[potlee]

Bezos doesn't have to pay anything on the 10s of billions worth of unrealized gains in AMZN stock either. Income taxes discourage generation of income and sales taxes discourage consumption. Wealth taxes are harder to dodge this way and should make up more of the tax revenues.

[rukittenme]

> Bezos doesn't have to pay anything on the 10s of billions worth of unrealized gains in AMZN stock either.

It bugs me that you understand the gains are "unrealized" but still use it as an argument to tax him. What part of "unrealized" do you not get?

I value your HN username at $10 billion. Pay a tax of $4 billion you greedy jerk.

[potlee]

> What part of "unrealized" do you not get?

I don't think you understand any part of what "unrealized" means. "unrealized" as it relates to taxation simply means that the asset has not beed sold.

> I value your HN username at $10 billion

What you might personally value my username and what the market values AMZN stock at bear no similarity

Besides 40% percent is a insane amount, most wealth tax systems are well under 2%.

[rukittenme]

> I don't think you understand any part of what "unrealized" means. "unrealized" as it relates to taxation simply means that the asset has not beed sold.

No shit... At what point did I allude to it being otherwise?

> What you might personally value my username and what the market values AMZN stock at bear no similarity

Most people don't value Amazon at its current price. The majority of people value it lower or higher. A thin margin of people trade within their sliver of acceptable prices setting the current day trading price. To tax someone at the value a small third party ascribes is so insanely stupid it beggars belief.

The "market cap" of a company has NO BASIS in reality. That's why stock prices fluctuate like crazy for all but the biggest and most well known companies.

> Besides 40% percent is a insane amount, most wealth tax systems are well under 2%.

When do you pay this 2% tax? Every year? Say you own a $500,000 home -- not unreasonable in California. They're going to have to pay $10,000 every year for that home, even if they have no income. Even if they're living off their savings or they're retired and on fixed income.

Let's say some couple bought their home in the 50's for $30k. Today the value of the home is $500k. They're on a fixed income and can't afford to pay $10k in taxes. Are you going to evict them for being "wealthy"? Just because the market values their house at $500k as of this moment?

Boy, I can't wait for people to pump and dump stocks on tax day. It's going to be great... Or I can't wait for people to trash their homes to decrease the value and lower their tax burden.

---

Let's take a step back. I just made an offer on your username for $10 billion. Because no one else made an offer the current market value is $10 billion. It will remain $10 billion until someone else makes an offer. At which point, how you calculate the tax burden is up to you. Average? Weighted average? Moving weighted average? Ascending triangle? Support and resistance? Any of the other batshit technical analysis methods? What about the time period? Are you taxing the wealth of the past day, month, year, decade?

"But!", you'll say, "You're just one guy, you don't get to determine the market value of my username". And sadly for you, that's exactly what I get to do. Houses have market values even though a single digit number of people actually bid on them within a 20 year time period. Small cap stocks may only trade a few shares a day.

Your username has had more offers in the past 10 years than my parents house has. Their house has a market value, and now, so does your username. Pay your taxes.

[qaq]

You really think it's beneficial to take away ownership from a successful founder and transfer it under control of some pension fund manager?

[potlee]

Wealth taxes are supposed to be paid in cash not stock so he would have to liquidate of the stock

[valuearb]

What's your point? You are still taking part of the founder's control away, and giving it to some third party.

Bezo's has paid a huge amount of taxes on shares of stock he's actually sold. He shouldn't have to pay taxes on money he hasn't received or is even able to spend yet. What's best for Society is that both he and his capital remains in Amazon as long as possible as investment, not being turned into consumption (which would slow Amazon's growth rate down, slow it's ability to increase productivity and raise our standard of living).

[potlee]

> He shouldn't have to pay taxes on money he hasn't received

No one should have to pay taxes ideally, but the government needs money to provide basic services, keep us safe, etc. I don't think it is better to tax salaried people some of who can barely make ends meet before taxing someone who is sitting on $70 on unrealized capital gains just because he chooses not to sell.

[valuearb]

That $70B in unrealized gains is funding higher paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.

[nwellnhof]

> Wealth taxes are harder to dodge this way and should make up more of the tax revenues.

Or estate (inheritance) tax which could be considered a special form of wealth tax.