3 ms·

They could sell some of the stock to pay for that the same way their employees do when their stock grants mature couldn't they?

• imgabe 9y ago
  So you're forced to slowly give up more and more of your company? What if you're trying to keep a certain percentage to maintain control?
  • s17n 9y ago
    You can't. The whole point of a wealth tax is to prevent people/families from staying wealthy forever.
    • vixen99 9y ago
      The acquisition of wealth is not a zero sum game so why would you want people/families to get poorer ('stop them from staying wealthy forever'). How about getting people to climb up rather than forcing some down? Your idea of the 'point of a wealth tax' is a curious one. I am not aware anyone has suggested this aside from failed communist regimes where remarkably, some families at the apex who make/made the rules continue/continued to live rather well.
      • s17n 9y ago
        The current conversation about a wealth tax was jumpstarted by Thomas Piketty, who argues that the natural tendency of a capitalist economy is to make the rich get richer and the poor to get poorer (relative to each other - in absolute terms everybody should be getting richer). Basically the point of the wealth tax is to provide a counterweight to that tendency.
  • keithnz 9y ago
    Again, depends on a wealth tax, but if its the same as the tax you'd pay if you had that wealth sitting in the bank, and its worth billions but you never get a return, then very very slowly you'd lose tiny fractions of your company. Yes. But that would be a very odd situation