3 ms·
You're proposing that a) Selling $50 billion worth of stock in a company, b) Government takes ownership of Facebook, or some combination thereof of the two acti
by NhanH 10y ago
You're proposing that a) Selling $50 billion worth of stock in a company, b) Government takes ownership of Facebook, or some combination thereof of the two actions.
Yes, it is novel to do that.
- morgante 10y agoI didn't suggest that the government should own Facebook over the long term. It should simply impose a tax on the estate, which would require that stock be liquidated to meet that obligation. There's already a 40% inheritance tax. How do you think it works in the status quo?
- NhanH 10y agoThe difference is in the number. 40% means that I can realistically leverage my own share of the stock to get money and pay the tax. 100% means that I walk away and the government can figure out what to deal with the ownership.
- morgante 10y agoI don't know why you think it would be so hard for the government to deal with the ownership. There are plenty of people who would be interested in buying Facebook stock. Plenty of estates have to be liquidated to settle debts and taxes today. It's hardly unprecedented.
- NhanH 10y agoNo it isn't precedented. Ownership of a company is a lot different than real estates or other physical wealth. It would take years to sell off $50 billion of stocks without crashing the company. Even if they are patience and manage to do that, alot of people, myself included, would have trouble with the government being in de-facto control of the company. If you dismissed either of the two reasons above, I guess I don't see a point in continuing the discussion.
- morgante 10y agoUh, do you honestly think that estates never include equity holdings? I agree. It's not worth continuing this discussion if you believe that it takes 10 years to sell off $50 billion of stocks.