In a recent interview, they asked Mark Cuban about a "Wealth Tax". He's fucking terrified.

[WarGamer]

And he started fighting the very idea of a wealth tax.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/557805-mark-cuban-propublica-not-being-honest-about-taxes-on-wealthy

Cuban said that while he’s open to paying more federal income tax... he's opposed to a wealth tax

****Translation: Rich people seldom have large salaries, unless they're a pro athlete or Hollywood actor.


He continued. Imagine beads of sweat forming on his brow as he spoke:

“Do you tax net worth or do you only tax income?” Cuban asked. “Because net worth is fleeting. If you go back to the internet stock days, there are a lot of people who were billionaires who aren’t even close anymore and working regular jobs.”

Translation: You can't really tax Billionaires because someday their wealth may be higher or lower or even gone.

Speaking of home appreciation, Cuban said:

“The only way you’re going to benefit from that financially is if you sell it,” Cuban said. “Should you have to sell your house in order to pay your taxes?”

***Ummm... yes. That's the whole idea.

And this line of logic is classic:

“I don’t keep cash in the bank. It’s invested. If you tax me on my net worth, I’m going to have to sell a lot — not just a little, but a lot,” he said.

“So, it’s one thing to talk about it from a political side, it’s another thing to do it because it makes good copy, and it’s another thing to do the work to find out truly what is fair and what’s not fair. Fair is good. I’ve got no problem with fair, but you have to look at the realities,” said Cuban, who was not named in the ProPublica article.




My $.02

Corporate Taxation is a tax on the consumer. Corporations are owned by millions of PEOPLE including teachers, firemen and cops. A Corporation will ALWAYS adjust their business model to remain profitable. Who pays for Corporate Taxes? Shareholders, employees and consumers.

Income tax will ALWAYS be limited because the wealthy are able to control their wealth to take little if ANY salary. Elon Musk is worth BILLIONS but takes NO salary from Tesla. He lives on stock income which he pays long term Capital Gains taxes on.

The money we NEED to tax is tied up into investments by the filthy rich, protected by the tax law and Capital Gains taxation.

Wealth Tax now.

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Gosh, maybe someone will start a GoFundMe for cuban so he

won’t have to sell anything should a wealth tax actually occur. Pay your fucking share buttwipe.

[WarGamer]

2. +1000

"But, But, But... all of my STUFF is really important and you can't touch it. It's MINE, all MINE!!"

"You'll damage the economy if you touch my STUFF."

[GulfCoast66]

3. Not sure how you tax wealth and I'm not sure if would pass constitutional muster.

Because the 16th amendment is pretty straight forward in that it gives the federal government the power to tax income. Nothing else.

But there is a better way.

Raise income tax on the high income brackets to 50% or more.

But that is not enough. Tax capital gains over a certain amount at the same rate. That is where the rich get their money, selling investments.

And no more stock options for executives. That’s a scam. Or tax them at high income rates.

Cuban is correct about one thing. Until you monetize an asset it is not income or even wealth you can tax.

The wife and I are fortunate enough to have a generous defined pension. But most of our wealth is in stocks and investments. I don’t have assets to pay tax on the amount it has increased over the years. When I start monetizing those investments I will pay tax on them. And their value now is not static and not guaranteed to remain the same or go higher.

[WarGamer]

5. Then we will never see wealth inequality get better.

If the wealthy can just stash money away to hide it from the tax man...

And I'm speaking someone who's been a high income earner for more than 25 years... I Have a very healthy retirement coming soon...

But I'm not buying yachts... but the people who benefited from MY name on a patent application ARE buying yachts.

If you bought a stock last March when it cratered and sold tomorrow... you doubled or tripled your money and most would pay 15% tax on that.

Theoretically... one could have a net worth of $100 Billion and pay ZERO in taxes if you live off of a bag of cash in the closet and your home and cars are "Property of the Business"...

How is Zuckerbergs Hawaii compound classified legally? A home or a FaceBook Management Retreat??

[GulfCoast66]

8. I'm just stating the reality. I don't think any Supreme Court would allow this.

The 16th amendment is pretty clear.

And the wealthy don’t just stash cash. They are stupid if the do. They buy assets. And get richer by selling them. That when you hit them with the tax bill.

You correctly say now they pay a small 15%. But raise that to 50% for transaction over an amount picked and those assets get taxed.

None of this is new. We’ve done it before so we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Especially when not constitutional. We just need to go back the tax laws of the 60s and the problem is solved.

[WarGamer]

10. You're probably right.

Cathie Wood, mega stock picker and founder of ARK Funds recently said... she expects her flagship fund ARKK to TRIPLE in value over the next 5 years.

So when I say "stash" I mean dropping $100 Million into ARKK and seeing it increase by $200,000,000 TAX FREE until someone sells it.

And then they'll pay Billionaire games like buying a yacht that's a tax write-off because you plan on using it as a charter yacht or cashing out stock the same year you lose somewhere else.

