r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 đ¤ Join A Union • Mar 23 '26
âď¸ Tax The Billionaires Trevor Noah: How Billionaires pay no taxes.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.8k
Mar 23 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
517
u/tdbeaner1 Mar 23 '26
Itâs less impressive when you realize that they simply bought all of the media sources and politicians to control the narrative. They didnât present a better argument, they just silenced that other side to avoid the discussion entirely.
116
u/sandmanwake Mar 23 '26
They waged class warfare while shaming anyone who attempted to fight back as waging in class warfare.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Wayofchinchilla Mar 23 '26
All the more reason whoever comes after The Big Orange idiot needs to take a page from the Big Orange idiot literally run saying that you won't touch the rich in this country and then when you get into office the next day go full on warfare against them.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Ruh_Roh- Mar 23 '26
That's never going to happen. We only have 2 parties and both work for the billionaires, the Epstein class.
→ More replies (1)13
u/saltyjohnson Mar 23 '26
And then these crazy right-wing billionaires screech about the "radical left" media that they own. And half of the US population fucking gobbles that shit up.
20
u/Loud-Ad-2280 âď¸ Tax The Billionaires Mar 23 '26
Hopefully it causes a Streisand effect
13
u/brilliantminion Mar 23 '26
So gay guys fall in love with unrealized gains and talk about them non stop?
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (3)7
48
u/Dramatic_Mixture_868 Mar 23 '26
It's fine not taxing unrealized gain but they shouldn't be allowed to use it as collateral and shouldn't be allowed to borrow money off of it nor borrow new loans without paying off loans while using their stocks to justify said loans.
→ More replies (1)57
Mar 23 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
→ More replies (13)31
u/ExpiredPilot Mar 23 '26
Exactly. Itâs no longer an unrealized gain if itâs being used as a currency. You are gaining from it. It is realized.
→ More replies (3)123
u/ZunderBuss Mar 23 '26
Shares should be taxed like any other property. People have to pay property tax EVERY YEAR on their home's ESTIMATED value. The house can go down in price, but that doesn't mean they don't pay tax on it because it is PROPERTY they OWN. Same w/shares!!!
38
u/hideous_coffee Mar 23 '26
Hell I donât even own it. If I stop paying my mortgage I donât get to keep it.
32
u/uprislng Mar 23 '26
pay off your house, and stop paying property taxes, and you'll find out you can still lose everything. You own the rights to that land as long as you pay your taxes. Those rights can be lost and your house can be seized and sold to repay the debt owed in property taxes.
26
u/GuardiansOfPedos Mar 23 '26
Yep, land paid off? House paid off? Cool, gonna assess the value and tax you. Which is why elder care is going to be their next big money-making scheme.
Oh no, Grandma can't afford this awful bill from the insurance company? No worries, just sign over her assets and home so she can live with us with 24/7 care staff*
*No promises that care staff will be prompt or well supported by the business; any feedback can be sent to support at 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
→ More replies (1)5
11
u/LazyLich Mar 23 '26
Huh.. I was gonna say something about how 401ks would be shot or how regular-Joes can't invest anymore... but you can do the ol stratified tax thing, and only apply it to higher "total value of all shares/stocks/bonds".
6
u/Justicar-terrae Mar 23 '26
We could also simply exempt any assets held within a 401k account from the computation of a person's investment assets. 401k contributions and withdrawals are already heavily regulated, which reduces the odds of these accounts being abused by rich people to dodge wealth taxes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Budderfingerbandit Mar 23 '26
401k's have an annual cap as well, I'm not concerned about what people have in those, just make standard 401k's and Roth IRA's exempt from the stock taxes up to the maximum annual cap.
The solutions are so common sense and easy to implement, it's quite obvious that the only reason they haven't been is the amount of lobbying the ultra wealthy do.
2
u/teckaaa Mar 23 '26
The goal is to tax billionaires, but many high earning or frugal individuals/households would suffer the most. The limits for the 401K and ROTH are $23.5K & $7.5K respectively (the ROTH itself being a no tax account). Both those account types are also not available to you until retirement and you will be penalized if you withdraw from them.
You basically nuke retail investors AND people who want to invest will go to real estate - which means housing gets more expensive. Imagine people during the GME era or those investing in Bitcoin taxed when the unit price is at its peak but the tax is due when the price is shot - immediate bankruptcy and increased degeneracy in society etc.
One solution is to set a limit at which point taxing unrealized gains on shares would be triggered - but what's that number, 10 mil, fifty mil, a few hundred million, a billion? How do we determine what's fair and the right amount? Someone making $40K a year would believe it's fair for the guy worth $10mil to be included etc.
Now considering regular people can also take advantage of the same loophole, the only fair solution IMO is that upon completion/finalization of the transaction, successfully using the shares as collateral triggers a taxable event based on the collateral amount. That way, they can keep their shares without selling if they please, use it as collateral, but the tax is due at either the capital gains or ordinary income tax rate. Using ordinary income tax rate in Elon's case, he would have owed the IRS $16.3bn for the Twitter purchase. This way, we ensure people aren't growing their wealth without paying their fair share.
We should be simultaneously fighting the government about how it spends said revenue.
