|>>|| No. 14167
The question posed by Musk is a bit of a ruse.
You don't have to pay tax on unrealised capital gains, such as the increase in value of shares that you hold. You do have to pay tax when those gains are realised, e.g. selling those shares.
Musk doesn't take a salary from Tesla, but his compensation package includes stock options - he can choose to buy a certain number of shares at a predetermined price, regardless of the value of those shares at the time.
Musk has options on 22.8 million shares at a price of $6.28, which was the market price of Tesla shares when that option was agreed in 2012. Tesla shares are now worth about $1000, so by exercising his options he will realise a taxable capital gain of over $20bn. It's slightly worse than that because options are treated as earned income rather than a capital gain, meaning he'll pay slightly more than 54% tax on that amount. Those options expire next year.
The problem for Musk is that he doesn't actually have any money. I know that sounds daft because he's a billionaire, but that's all wrapped up in his shares rather than being cash in the bank. To exercise those options he'll need to find some cash to pay the tax, so he has two choices - borrow against the value of his shares, or sell some shares.
Borrowing is an attractive option because it avoids tax, but Musk quite reasonably believes that Tesla shares are massively over-valued and continuing to borrow against them would store up problems for later. If the share price drops dramatically, the lenders could call in their debts and spark a vicious cycle of selling. Selling allows Musk to cash out at a high price, but doing so would spook the market - the CEO selling off a huge chunk of their shares doesn't reek of confidence.
The question he posed on Twitter was meant to reframe these complicated issues into one of altruism, suggesting that he might sell some shares just so that he could pay tax out of the goodness of his heart. It was a ruse to soften the blow of selling his shares, which evidently hasn't worked; Tesla shares fell by just under 12% yesterday.
To address a broader question of "should rich people pay more tax?", my answer would be "yes, but not in the way you might expect". Shares are literally a share of the ownership of a company, so I'm not wildly enthusiastic about taxing unrealised capital gains. It's tantamount to a tax on improving a business and would lead to all manner of perverse incentives and damaging side-effects. Implemented badly, it would amount to a creeping nationalisation of everything and I desperately don't want to be living in a communist regime run by the shower of pricks we have in Westminster.
What I would like to see is much higher rates of inheritance tax and a tightening of loopholes that allow wealthy people to protect their assets in supposedly "charitable" trusts. I don't want to discourage people from starting businesses or growing them, I don't particularly care if companies become massive because they're just excellent at what they do, but I do want to discourage the perpetuation of intergenerational inequalities and the creation of a new aristocracy. Let people get rich, let people retain control of the businesses they built, but don't let them pass that on through the generations.
I'd also like to see a proper carbon tax, a "council super-tax" on high value property and a cleaning up of the corrupt processes that grant so many government contracts to the likes of Serco and BAE, but that's another matter really.