I think if they handled it in such a way that you borrow against it in any fashion, what you borrow is taxed. Kind of stupid it isn’t that way already, but here we are.
Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 day agoIt’s a pretty good loophole though. A stocks value is considered an unrealized gain when you receive it but don’t sell it. My company gives me stock, but I don’t sell it. If I had to pay taxes on that, I’d be fucked. Maybe they could create some kind of untaxed minimum based on some index. And possibly even brackets.
But of course there’s a reason they like it this way.
Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Except where I live you do actually have to pay taxes on stock you receive as a bonus, if you don’t have the cash on hand, you just liquidate part of the stocks.
ChristerMLB@piefed.social 1 day ago
Yep, this is one of the reasons we need a tax on wealth. If you’re wealthy enough you can also just borrow against your stocks at very low interest rates.
krashmo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Stocks are not a necessary piece of compensation for anyone. Besides, if you can borrow money from a bank using stocks as collateral then it is effectively a liquid asset that you absolutely should pay tax on. The simplest solution to that problem is simply to disallow stocks from being used as collateral.
Every loophole can be closed if we decide we want to. The ones that are still open were intentionally left open to benefit the rich.