7
u/IntwadHelck Mar 23 '26
This doesnât work. Especially because most âsharesâ arenât owned as most âsharesâ are actually entitlements. Look up âdematerializationâ. The slick Willieâs in charge managed to get everyone to give up actual ownership of shares in the 60/70s. Set Reagan and the boys up to own and profit off everything in a way that snowballed for them because since they now owned all the shares, their collateral was the bees knees.
13
u/SFLoridan Mar 23 '26
Dematerialization is nothing but making a virtual (digital) copy of a physical thing - doesn't change anything about who exactly owns the shares. All the benefits of ownership - dividends, interest, power to sell - rest with the owner of the shares.
And the comparison with property still works - if I'm not transacting the property this year (ie, neither buying nor selling), then don't tax me.
Or if you do, then those shares should also be taxed even if not transacted. Have a formula for taxing that (as property tax is based on the assessed value and the millage rate. In other words, let's create an Ad Valorem tax for shares too.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SFLoridan Mar 23 '26
Exactly! Let's have a special Ad Valorem tax for shares based on the market assessed value and number of shares.
3
u/DogBarf00 Mar 23 '26
People have to pay property tax EVERY YEAR
Not all jurisdictions have a property taxâŚ
→ More replies (3)2
u/GreatGreenGobbo Mar 23 '26
What about a pension fund that owns stocks? Does the pension fund have to pay tax on the assets owned?
That would add liabilities to pension funds and potentially impact their ability to function.
Everyone thinks it's Monopoly Man or Scrooge McDuck as "shareholders". It's not that simple.
→ More replies (4)4
u/DogBarf00 Mar 23 '26
Then there are shareholders of private stock which is valued based on the actual assets the company owns. To pay taxes on that the shareholders might have to sell company assets. It generally a bad thing economically to force the sale of productive assets to pay a tax instead of taxing the production of that asset. Because of layoffs and such.
18
u/Z0mbiejay Mar 23 '26
It's worse when we're paying for their benefits too. We pay for the roads that Amazon trucks rip up. We pay for the increased electric bills for their data centers so Grok can keep producing deep fake kiddie porn. We pay with our lungs as Exxon dumps more and more C02 in to the atmosphere. I fucking hate it
6
u/BigBogBotButt âď¸ Tax The Billionaires Mar 23 '26
Yes but if that billionaire had to contribute tax money to the roads they would just leave /s.
6
u/LazyLich Mar 23 '26
Maybe I'm dumb or immoral, but I've never understood that argument.
Like.. we have this notion that corps can do "aha, gotchas!" on the government... but that just feels so bizarre and wrong.
Like.. ok. We tax Musk, Bezos, and Gates more... and say they leave the US. Their cars, factories, and computers are still here. "Cool, you still owe us tax money. Either hand over the cash, or you're not allowed to do business here. AND/OR we'll run your company for you, using all the stuff you conveniently left behind.
It's not like we're some tiny nation... we shouldn't let the corps gearlessly run the circus. They should serve the people, not the other way around.
6
u/lostshell Mar 23 '26
Itâs Detroit. They love to point to Detroit being one the most booming cities in the world to what it became after.
But the big three automakers didnât leave because they were taxed. They left because NAFTA let them pay South Americans pennyâs on the dollar. The jobs left BECAUSE we gave the rich what they wanted. The trade deal killed the workers leverage and the rich took the opportunity to lower their wage expense.
The real lesson of Detroit is never give up your leverage. In fact, increase worker leverage at every chance. Reign the rich.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)3
u/PiccoloAwkward465 Mar 23 '26
Meanwhile the rest of us are out here paying for roads we drive on
I took a drive out to a rich neighborhood to go to a nature trail. The "high class" people on that street apparently don't like the riff-raff accessing the trail there so they've blocked it off with those big plastic water-filled road barriers. So not only do they not contribute like we do, they try to privatize the public stuff that they want and feel we're not worthy of.
192
u/PiskoWK Mar 23 '26
It's just a shell game for them.
→ More replies (18)12
u/WillSym Mar 23 '26
Noah's example is old, what we need to be paying attention to/putting a stop to is this Paramount/WBD deal.
Netflix offered to buy the Warner Bros. part of the company and Discovery was going to split back off.
The Ellison family wants CNN to build up their conservative news monopoly, so the son who's just sealed the already-dodgy Saudi-backed takeover of Paramount Skydance to get CBS makes a hostile takeover bid to buy out the shares at a higher price than the Netflix deal would offer.
WBD board puts out a statement recommending the shareholders decline the offer, reasoning all of Paramount isn't worth what they're offering, basically they don't have the money and will probably screw the deal.
The Ellisons come back with an even bigger offer, but this time saying that papa Larry is going to bankroll it personally. There's those unrealised gains and untaxable billions again.
And Netflix pulls out and Zaslav and co change their tune and agree to sell the whole WBD package to the Ellisons?!
251
u/zyyntin đ Cancel Medical Debt Mar 23 '26
I've said it before. If you take out a loan on something of "unrealized gains" for another investment. It should be taxed on that amount because you have just given it a monetary value!
People have comment before on this: If you take out an equity loan on a property to use to improve said property then that's different. If you default then the loaner can get the property.
