Please, use Google Translator.
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...mi-ero-dimenticato-fossi-ancora-vivo/6392513/
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...mi-ero-dimenticato-fossi-ancora-vivo/6392513/
-
Welcome to B4X forum!
B4X is a set of simple and powerful cross platform RAD tools:
- B4A (free) - Android development
- B4J (free) - Desktop and Server development
- B4i - iOS development
- B4R (free) - Arduino, ESP8266 and ESP32 development
Elon Musk
- Thread starter LucaMs
- Start date
- Similar Threads Similar Threads
I find it all pretty funny. Musk is clearly joking about, he's known for having a dark sense of humour. Twitter isn't a courtroom, it's okay to joke around. He's frequently said federal tax rates should be higher on more wealthy people, including himself, but the states keep refusing to increase taxes, so it's really not Musks fault he doesn't pay more, if Sanders wants the wealthy to pay more tax he needs to focus he efforts on his own backyard, the Senate.
On one side, yes it's stupid to suggest taxing people on "paper net worth" locked up in company shares and options, as this isn't cash, you can't pay taxes with shares, and to get the cash to pay the tax you have to sell shares which devalues the company, loses money for other share holders and reduces your ownership level of your own company. the other argument, which I do agree with, is the Senate need to do something to close the loophole that allows Musk to live a tax free personal life by borrowing money against his company shares, I believe that as it's seen as a loan, then it's not "income", but if you don't pay the loan back, or put it off indefinitely, then what's the difference?
On one side, yes it's stupid to suggest taxing people on "paper net worth" locked up in company shares and options, as this isn't cash, you can't pay taxes with shares, and to get the cash to pay the tax you have to sell shares which devalues the company, loses money for other share holders and reduces your ownership level of your own company. the other argument, which I do agree with, is the Senate need to do something to close the loophole that allows Musk to live a tax free personal life by borrowing money against his company shares, I believe that as it's seen as a loan, then it's not "income", but if you don't pay the loan back, or put it off indefinitely, then what's the difference?
I think you should pay tax on what you "earn", not what you "have". If my house goes up in value, should I have to hand over my life savings to cover the taxes? If I sell the house and keep the money, then yes I think I should have to pay tax on that, but I shouldn't have to pay tax on un-realised gains, for just living in the house. Similar with owning companies, you shouldn't have to pay tax just because your shares value in a company goes up, yes, pay tax if you sell the shares for cash, but not just for "owning" shares.
"il fondatore di Tesla, considerato l'uomo più ricco del mondo con un patrimonio stimato di oltre 300 miliardi di dollari"
"the founder of Tesla, considered the richest man in the world with an estimated wealth of over $ 300 billion"
"Musk aveva dichiarato che è meglio tagliare la spesa pubblica"
"Musk said it was better to cut public spending"
If you have 10 apartments, even if you haven't rented them and therefore you don't earn, you can sell one to help the poorest in your country (and the whole world).
Maybe they should look at their military budget.
Or if they really want to help people, then figure out how they spend more per person on healthcare than the UK but still don't have a national health service. It's not Elons fault 500,000 US families file for bankruptcy each year due to healthcare costs.
And for anyone saying SpaceX only exists due to government subsidies, those are called contracts, not subsidies, and SpaceX won them due to providing the best quote which saved Nasa billions of dollars compared to companies like Boeing, which receive more money from Nasa for doing much less.
Tesla? Yes they borrowed $465 million to stay afloat, but the they paid it back ten years early, with interest. Other car companies, who also borrowed money, such as Ford, which borrowed $6 billion in 2009 and still hasn't finished paying it back.
You could, but that's called philanthropy, not taxes. If the government forced you to sell your possessions to pay taxes based on the value of those possessions, that would be called aggressive socialism. I understood that the US was a capitalistic society.
You are partly correct. If what you earn is directly related to what you have then we are both right but if they are not related then you must pay taxes for only what you earn. In Greece we have a tax that is called "unified tax of real estate properties owners" and whether you earn something from this property or not you have to pay it. Is this correct? The answer is that I do not know at all. I don't like paying for "rent" in a house that I own and honestly I cannot find a reason why this is necessary for any other reason than paying for the lent money of the memorandum. On the other hand if this money is used for the common good I believe that 'yes' I must put my hand in the pocket.
The "government" would have to tax your excessive wealth (and, in my example, if you couldn't pay, you would sell one of your many apartments).
"aggressive socialism"? No, social solidarity.
OGNI forma di governo ha pregi e difetti, quello che è sbagliato e la mentalità generale della gente, ed iniziare da chi ci governa
Si pensa al profitto piuttosto che al bene comune, si vede il prossimo come un nemico piuttosto che come un compagno
da questo nascono le "storture" come una spesa militare fuori misura, sanita al collasso, tasse sempre in aumento senza un ritorno sociale ma solo per aumentare gli stipendi della classe politica
EVERY form of government has strengths and weaknesses, what is wrong and the general mentality of the people, and start with those who govern us
You think of profit rather than the common good, you see your neighbor as an enemy rather than a companion
this gives rise to "distortions" such as oversized military spending, collapsing healthcare, ever increasing taxes without a social return but only to increase the salaries of the political class
Si pensa al profitto piuttosto che al bene comune, si vede il prossimo come un nemico piuttosto che come un compagno
da questo nascono le "storture" come una spesa militare fuori misura, sanita al collasso, tasse sempre in aumento senza un ritorno sociale ma solo per aumentare gli stipendi della classe politica
EVERY form of government has strengths and weaknesses, what is wrong and the general mentality of the people, and start with those who govern us
You think of profit rather than the common good, you see your neighbor as an enemy rather than a companion
this gives rise to "distortions" such as oversized military spending, collapsing healthcare, ever increasing taxes without a social return but only to increase the salaries of the political class
Last edited:
Same here in America; we have what is called a "property tax", a tax on the total value of the property.
cc: @andymc
Would you be entitled to a rebate on the improvements you've paid for over the years?
Mmmmm define / quantify "excessive wealth"
- remember the Super Tax in Britain (and other places) which was about 99% of each unit of currency "earned" [or something like that]
Is that once off or continuous - and - is there a tax when you die (death tax on one's estate) or sell the place (capital gains)