separate the two. The value of the company would then be independent of the owner’s share in it.
I’m gonna be completely honest I don’t know enough about economics to answer that question