[spooky3]

17. Here's an opinion that lays out the constitutionality arguments:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-30/elizabeth-warren-s-wealth-tax-is-probably-constitutional

The author, a Harvard law professor, disagrees with you that at least Warren's wealth tax is "not constitutional."

Paying wealth taxes is nothing new. We all pay property taxes on our houses. Some of us pay taxes on our cars. Some states tax stocks ("intangibles" ) . While some asset classes might be hard to value, others clearly are not. So, while there may or may not be an issue with respect to imposition by the federal vs state & local government, there clearly is precedent for taxing wealth.

As for the concerns that some have about how badly this might hurt many Americans, none of the wealth tax proposals I have heard people talk about would impose taxes on people in middle or upper middle class ranges. Warren's, for example, would have been imposed only on the wealthiest 75000 households.

[GulfCoast66]

22. The taxes you mentioned are state taxes.

I will remain very skeptical that the federal government could collect property taxes or wealth taxes.

It seems totally Quixote like to base an entire policy on the hope that courts might allow it. Especially when we have tackled this problem before. Just bring back tax laws from the 60’s and much of this resolves itself.

[speak easy]

34. "Why a Federal Wealth Tax is Constitutional", Roosevelt Institute, 2/11/2021

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/why-a-federal-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/

I doubt that a federal wealth tax could make it through the current Supreme Court, but the issue is not cut and dried.

[cstanleytech]

36. They can rewrite the tax laws to count interest and other monies earned from stocks over a

certain dollar amount.
That way the ultra wealthy cannot evade paying taxes.

[Hoyt]

4. Don't disagree with wealth tax. But while say Amazon didn't pay any corporate tax,

while expanding, everyone who sold a share of Amazon stock at a profit did. Increase Capital Gains Tax and they’ll pay even more.

[WarGamer]

6. Yes!

Selling a stock for a profit while driving your golf cart should NEVER be taxed less than the hard working plumber of welder who makes that much money over an entire year instead of a single stock trade.

[qazplm135]

7. if someone has a billion dollars in stocks and never cashes it in

ok, fine, don't tax it. But the moment they sell then yeah tax it at the highest rate.

[WarGamer]

9. Then you're allowing the stock market to be a "Swiss Bank Account"

A place for money to grow and lay on the beach and enjoy a massage at ZERO percent tax rate and appreciate... doubling every 5-7 years.

[GulfCoast66]

11. But it's not available to them when invested.

Once they monetize those assets you tax them. At a much higher rate than 15%!

If Cuban sells his basketball team he will make hundred of millions if not more. Right now he would only pay 15% on those profits. That needs to be 50% or so.

Some might consider the wife and I wealthy, although not rich. We’ve invested 15-20 of our income for over 30 years. But until I monetize those investments I have actually made no profits. Right now it is just potential profit.

We’ve been cash poor our entire lives!

[WarGamer]

13. It's a lot to think about!

But there are philosophies that state when you stash money, you're keeping it OUT of the economy, out of the marketplace.

Benefiting no one.

[GulfCoast66]

15. But no one is stashing money.

They are investing in stocks or bonds. Or other assets. Which helps the economy grow. That where our investments are. In our 20’s, 30’s and 40’s almost 100% stocks. And it paid off. Now approaching retirement much is in bonds. But that provides capital for businesses and municipalities. And is safer than stocks although the potential returns are smaller.

Sitting on a bunch of cash is not smart. Inflation will kill you. No billionaire has billions in a savings account.

You’re correct, it’s complicated.

[qazplm135]

20. doesn't benefit them either

sooner or later they will use it.

[DET]

26. No, It's Not

Investing in the stock market is not ‘stashing money’. The stock market is a gamble. Not everyone is willing to take the risk, but those who do should not be penalized for risking their own money. It is not my responsibility to ‘benefit someone’ by keeping my money in ‘the marketplace’, whatever that means. A lot of relatively small investors would be caught up in the confiscatory fantasies of some on the left.

[qazplm135]

18. fine

more to tax when they do withdraw it.

[cstanleytech]

37. Growing their stock ownership is fine its when they take any monies out of that including

dividends and any other monies they might take out in any form is when it needs to be taxed as its essentially income at that point.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

12. Here's an idea that would terrify most people...

... in this country: A 100% inheritance tax.

It would be so disturbing to the vast majority of people who want the best possible outcomes for their own offspring, that it's rooted in complete fantasy.

As a thought exercise, however, wouldn't that be more fair among the people in this country who falsely proclaim that this country is based on individual merit and hard work?

This country has very deep roots in mythical thinking, as far as I'm concerned.

[grantcart]

23. George McGovern proposed that and it was a major factor in losing 49 states.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

25. I'm not surprised.

It's in the realm of the entirely hypothetical as far as I'm concerned, given the nature of many people.

[DET]

28. That's So Simplistic

‘Given the nature of many people’. What does that mean? Many people work hard and sacrifice specifically so that they can pass on a modest inheritance to their children or other loved ones. Some of those loved ones may be physically or mentally impaired and may truly need that help. I don’t consider that selfish.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

30. I would hope that the impaired would receive assistance.

I was simply taking the idea of "personal responsibility", so often promoted by Republicans and Libertarians, to a logical extreme. Don't take it personally. My point is that they are inherently dishonest about it.