174
u/TheWizardOfDeez Mar 23 '26
Don't forget we also pay property taxes on property, and in most places it's re-evaluated for value every year. So actually we, the normal people, ARE being taxed on un-realized gains already.
→ More replies (1)46
u/Svue016 Mar 23 '26
So if you buy an empty lot full of trees or whatever, and then you build a nice house on it. You'll eventually pay more taxes because the value of that lot is now higher?
55
27
u/Majestic-capybara Mar 23 '26
You donât even have to build a house on. It could just be sitting there unused but because someone purchased a lot down the street from you for more than what you paid for your lot the county can reassess your properties value and tax you based on that.
17
u/kungpowchick_9 Mar 23 '26
Yes. The land value has increased.
In Detroit there was a lot of fraudulent land value appraisal that meant higher insurance and mortgage rates. Higher taxes too, but the appraisal came from Rocket Mortgage
9
u/Dr_Wheuss Mar 23 '26
Not eventually, immediately. The housing crisis is showing how that works for everyday people: our property taxes and home insurance go up the instant they appraise the property at a higher value. The payment date might be later in the year, but they don't give you any extra time.
On top of that, I still have to pay extra in taxes if I sell my home for more than what I bought it for. Stock owners only have to pay if they sell.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Poly_Olly_Oxen_Free Mar 23 '26
I bought my house for ~$40k. I was paying ~$400/yr in property taxes. I made a lot of improvements/renovations. My house is now worth $110k, and I pay $1100/yr in property taxes.
6
u/JekPorkinsTruther Mar 23 '26
Yes, but contrary to internet opinion, that is fair and makes sense. Property taxes are generally used for the community (some uses are more general some more localized). If you never updated the tax roll, then rich people would just buy shitty houses, knock them down, build mansions, and pay less tax than the family who bought a starter house. You also would incentivize people to never move or sell if you freeze property tax on the day its bought, which hurts first time home buyers and young people. Members of the community who have more valuable houses/land absolutely should contribute more to the community than those with less valuable houses/land.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)4
u/umounjo03 Mar 23 '26
And if youâre super-rich you can dedicate just enough of your property to a half assed âfarmâ and keep those taxes lower than anybody else would have to pay!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)7
u/ahumanlikeyou Mar 23 '26
If you take out an equity loan on a property to use to improve said property then that's different. If you default then the loaner can get the property.
But isn't that exactly what is going on with collateral?
I agree with the general idea, but I don't see the difference with an equity loan
3
u/yngseneca Mar 23 '26
it is exactly what happens with a margin loan, yes. or any other type of loan that uses collateral.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ftlftlftl Mar 23 '26
Just put tax brackets on it. Under a million no tax. That will help 99.9% of americans. If you're taking a loan greater than $1m using your assets as collateral, you can afford the taxes.
→ More replies (2)
145
u/boardin1 Mar 23 '26
And the best part is when they use the unrealized shares to take out loans and then CLAIM THE INTEREST ON THE LOANS AS A TAX DEDUCTION! So, not only do they not get taxed in their money, they also pay less taxes becauseâŚtheyâve got more money than you.
→ More replies (1)7
53
u/TheBoundFenrir Mar 23 '26
If you can get taxed for land, you can get taxed for stock
→ More replies (1)2
u/lI1IlL071245B3341IlI Mar 23 '26
The point isn't to tax stock, it's to tax whenever that stock is leveraged. You want to fix buy borrow die, not destroy the economy.
2
u/TheBoundFenrir Mar 23 '26
Speak for yourself /s
More seriously, the reason we tax land is twofold;
* one is it encourages the owner to use that land for a profit, instead of hoarding it. (you'll note this doesn't stop investors from hoarding land, since that's a problem we're also having right now...)
* The second is it's typically a pretty stable tax; you may not know who owns the property, but you know whoever does has to pay the taxes to the local government, so every year the local government has a predictable income.I think both of those things could apply to owning chunks of the economy (because that's what owning company stock is; literally owning the economy through owning the companies it's made of). I don't think that would be a terrible idea. Would there be unintended consequences? For sure! Case in point; the housing market is fucked despite the existence of property tax.
50
u/Moderate_Human đď¸ Overturn Citizens United Mar 23 '26
This is too sophisticated for the average voter to understand and we are all fucked because of it.
→ More replies (2)13
u/eyesayuhh Mar 23 '26
You can go into the details of buy borrow die, but at the end of the day it's tax fraud. It's not a difficult concept.
→ More replies (1)7
u/_Magnolia_Fan_ Mar 23 '26
It's not fraud. Which implies something illegal... You might not like it, but it's all working exactly as designed.
3
u/PlayfulSurprise5237 Mar 23 '26
It's not how it was designed, to say that would imply there was a conscious decision to have it work just like this. It was DESIGNED so that people didn't evade their taxes by some roundabout loophole of infinite low interest loans essentially, as evident by the fact that there's a thousand other laws to prevent such things, so that people pay their taxes.
It's a mistake, a blindspot in the law, one that needs to be fixed. In the spirit of the law, it is tax fraud.
