this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
1119 points (99.1% liked)

Political Memes

11878 readers
2216 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

“You can’t tax valuation”

Fine, the government gets 40% of your share options.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 31 points 16 hours ago

“You can’t tax valuation”

Yes you can. Capitalism just doesn't want you.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 12 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

We tax valuation all the time! Property has a valuation and we levy taxes on how much it's worth.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Just like Income tax. When they vest.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

avoiding double taxing

Who cares? Even double-taxing the billionaires is still the moderate compromise position, compared to the guillotine.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Maybe congress gets voting shares...essentially making "the American people" a part-owner of the company. All companies.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

That makes sense if you have a balanced government budget or a surplus. But if you are running a deficit, you want cash.