[DET]

42. Wish In One Hand...

I would hope that the impaired would receive assistance, too. But it’s usually not enough for a quality life, especially (just speculating) in the red states. And I don’t take your comments personally. Somehow, however, you’re conflating the idea of personal responsibility with inheritance taxes. And of course, Republicans are dishonest about everything; it’s what they do.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

45. I don't think I'm conflating at all.

If someone truly "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps", they'd not accept any inheritance at all upon reaching adulthood.

I received an inheritance from my mother upon her death, which wasn't much but it wasn't zero, but I also don't go around and lie that I'm a "self-made man".

It likewise blew my mind when President Obama tried to explain "you didn't build that" in regard to the infrastructure enjoyed by all of us, when he tried to break through their thick skulls about that topic. Much of the selfishness in this country is regularly rationalized that it was entirely "earned" by individuals.

There's blindness in my family because of a very rare genetic condition. My two oldest siblings are blind, and I'm thankfully only blind in one eye from it.

The brother used to attend meetings of a national organization for the blind to seek ideas for him to remain entirely self-supporting, without relying on family to keep him afloat. (He never received any government assistance until he retired and qualified for Social Security from his years of working, btw.) It turned out to be a very pro-Republican organization, but he didn't know that for several months. It only slowly dawned on him over time. So he endured months of several blind guest speakers who owned businesses (with them as the boss, of course), bragging about how they never treated their condition as a disability, and how everyone else could overcome it LIKE THEM if they only tried. In every single case, my brother talked to them privately after their talks and learned that their parents had bought the businesses for them! He said they were usually reluctant to tell him that part, and then they'd mention it quickly as if that wasn't a very significant aspect of their stories.

[brooklynite]

14. Why would he be "terrified" of a tax proposal that will never be implemented?

[JHB]

19. Because to even start talking about one involves people thining about tax policy...

...in ways that stand to wind up with him paying more, even if it isn't this particular proposal.

[grantcart]

24. Cuban has advocated increasing income tax rates on the rich for years.

[WarGamer]

31. The rich don't EARN regular income...

Unless you're talking about LeBron James, Liam Neeson or Patrick Mahomes.

[Baked Potato]

16. Interesting discussion, thanks. NT

[grantcart]

21. Translation: what a complete misrepresentation of Cuban's position

Cuban has called paying taxes a privilege and a patriotic act.

He supports raising income tax rates and increasing enforcement on super rich who cheat on taxes.He makes an argument that taxing assets isn't as effective as taxing income.
Personally I disagree and think that Warren's 2% tax on assets is brilliant and would also increase inheritance tax on the super rich but I still respect Cuban who has been straight up about raising the taxes and characterizing him as someone who lives in fear of higher taxes is b s. I suggest you Google his statements on raising taxes over the last 3 years and delete the OP which distorts Cuban's position on the issue of tax increases.

[WarGamer]

32. The rich manipulate their "income"

Cuban is in favor of raising income taxes because most Billionaires don't EARN a regular income.

They live off of 15% taxed Capital Gains.

[zaj]

27. Tell that to home "owners" who pay annual taxes on an house owned by the bank.

[monkeyman1]

29. try this - you never own a home ,just rent it while your alive ! think about it it !

[Brainfodder]

33. If you sat on a billion dollars worth of stock....

You is stupid AF and I got no sympathy available, sounds like BS feels like BS, it's probably BS.


Yes I know it should be You are.... 8p

But a lot of things SHOULD be different.

[Kablooie]

35. They need to be taxed on whatever they use.

They have to use some of their wealth and by spending it should make it income.
If they buy a 20 million dollar yact that should be treated as income.
If they get a loan based on their stock wealth that should also be treated as income.

[Progressive Jones]

38. Put A Tax, Or Fee, Or Whatever You Want To Call It On Market Transactions. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Hoarding disease.

It's like a bunch of addicts running the country for the sole purpose of feeding their addictions, and willing to destroy our whole society in the process.

[betsuni]

40. He's not "terrified."

[tenderfoot]

41. LOL

eom

[GoodRaisin]

43. Well, now he knows how a lot of us feel "fucking terrified" when Republicans try to

take away health care. Except he can sell some things and pay the wealth tax and still have plenty left. Not so for someone who goes bankrupt over a big hospital bill without health insurance.

[uponit7771]

44. Hen we need to treat stock appropriations like regular income

[Cicada]

46. Tax on unsold assets could be secured by a lien on the assets

Where ultimate sales proceeds , or death, would pay the unpaid tax.

That way Mark Cuban would not have to sell anything. IRS just gets a $50 million dollar ownership interest in the Dallas Mavericks, say. Only when Cuban transfers ownership of the team would he pay the IRS. And if that $50 million was 3% of the worth of the team the IRS would get 3% of annual profits.