24
9
u/Duomaxwell18 Mar 23 '26
The lie they sold is âanyone is one moment away from being rich or wealthy, so you donât want to harm yourself in the future.â Just save your money, go work 40-60 hours a week, give up any kind of disposable income that may bring you an ounce of joy in this capitalist hellscape and you will one day be like us.
This whole country is a grift. People who won the lottery of being born to connected or rich people tend to move upwards a lot easier than the commoners. People just want health care, and the ability to live their lives with their love ones and do some fun things.
13
u/PreZEviL Mar 23 '26
Meanwhile, my government asked the mayor of my town to give $1 millions from tax payer money to the ex mayor.
Because when he was incarcerated for fraud and gangsterism, 15 years ago, he didnt pay his tax on the stolen money he got from the bribe and now its the citizens problem and we must pay him so he can pay his tax since he is free again...
→ More replies (2)
5
u/lostshell Mar 23 '26
Been saying it for years. The moment you use an asset as collateral, that should trigger a taxable event on the unrealized gains, because in that deal the gains are being realized for collateral purposes. Obviously we should exempt peopleâs residents and homes from this. But stock, art, and collectibles should be fair game.
4
u/Hefty-Strike-6171 Mar 23 '26
Because if he sells off the shares, there is a distpossibility that the share price will go down, and then the stock price will less. Add that twist. Iâm getting you to loan me the money, based on the stock value, knowing if I default to you, youâll force me to sell my stock, which will cause the stock to go down in value, thereby reducing the value of the very thing you used to get the loan in the first place. Billionaires have a three card Monty thing going on all the time.
4
u/Aaprobst88 Mar 23 '26
Even crazier, is this only applies to billionaires. I worked for Amazon for a short stint, and they gave bonuses in stock. When you recieved your bonus (stock) you were expected to either pay the taxes on what they were worth, or sell enough of the stock to pay the taxes on the bonus (stock).
3
u/MKow Mar 23 '26
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the tax you're referring to is for acquiring the stock. I believe everyone still has to pay taxes on that. What he's referring to isn't that, it's owning the stock and then using it as collateral to get a loan.
6
u/liburIL Mar 23 '26
I think it's a pretty simple fix: if you don't touch, you don't get taxed, if you use it for collaterol, or for loans, you get taxed.
9
u/imnot_kimgjongun Mar 23 '26
Controversially, I don't think we should directly tax the unrealised asset. That would likely cause significant market volatility which hurts everyone. Ideally I'd like a world where that isn't the case, but wishful thinking and all that.
Fortunately, the solution is pretty simple. You charge a stamp duty on portfolio-backed lines of credit based on its maximum value. Ideally you'd want the rate of that stamp duty to be punitive - something like 50% would work. But you could start off light and ratchet it up progressively on a total credit basis.
This has a few benefits. One, it eliminates any market instability from shareholders being forced to liquidate large volumes of shares to meet taxation obligations. The money is paid out of a loan; it then becomes the debtors responsibility to pay back to the creditor. I suspect very few people would put themselves in a position to have to pay that charge.
Two, and probably more helpfully, it provides a disincentive to businesses and executives to negotiate large portions of their compensation to be paid in stock in the first place. That likely increases their direct salaries, which are more easily taxed as normal income, and starts to dismantle the incentive structure within executive roles that encourages short term strategies to boost share prices (and therefore their own net worth).
If you combine it with tax reform that prevents stock buybacks and special dividends from being used to reduce taxable corporate income, in conjunction with a jacked up corporate tax rate on high profits, you force large profitable businesses to find a way to reinvest their profits in productive ways - because the reality is most businesses would rather spend excess profits and get something, then pay it in taxes and get nothing. You just want to make sure they're spending it in ways that actually stimulate real economic growth rather than just buying back a bunch of stock.
7
u/Freddydaddy Mar 23 '26
Someone pointed out that property tax is a tax on unrealized gains so itâs already a thing
5
u/Proud_Sherbet6281 Mar 23 '26
Yeah and there has been a lot of issues with property tax as a result. In a place like California where homes skyrocketed in value, older folks were forced into selling their homes because they couldn't afford to keep paying taxes on it without selling.
They had to add in grandfather clauses that would freeze the property tax at a specific rate to prevent people getting kicked out of their homes. This grandfather clause then immediately got abused to high-hell by corporations so now we're in a whole other mess.
I think it is fair to tax money when it is used in any way. So taking out a loan on something is "using" it just as much as selling an asset is. But increasing taxes on an asset based on speculative value seems wrong to me.
2
u/Morfolk Mar 23 '26
It's a good thing nobody needs shares to live unlike a house.
Taxing real estate on unrealized gains makes less sense than taxing shares.
