|
|
|
|
|
by filoleg
1137 days ago
|
|
Makes sense with ISOs. Until you sell the contract or the shares from exercising the options, you don't have any actual money, and those options or shares can go to zero tomorrow (let's say extremely unlikely to happen, but that's not relevant to the point). So there isn't really any actual money to take from you until then. The second you convert it to actual money by selling, you get hit with taxes (or Nintendo standing behind your shoulder), and you pay off your responsibilities using a chunk of money you've just received. |
|
I agree.
> Until you sell the contract or the shares from exercising the options, you don't have any actual money
There are other ways of converting them into money, like lending against them. And that is what billionaires are often doing, as it is financially much more attractive. With how things currently are, it would be stupid not to.
That is what I am trying to get across: If we managed to invert the incentives, billionaires might actually sell their stocks, and get taxed on that, rather than finding creative workarounds.
Then the state could profit, instead of banks.