4 ms·

I agree that it's a lot, but I disagree that it's harsh. That leaves him with $747M for the year.

omginternets 9y ago
>That leaves him with $747M for the year. I'm not sure what this is supposed to suggest/demonstrate. Surely you agree that taxing (say) 20% of 60k is different from taxing 20% of 1B. Namely: the former has a much more significant impact on quality-of-life then the latter... Figuratively speaking, what can you do with 747M that you can't do with 300M? (Before the pedants inevitably pick this rhetorical question appart: the point is that it's not prima facie unreasonable to tax extreme wealth significantly more heavily than the median income) Edit: the first of the pedants have arrived... sigh...
- quicksilver 9y ago
  Have a much greater chance at purchasing a controlling stake in a US sports franchise (likely still need to go in with some partners).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- bsbechtel 9y ago
  >>Figuratively speaking, what can you do with 747M that you can't do with 300M? Invest in starting brain-computer interface and rocket companies
  - maratd 9y ago
    And I believe a boring company, hyperloop, other efforts in AI, etc. A more substantive question is how that money would be spent by the relevant parties. I would argue that Musk would spend it better than the federal government and as such, he should have it.
    - eastWestMath 9y ago
      Then you'd end up having a fairly stupid argument about the semantics of "better".
      - maratd 9y ago
        Far better to have that conversation than to sit and argue fairness, equity, and justice. The alternatives are dumber.
      - bmelton 9y ago
        Downvoted because, well, you didn't make much of a point really. The idea that the argument is stupid should be presented with an argument as to why. For what it's worth, we have existing law in most (American) municipalities that support the argument that if Musk can be shown to be a better steward here, then he might have a claim to make, i.e., adverse possession, which is basically a claim against the state that says "I can tend to this property better than you, and my doing so provides social and financial utility to the state, to my would-be neighbors, and to myself as well. To be sure, it's an argument in abstracts, but there's precedent enough that it clearly isn't an entirely meritless (or stupid) argument to be made.
    - lastyearman 9y ago
      How could that be? Suppose Musk controlled all the resources in the world. What motivation would he have to allocate them fairly?
      - seeekr 9y ago
        What motivation does he have right now to do all the things he does? So he got about $100M from the sale of Paypal a while back. He could have easily coasted on that and led an easy life and never have to work a day any more. Why didn't he? (I'm not glorifying him here by saying that he would allocate all the resources in the world fairly, neither that he should or should not be given that power, in our little thought experiment here.)
        9y ago
  - eastWestMath 9y ago
    Isn't this is case in point that you're wrong?

>That leaves him with $747M for the year. I'm not sure what this is supposed to suggest/demonstrate. Surely you agree that taxing (say) 20% of 60k is different from taxing 20% of 1B. Namely: the former has a much more significant impact on quality-of-life then the latter... Figuratively speaking, what can you do with 747M that you can't do with 300M? (Before the pedants inevitably pick this rhetorical question appart: the point is that it's not prima facie unreasonable to tax extreme wealth significantly more heavily than the median income) Edit: the first of the pedants have arrived... sigh...

quicksilver 9y ago
Have a much greater chance at purchasing a controlling stake in a US sports franchise (likely still need to go in with some partners).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bsbechtel 9y ago
>>Figuratively speaking, what can you do with 747M that you can't do with 300M? Invest in starting brain-computer interface and rocket companies
- maratd 9y ago
  And I believe a boring company, hyperloop, other efforts in AI, etc. A more substantive question is how that money would be spent by the relevant parties. I would argue that Musk would spend it better than the federal government and as such, he should have it.
  - eastWestMath 9y ago
    Then you'd end up having a fairly stupid argument about the semantics of "better".
    - maratd 9y ago
      Far better to have that conversation than to sit and argue fairness, equity, and justice. The alternatives are dumber.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      Downvoted because, well, you didn't make much of a point really. The idea that the argument is stupid should be presented with an argument as to why. For what it's worth, we have existing law in most (American) municipalities that support the argument that if Musk can be shown to be a better steward here, then he might have a claim to make, i.e., adverse possession, which is basically a claim against the state that says "I can tend to this property better than you, and my doing so provides social and financial utility to the state, to my would-be neighbors, and to myself as well. To be sure, it's an argument in abstracts, but there's precedent enough that it clearly isn't an entirely meritless (or stupid) argument to be made.
  - lastyearman 9y ago
    How could that be? Suppose Musk controlled all the resources in the world. What motivation would he have to allocate them fairly?
    - seeekr 9y ago
      What motivation does he have right now to do all the things he does? So he got about $100M from the sale of Paypal a while back. He could have easily coasted on that and led an easy life and never have to work a day any more. Why didn't he? (I'm not glorifying him here by saying that he would allocate all the resources in the world fairly, neither that he should or should not be given that power, in our little thought experiment here.)
      - 9y ago
- eastWestMath 9y ago
  Isn't this is case in point that you're wrong?