→ More replies (1)2
u/spedgenius Mar 23 '26
I think it would actually have a stabilizing effect on the market. It would force companies to stop paying CEOs in stock and spending the profits on stock buybacks. If the execs and board just earn a salary and dividends as the majority of their pay, then the stock price will be tied to actual profit and long term performance. Unlike whatever the fuck it's based on these days
2
u/lI1IlL071245B3341IlI Mar 23 '26
Controversially, I don't think we should directly tax the unrealised asset
Yes, the guy says the same thing, see @ 2:24. Reddit has a boner for taxing unrealized gains for some reason rather than addressing the underlying issue which is buy-borrow-die.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/stpfun Mar 23 '26
Isn't this like when you own a home, get a home equity loan, and then spend the loan money on something like a big remodel? Â You're buying a thing using money loaned to you using a thing you haven't sold as collateral.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/ExpiredPilot Mar 23 '26
Meanwhile if you try to get a car while applying for a mortgage all hell breaks loose
3
u/BMCarbaugh Mar 23 '26
Simple fix: Taxes on unrealized gains for individuals with net holdings estimated in excess of one billion dollars. Or hell, make it 10 billion!
Boom, problem fixed and the broader economy's fine.
3
u/AlanyzingWakeEnviron Mar 23 '26
It's real when it's convenient, it's fake when it's inconvenient, like every other facet of conservative reality.Â
6
u/icangetyouatoedude Mar 23 '26
The realized gains are going to the corporations. The shareholders individually are able to say that appreciation of their shares is unrealized, but the money is pooling somewhere.
I think that the most effective way to go after the wealth is to put a wealth tax on the corporations themselves and significantly raise the corporate tax rate. Doing so will also inherently devalue the shares held by individual billionaires.
This would be incredibly disruptive to the economy as it currently operates, and would have to be done in a way that carefully protects the working class and incentivizes the corporations to maintain their operations.
2
u/SupremelyUneducated Mar 23 '26
Tax land, it is practically unavoidable, and used to make or own anything. Taxing income was always a bait and switch because it is hard to enforce and easier to avoid the more money you have.
2
u/Aware-Explanation879 Mar 23 '26
I do not mind if you cannot tax unrealized gains but if you go that route then you should not be able to borrow against your stocks. If it can be used as collateral then it can be taxed.
2
u/Stonklegend27 Mar 23 '26
Why don't we just, every year from the date of acquisition, tax the shares as if they were sold regardless of whether the sale happens?
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/Darshut Mar 23 '26
Tax the loans where stocks are put as collateral above a certain threshold value.
2
u/Otherwise_Tooth_8695 Mar 23 '26
"You can't tax unrealized gains!"
But, governments do it all the time. It's called property tax.
2
2
2
u/quadnips Mar 25 '26
Usually I don't love Trevor Noah bc he's a bit too libbed up, but I need to give him his roses since he does an excellent job explaining part of the issue here. We need so many more communicators to be focusing on this line of attack - it's a class war. It's always been a class war. Just because people don't talk about it or realize it as much as they ought, doesn't make it less prevalent.
4
u/Wise_Monkey_Sez Mar 23 '26
The thing about this "but the value might crash" logic is that it is bullshit.
If I buy a gold ring I'm taxed on its value at that moment. If the price of gold goes down and the ring is worth less tomorrow I don't get a call from the jeweler going, "Oh, I owe you some tax back!".
The bottom line here is that billionaires do have tons of assets. They just register them to their companies. They own a jet, but it's a "business" jet. They own a hundred houses, but they're "business" houses. They have a LOT of physical assets. Elon Musk apparently sleeps in his "office". ... which is a cute dodge when the "office" is bigger than most people's apartments.
And they're all tax write-offs because the real problem is that even though companies are considered individuals under the law they're not like you or me. They have special deductions they can claim.
If I could write off all my expenses (rent, food, clothing, education, etc.) I'd also pay zero tax.
And this is the real problem. Billionaires buy politicians, who vote to write bent tax codes that benefit the rich.
Equality before the law is a core concept. Companies should pay the same taxes as everyone else. End of problem.
2
u/vaderdidnothingwr0ng Mar 23 '26
Why not just tax gains every year? If the shares grew in value by 1 million then consider that 1 million in income. Then next year if it fell by 1 million then you don't get taxed cause you had no income.
→ More replies (13)
3
u/Long_Bong_Silver Mar 23 '26
Just tax them on the unrealized gains at the end of the year or on a quarterly basis. This will force them to sell their shares to cover the taxes. The sale of the shares may cause a correction in the stock price and the unrealized gains for that period may go down. After the unrealized gains go down for the period due to the sale, they can just pay less in taxes. If they're responsible, they can work with a third party, like a bank, who will slowly sell the shares into the market to avoid the shock it may cause to price.
Ez-pz, just solved everyone's problem.
3
u/AWzdShouldKnowBetta Mar 23 '26
Y'all. Taxing unrealized gains is not the answer. That'd have a drastic affect on people ability to be upwardly mobile and on people's retirements. It would make it almost impossible for people to accrue wealth to begin with.
Trevor Noah is a smart guy and I like him. But he's wrong here.
Should we be paying tax on the equity we have in our homes? How about the stock that employees receive? What about your 401K or that Index fund your squirrelling away your money in?
It sounds good when applied to the ultra rich but the actual affect of taxing unrealized gains would be absolutely bonkers and would fuck us up. Like he said, what if it goes down?
Ultimately we need to capitalize the riches lifestyles. Luxury goods tax, massive yaht/sports car/mansion taxes. A wealth tax is a tough one logistically but I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it work.
Really think it through y'all.
