If they are using the “unvested” assets for something, like getting a loan with them as collateral, then we should treat it as if they realized the gain.
If you use stock as collateral to get s $1mm loan, that should be treated as income.
If they then sell the stock and get taxed again… I don’t think I really care.
I think that doesn’t work well due to price fluctuations of the stocks and avoiding double taxing, but I don’t understand stock options and current tax laws enough to be confident about that.
There are so many issues with this idk where to start. Maybe with: not all stock given as compensation are publicly traded yet. There may be no average price yet when they vest.
PS: Also, the original comment proposes taking 40% of the shares, not monetary equivalent which I originally misunderstood as well. So neither of our comments is really rellevant.
This doesn’t stop real estate being valued for tax purposes. Use the same approach - proxy valuations.
There is pretty reasonable way to value real estate. Hard to do objective valuation of a company whose value is mostly hype anyway. Also, real estate value estimations are riddled with corruption in most places.
Yeah, that would just be nationalisation. After 5 years the government would own 90% of all businesses.
Re-read the comments up the thread, I asked about the same thing. It is not ment to be yearly.
Tax should be yearly. But based on the change in capital gains, not the absolute amount. Then losses can also be considered (and offset).
Any sale or transfer of equity creates a valuation (even paying equity as salary). Just have to watch for loopholes. E.g. Make it volume weighted so that the CEO doesn’t sell 1 share to his wife for $0.01.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is not difficult. There just needs to be a politician with enough balls to implement it.
That’s the point. If you get paid $10 at 30% tax the government takes 3 of the dollars. If you get paid $10 and 10 options, the government takes 3 dollars and 3 shares (when they vest). Simple as that.
Deciding what to do with the shares as the government is a hairy problem though.
Ok, I see what you mean, but now you have government holding stocks with 0 idea if they should cash out or hold. Both cases could result in the government loosing out on tax money.
If government immediately sells, and you hold until the stocks are 10x the value, the governmwnt lost out on 90% of the money.
If government holds and you sell, the government stocks can become worthless (e.g. company goes bankrupt) and again lose out on tax money. Plus government needs money in the budget, not stocks.
This is why you usually tax the income when you sell the shares. The loophole is taking a loan against those shares, but if you ask me, the answer is to tax the loan money and make repayments tax deductible. The loan is basically getting the money from selling shares early, so it should be taxed when you get it.
“You can’t tax valuation”
Fine, the government gets 40% of your share options.
Yes you can. Capitalism just doesn’t want you.
If they are using the “unvested” assets for something, like getting a loan with them as collateral, then we should treat it as if they realized the gain.
If you use stock as collateral to get s $1mm loan, that should be treated as income.
If they then sell the stock and get taxed again… I don’t think I really care.
We tax valuation all the time! Property has a valuation and we levy taxes on how much it’s worth.
One time? Every year?
Just like Income tax. When they vest.
I think that doesn’t work well due to price fluctuations of the stocks and avoiding double taxing, but I don’t understand stock options and current tax laws enough to be confident about that.
Average price over the last 30 days.
Submit a claim for repayment.
There are so many issues with this idk where to start. Maybe with: not all stock given as compensation are publicly traded yet. There may be no average price yet when they vest.
PS: Also, the original comment proposes taking 40% of the shares, not monetary equivalent which I originally misunderstood as well. So neither of our comments is really rellevant.
This doesn’t stop real estate being valued for tax purposes. Use the same approach - proxy valuations.
Yeah, that would just be nationalisation. After 5 years the government would own 90% of all businesses.
There is pretty reasonable way to value real estate. Hard to do objective valuation of a company whose value is mostly hype anyway. Also, real estate value estimations are riddled with corruption in most places.
Re-read the comments up the thread, I asked about the same thing. It is not ment to be yearly.
Tax should be yearly. But based on the change in capital gains, not the absolute amount. Then losses can also be considered (and offset).
Any sale or transfer of equity creates a valuation (even paying equity as salary). Just have to watch for loopholes. E.g. Make it volume weighted so that the CEO doesn’t sell 1 share to his wife for $0.01.
Taxing unrealized capital gains is not difficult. There just needs to be a politician with enough balls to implement it.
Who cares? Even double-taxing the billionaires is still the moderate compromise position, compared to the guillotine.
The guillotine is a dumbass fantasy that prevents people from having to think about real options while cosplaying on the internet.
Who cares? If the goal is the universal application of the law, that goal is not obtained when you use the law to apply to people you don’t like.
That’s the point. If you get paid $10 at 30% tax the government takes 3 of the dollars. If you get paid $10 and 10 options, the government takes 3 dollars and 3 shares (when they vest). Simple as that.
Deciding what to do with the shares as the government is a hairy problem though.
Ok, I see what you mean, but now you have government holding stocks with 0 idea if they should cash out or hold. Both cases could result in the government loosing out on tax money.
If government immediately sells, and you hold until the stocks are 10x the value, the governmwnt lost out on 90% of the money.
If government holds and you sell, the government stocks can become worthless (e.g. company goes bankrupt) and again lose out on tax money. Plus government needs money in the budget, not stocks.
This is why you usually tax the income when you sell the shares. The loophole is taking a loan against those shares, but if you ask me, the answer is to tax the loan money and make repayments tax deductible. The loan is basically getting the money from selling shares early, so it should be taxed when you get it.
Maybe the shares could go to a sovereign wealth fund with staff employed to try and maximize the value of the fund over the long term?
That makes sense if you have a balanced government budget or a surplus. But if you are running a deficit, you want cash.
Maybe congress gets voting shares…essentially making “the American people” a part-owner of the company. All companies.