NYU Professor: Billionaire tax is the worst idea ever

My feeling is that billionaires don't need non-billionaires to defend them, they have enough access to lawmakers and such to take care of themselves.

 

Lol. Bless Tinman. So worried about his heroes the billionaires. At least the NYU prof will get paid one way or another for his piece.

 

Tinman publicizing that the only things he knows about taxes is that he doesn't understand them

as it relates to taxes, Tinman needs to heed Abe Lincoln's sage words.

Best to remain silent and be thought of as a fool
than to speak to remove all doubt​

 

but in the scenario you just outlined, the billionaires just paid tax.

I don't think billionaires should be taxed on the value of their stock until it is realized. The reason being that selling stock in a company can affect its share price and hurt main street investors. So you have to be careful to providing incentives for billionaires to sell shares.

but you are wrong that they would sell just to avoid the tax next year - because ultimately they would lose control of their company if they sold all their shares to avoid the tax.

 

from the professor's article

this proposal has the effect of

• micro-targeting the top 1.7% of the people for tax hike, meaning that
  • it will not be increasing the tax burden on the lower 98.3% of the people

this tax proposal is effectively to bring back the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that was eliminated by Trump's tax cut in 2017.

AMT was effectively a wealth tax, but the professor had never written an article to criticize this wealth tax. why this article now?



​

fwiw,

the professor earned his PhD in Finance from UCLA, has been a professor of Finance at NYU for over a decade.
He has been recognized as an expert in valuation ( of a company, of a stock, of a project, of a product, etc.)​

 

Billionaire tax IS a dumb idea. But this argument is also dumb. 90% of the stock market is owned by the top 10%. So while lots of people would lose money, the vast majority would lose very little. And this assumes that the tax would cause billionaires to liquidate a lot of their holdings, which isn't really the case - because ultimately owning stocks is more profitable and more liquid than owning real estate.

 

The first graph shows how much stocks have outpaced wage growth. The second shows that the bottom 90% of US citizens have 15% of total stocks. Which is different than income growth. Which has shown to slow in the last graph, while the largest "99.999th percentile" have skyrocketed.

I am not sure what to do about this I am also not sure how long this is sustainable.

I don't have time to watch the video right now. Does the guy professor recommend anything?

 

Sure - but its not nearly as profitable, and you don't have near the liquidity that you get in the stock market. That's the reason most billionaires have most of their money in the stock market instead of real estate. Nothing changes with a billionaire's tax in that regard.

 

Dude seriously? I am getting my MBA right now (had to take a year off because of being a single parent). Do you want me to copy/paste studies from databases I have access to? I figured simple google searches showing income inequality was more appropriate for a message board? So you're going to act as if you are superior because of a CNBC Youtube video? Good f'ing grief.

For once do you have anything at all substantive to say? Or, just insults? I am guess insults and weird non sequiturs. You are absolutely one of the weirdest personalities I have come across on the internet just about ever.