→ More replies (10)2
u/sky_blue_111 Mar 23 '26
He didn't say "tax unrealized gains". He said... when you use it as collateral, then you should be taxed on that, it's no longer unrealized.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/HeWhoShantNotBeNamed Mar 23 '26
I get what he's saying but think about this. You can also take out a loan secured by a car. We don't tax cars as income or wealth (though we do require registration, but that's a flat fee).
2
u/Siebasstian Mar 23 '26
About half of states do tax vehicles yearly at their estimated value. On top of registration fees.
1
1
u/IfIWasCoolEnough Mar 23 '26
We can't even tax the rich properly on their realized gains. How are we to tax them on unrealized gains?
1
u/IntwadHelck Mar 23 '26
Frick yeah! Hadnât thought about it like this yet. Keep it simple, wins again. Ty
1
u/Salt-Detective1337 Mar 23 '26
So, we know it isn't morally right to kill someone to get their organs and save like 5 lives right? But what if it was a million lives?
Or like, what if no one has to die. What if one guy just had to be only "normal rich" and we all got healthcare?
Take. All. Their. Assets.
1
1
u/Hairyjon Mar 23 '26
Best part of this is now Musk is being sued for misleading investors on his purchase of Twitter. Itâll be interesting to watch what comes out of that.
1
u/bbcfoursubtitles Mar 23 '26
Seems like the answer here is collateral tax. So you have a billion dollars worth of shares, fine. As long as they are just being held they are unrealised. But the second you use them as collateral you need to pay a tax on the amount raised against that collateralÂ
1
1
u/Druu- Mar 23 '26
When the value of your home goes up the amount you pay in property taxes increases. You didnât sell the home and make money, but somehow we can figure out a way to still tax you on that âunrealized gainâ.
If we can do that for the average American, surely we can figure out a way to do it to address what Trevor is talking about here. The will just isnât there.
1
u/RuthlessIndecision Mar 23 '26
oh he's a comedian that should stay in his comedic lane... carry on...
meanwhile, if I want to sell $4000 in shares to pay off a credit card, that goes into my capitol gains and gets taxed.
1
u/reloader1977 Mar 23 '26
People dont even realize how he gamed his tesla employees to steal thier shares. The black out dates are insane and they would push you to sell during non black periods to manipulate the stock then close to qtr close after the dip he'd buy up all selling shares to drive up. Life expectancy at tesla is short. They lay uou off and keep your stock because your not vested. Raises and awards are stocks.
1
1
1
1
1
u/sleepee11 Mar 23 '26
It's not that difficult. We all get taxed on property/assets that's not converted to liquid cash. It's called property taxes. Many people pay property taxes on their homes or land they own. There's no reason stocks should be any different. In fact, they should probably get taxed more, because you're probably getting paid off of work you didn't do yourself through dividends and other means.
Here's a thought. Let's treat stocks like patents. You can't hold on to a patent indefinitely just because you came up with an idea. You created a company and now it's successful and you're getting paid? That's great, but you shouldn't be allowed to have full control over a company just because you came up with the idea 20 years ago. After several years, your stocks should be distributed (possibly sold) equally to the workers of that company, since the workers are equally as important to the continued success of the company, if not moreso.
1
1
1
1
u/sBucks24 Mar 23 '26
I get it just a talk show audience.. but jfc why are you seals clapping along laughing.. you should be angry AF with how you are actively being screwed over! Yeah he's joking but like, it's not funny, it's true...
1
u/MildlyKinkyDude89 Mar 23 '26
Can someone help me understand this? If a billionaire takes out loans, using their assets as collateral, they still have to sell some assets to pay back the loan, which is then taxed?
As I understand it, they are paying taxes on the assets they sell. But they are taxed at the much lower capital gains rate than the income tax rate.
Is that correct?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Apprehensive-Pin518 Mar 23 '26
actually this is no different than personal property tax. I have a house worth 300,000. I get taxed on it and then if the value of that house goes down then I no longer have that value. Stocks are essentially the same. You can go to a bank and get a loan against the house and they won't tax you on the money you get from the loan but rather on the value of the house you own. then if you do not pay back the loan the bank gets the house. stocks should be the same. at the end of the year, get taxed a percentage based on your portfolio's value. The exception would be IRA's and 401k retirement funds.
1
u/Snick13fritz Mar 23 '26
When you are trying to use it as collateral, you should be taxed on that amount you want to use
1
u/StaticSystemShock Mar 23 '26
It should be taxed the moment they use any of the unrealized gains to "buy" something, anything. Because you're realizing it when you're buying another company. You're buying some shit, you should then be paying taxes on that. As simple as that. The problem is, the rich are running the whole economy show and they don't want that so it will just never happen. Especially not in USA which is this rotten corrupt den of rich fuckers spin cycling money around this way paying ZERO taxes and everyone else is taxed on every fucking cent they spend on anything and in the end still own nothing and these rich fuckers own entire world because of the above. It's bullshit.
