Elon Musk
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:25 am
lolLeisher wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:13 am To be fair, Trump has never tweeted anything this intelligent.
lolLeisher wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:13 am To be fair, Trump has never tweeted anything this intelligent.
CNN is the guilty party. The headline is an outright lie.
Here's the original tweet:
Here's the article it cites: https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/economy/ ... index.html
The quoted headline is:
2% of Elon Musk's wealth could solve world hunger, says director of UN food scarcity organization
The article says:
A small group of ultra-wealthy individuals could help solve world hunger with just a fraction of their net worth, says the director of the United Nations' World Food Programme. ... "$6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don't reach them. It's not complicated," he added.
The asshole headline writer turned this into a lie by deleting "help". The UN WFP director never said $6 billion would "solve world hunger". He asked for $6 billion to help save 42 million people.
—
ADDENDUM: Here's what the UN WFP chief originally said:
42 million people are on famine’s edge this year. An unprecedented global crisis spiked by Covid. Starvation, destabilization of nations & mass migration if we do not respond. @elonmusk, you made $6 billion just yesterday—the exact $ we need to avert catastrophe! Please help!
That's what he's saying: he's asking for $6 billion to avert a catastrophe that will starve 42 million people.
Because he's made over $300Bn.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:51 am $15B for $28B in earnings? What tax rate is he paying? How can someone have a $15B and then be labeled as "not paying their fair share"? (That's not defending him, but a legit question.)
Ok, but how much has he paid in taxes? He's never paid anything until this upcoming bill? Are you saying that $15B is on the $300B and not the $28B? Has all that money actually been realized or are we talking about value of money not yet cashed in?
A lot of his gains of the $300B are unrealized, and therefore untaxed. These have to be taxed because they were option grants that he has to realize, or lose.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:47 amOk, but how much has he paid in taxes? He's never paid anything until this upcoming bill? Are you saying that $15B is on the $300B and not the $28B? Has all that money actually been realized or are we talking about value of money not yet cashed in?
So technically, he has not made over $300B.TheCatt wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:55 amA lot of his gains of the $300B are unrealized, and therefore untaxed. These have to be taxed because they were option grants that he has to realize, or lose.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:47 amOk, but how much has he paid in taxes? He's never paid anything until this upcoming bill? Are you saying that $15B is on the $300B and not the $28B? Has all that money actually been realized or are we talking about value of money not yet cashed in?
It was debatable as to whether unrealized gains are taxable, but SCOTUS decided in 1920 (Eisner v. Macomber), a 5-4 decision, iirc, that unrealized income could not be taxable as income. Such a large distinction, based on just one vote.
No, he absolutely has made that much. It's just not realized income, but unrealized.
Part of the reason people continue to argue against it.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 12:47 pm What happens when someone gets taxed on their unrealized gains, and then those gains tank almost immediately? Does the government give that person a refund?
No one appears to be saying that, since most billionaire taxes are for the billionaires.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 12:47 pm A typical average worker in their early 60s might be a multimillionaire based on their portfolio. Are we saying the government should be taxing that money annually instead of when its realized?
One of the reasons I struggle with financial stuff is because this makes zero sense to me. Sure, on paper he made that much, but until he has it in his possession, he didn't.TheCatt wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:02 pm No, he absolutely has made that much. It's just not realized income, but unrealized.
And I think they're right. Seems to me, the correct way to go would be to punish these billionaires in their loans and loopholes they use to pay their bills?
Yeah, they're never saying that...until they are. Do you really think that if this were to work on billionaires that it wouldn't eventually work its way down? Our government has never seen its citizens earn a penny that they didn't want to take.TheCatt wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:02 pm No one appears to be saying that, since most billionaire taxes are for the billionaires.
It may be paper, but he can use those paper assets to do a lot. He can get a $100B loan against those assets at 1-2%, and fund a crazy lifestyle if he wants, all with no income. Heck, he could have qualified for pandemic assistance.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 2:59 pm One of the reasons I struggle with financial stuff is because this makes zero sense to me. Sure, on paper he made that much, but until he has it in his possession, he didn't.
So... how? a loan tax?Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 2:59 pm And I think they're right. Seems to me, the correct way to go would be to punish these billionaires in their loans and loopholes they use to pay their bills?
I'm not a fan of death taxes.
But if you give someone that money before you die, there is no step up basis, and the government taxes it when sold. Why the different treatment just for dying?Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:18 pm He has to pay off the loan at some point, yes? Where does he get that money from?
I'm not a fan of death taxes.
1. I don't think the government should have a right to your fortune just because you died.
2. It actually incentivizes the government to want you dead. A government that wants total control of health care.![]()
typically not, see above.
You lost me.TheCatt wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 5:44 pm But if you give someone that money before you die, there is no step up basis, and the government taxes it when sold. Why the different treatment just for dying?
You buy a stock for $1. It becomes worth $11 million. You die. It does not get taxed. Your person inherits it for the full $11 million. They sell it for $10,999,999.00 in gains. No taxes are owed, as the basis of that stock (formerly $1), becomes $11 Million when you die. Magic! no taxes! BUT, if you had given that stock to someone before you died, and they sold it, they would owe capital gains tax on the $10,999,999.00 gain.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:24 pm I'm not talking about a dime you give away while alive. I'm saying that once you die, there should be no taxes on whatever property/money/etc. that gets distributed based upon your will. You earned it, you paid taxes on it already, and it should be yours to give away. It will get taxed again eventually and shouldn't get taxed just for transfer of ownership due to death.
No taxes at all, as the inheritance/lifetime exclusion is currently $11.7 million per person dying. Even if you paid $100k for those $800k in stocks, no taxes on the $700k gains. That's the "step up" basis that I think should be removed from inheritances.Leisher wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:24 pm So let's say I die and my will says my oldest gets everything. (These are going to all be made up numbers, FYI.)
-I have a savings account with $1.5M in it, of which, $1.3M was already taxed when I earned it.
-I have $800K in stocks.
-I have a Roth IRA worth $1.1M.
-I have other stocks worth $500K.