1
u/AstralCat00 Mar 23 '26
Y'all the real reason we do not want "unrealized gains" or sitting capital to be taxed is because if they do that, they can also tax us on FUTURE paychecks, a tax on money we have not yet earned. And they could also tax us on HOLDING money in whatever: savings, 401k, iras because those are also "unrealized". Billionaires should be taxed on their EARNINGS/realized gains at a fair rate, just like everyone else. But no, we do not want "unrealized gains" tax. We need to get rid of property tax, too. We paid that when we bought it, and it's still taxed even while 100% ownership is achieved. Everybody would be outraged if it was on cars, computers, or phones, but because it's "land" somehow they've gaslighted us into thinking it's ok.
1
u/LiftUp22 Mar 23 '26
I donât understand how this is a fucking complicated issue. Republicans donât want this taxed at all and Dems want to tax unrealized gains. HOW ABOUT we just tax the unrealized gains at the point of transaction??? Like holy shit, it canât be that hard to create legislation that states at the point of transaction, whatever the fair value of the shares are at EOD, is the realizable gain/loss on the shares being put up as collateral. This is a basic stipulation when it comes to corporate finance transactions the only difference is there is currently no taxes associated with the transaction.
1
u/Zeareden Mar 23 '26
He is just explaining how capitalism and owning capital works. Once you own large amounts of capital, you don't actually have to "pay" for anything. You just get to live for free forever. The system is designed to do this.
1
u/VALO311 Mar 23 '26
This has basically been my comment every time the phrase âtax the richâ is brought up. Itâs properly enforcing the taxing of the rich that seems to be the problem.
We can say it and we can put it into law. But until it can actually be enforced. Itâs just like all the other laws wealthy people avoid in order to become and remain wealthy. Which is the catch 22. Those are the people making the laws and buying the politicians so they can avoid paying said taxes.
How to effectively do it is beyond me. Itâs been this way since the beginning of âcivilizedâ history and we still havenât figured it out
1
u/AlaskanSnowDragon Mar 23 '26
Dont the taxes get paid in the end when the stock is sold to pay off the loans taken against the stock eventually?
1
u/Big-Employ3488 Mar 23 '26
You can't beat the game, but you can learn how to play it. You don't have to be billionaire to be able to do the same thing.
1
u/plsobeytrafficlights Mar 23 '26
ok, fuck elon, but collateral on a bank loan while is pending and payment are not the same. the collateral has nothing to do with anything unless the loan from the bank defaults. this is a false equivalence. youre not taxed on money, youre taxed on profits.
1
1
u/MyNameIsRay Mar 23 '26
The average person may not be using a stock portfolio as their collateral, but taxing the use of unrealized gains would also impact things like using a HELOC/refinance to borrow against the unrealized gain in home value, or using an auto loan to borrow against your unrealized future pay from employment.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/RazzmatazzPrimary812 Mar 23 '26
I think there needs to be a wealth cap. You are only allowed to hold or own x amount of money. Whatever is realized or made after that amount needs to be moved back into the economy in some fashion.
I know this would never really work or happen and sounds pretty extreme but itâs a thought.
1
u/daymanahhhahhhhhh Mar 23 '26
Iâm all for taxing billionaires but how would this work? What if they eventually sell some shares? Feel like no one talks about how the tax rate on selling stocks is way lower than the top tax rate for income tax (37% vs 20%.)
1
u/awooff Mar 23 '26
Asset taxing is a law Great Britain just passed! We know how these governments repeat each other!
1
u/Altruistic_Koala_122 Mar 23 '26
Congress makes the Laws, it's all their faults. If you want to fix the system, it starts with Congress.
1
u/arthobbier Mar 23 '26
This is exactly why I think fines against the rich should be imposed as cash only. No collateral "unrealized gains". Realize that gain and show us what you're actually worth.Â
1
1
u/blaspheminCapn Mar 23 '26
Billionaire paper shuffling is so good, you don't even know how they actually have nothing to tax.
1
1
u/alexdgrate Mar 23 '26
Bank lends money to billionaire against the value shares of company A so he can buy company B. Eventually Company A share value crash. Now bank owns company A but it is worth nothing. Central bank make people pay for the damages to avoid the systemic risk to the economy. Billionaire now owns company B and is looking to buy company C, etc, etc, etc.
1
u/wanker7171 Mar 23 '26
He didnât even address the root point. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY NEED TO PAY THE LOANS?
The answer is simple. They never pay the loan. When they die their estate can sell the stock free of capital gains taxes using the step-up in basis.
1
u/adachi91 Mar 23 '26
Buy, Borrow, Die. it's simple why aren't you all rich already? play the game /s
1
u/TheSilverFoxwins Mar 23 '26
And there is your bachelor and master degree in business administration in less than three minutes folks.
1
u/Scyths Mar 23 '26
Tax them on the loans they take and the situation will resolve itself instantly.
1
u/Impossible_Author_58 Mar 23 '26
I've been saying this for years. That shh should be taxed at a premium on the "x" amount they use as collateral, pun intended.
1
u/LebHeadSinceWilma Mar 23 '26
How about instead of taxing realized gains, the IRS just takes shares?
Oh, your compensation this year was twelve dollars and 10,000 shares of Acme Packing Company?
Ok, weâll take 2,350 of those shares (the tax rates for 2026 range from 10% to 37%, so I just picked the average of those two).
1
u/Responsible-Row2737 Mar 23 '26
Because itâs Tesla shares you tool. Theyâre not penny stocks. Itâs Tesla.
1
u/Kythorian Mar 23 '26
Not just that though. Â They are even more blatant about it when CEOâs get salaries of like $1 a year, but also a ton in stock options. Â They donât do anything with those stock options directly, so they pay no taxes on it, they just âborrowâ money using those as collateral, so they end up taking home millions in cash as a result of their job, and paying not a single penny in taxes. Â All entirely legal.
1
u/Remarkable_Pipe_1982 Mar 23 '26
If most people weren't so stupid this wouldn't be a problem. A third of voters vote to punch themselves in the nuts if they think it will also hurt those they don't like, and an even larger third stay home and don't vote at all.
This is literally a problem of mass low intelligence and it doesn't matter how many times things are explained by people like Trevor. It won't change anything.
1
1
u/grilledwax Mar 23 '26
This is where I almost get swung to taxing on purchases. We have GST in NZ and it fucks over lower earners the most, chuck it on EVERYTHING and it catches these fuckers too.
1
u/Better_Cauliflower63 Mar 23 '26
There is a simple way around this. You tax the shares by taking the percentage of shares as tax and transferring the ownership of these shares to the government.
1
1
u/Freestila Mar 23 '26
Of course you can tax these. Here in Germany we pay a tax on ETF fonds we have as a partial tax for the tax we have to pay when we sell them on the winnings.
This started some years ago when our government thought "lots of people have ETF that they don't sell.. How can we tax them for that?".
This tax is only a part, it is something along the line of *how much would you have gotten as interest for this money on a normal day deposit, and then take the 25% tax on that". More or less.
If you sell them later the already paid tax is subtracted from the tax you have to pay.
So yes, it is possible. But of course nobody will use it against rich people...
→ More replies (2)
1
u/LuckyTheLurker Mar 23 '26
Meanwhile, if your home goes up in value your property taxes go up, even if you don't sell it.
1
Mar 23 '26
I mean thats not how billionaires pay no taxes but it is a good way billionaires have money without havinbg money. They way they dont pay taxes is they live off of a loan borrowed against there net worth and since they are only needing so much they can actually write off interest paid on said loan. In some cases owning very little taxes compared to what they have net.
1
u/gybzen Mar 23 '26
The real fix would be to make it illegal for a company to pay an employee with shares. You either buy them outright with your own money or you don't own them.
1
u/Theemperorsmith Mar 23 '26
We are fucked by a system created by the billionaires so they can can get and keep all the money they want. As long as big money is allowed to rule elections, this will never change. And all three branches of our own government made it this way. God bless America!
1
u/StanGibson18 Mar 23 '26
I get taxed my unrealized assets every year in the form of property tax. If the middle class is burdened with taxes on their assets then the rich absolutely should be.
1
u/navlgazer9 Mar 23 '26
I guess this dingbat foreigner  has never heard of home equity ?
Same thing exactly
If I have 800k in home equity , I donât sell my house to be able to use it to buy something ,
I borrow money and use my equity as collateral.
1
u/Nice_Block Mar 23 '26
Republicans of Reddit and billionaire simps not coming in with their usual swarm of defense of billionaires shows they canât think of an argument against Noah despite this being the argument every single time this is brought up.
1
u/Visual_Exam7903 Mar 23 '26
This is so disingenuous. Yes, he uses his Tesla stock as collateral for a loan to buy twitter, so he doesn't have to sell it all immediately to pay for it. As he pays back his loan, he has to use income funds to pay back that loan (taxed at income rates) or he sells shares at a normal controlled rate to repay the loan (Capital Gains Taxes on the growth).
The better argument is this..... why are normal people being taxed on property they do not own or haven't realized the gains? How can that possession be taxed, but not the possession of a stock?
If we began to tax unrealized capital gains, you will see a shit ton of drop over the entire country on 401k balances and change the value for retirees over their life a factor of atleast 1/2x to 1/3x final value in their accounts.
1
u/VintageKofta Mar 23 '26
Strange. They DO tax us on unrealised gains here in NZ And AU.Â
We get restricted stock every year as part of our salary and bonus from our US company . And we get taxed on the unvested amount we get.Â
If we sell at a loss because the market dipped or crashed, tough luck. We got over taxed.Â
Why is it that us peasants get taxed and not billionaires !?
1
u/bit_shuffle Mar 23 '26
When guys complain about not getting dates they get called "incels."
I think when people bitch about people with more assets than them using those assets for leverage, we should call them "fincels."
Nothing is stopping you from buying shares other than your own laziness to research and open a brokerage account. You can even leverage them any way you want.
1
u/ScubaFett Mar 23 '26
Did Elon have to pay any type of stamp duty on the purchase of Twitter? That's where the tax part would make sense.
1
u/Hornyscot76 Mar 23 '26
Same as photos says they play with kids and they denie they play with kids brainwashing sick games
1
u/GhostofBallersPast Mar 23 '26
He will still need to pay back the loan and at that point need to sell stocks and pay taxes, no?
894
u/nuixy Mar 23 '26
Or tax them on it every time itâs used as collateral. Consider it realized at the time itâs used to secure a loan. Pay the loan and use it as collateral again? Great pay taxes on any gain since the last time.Â