3 ms·

If Zuckerberg didn’t exist, Facebook as it stands would not exist. Everyone he hired agreed to be compensated with the terms he decreed. Every person he gave eq

If Zuckerberg didn’t exist, Facebook as it stands would not exist. Everyone he hired agreed to be compensated with the terms he decreed. Every person he gave equity, every person whose salary he directly determined, they all agreed to the terms of their employment. No one was forced to work for him or Facebook. Why should he be forced to relinquish control or equity in his company if literally everyone he worked with agreed to the terms of their employment at his company? Who is the person that should decide “oh, at this point he has enough, he doesn’t deserve more”? You? Some other corrupt government individual? I just don’t understand why you think that random people should be able to determine the fate of a fortune that someone amassed when they had nothing to do with it. He pays his taxes. Facebook pays their taxes as required by law. Why do you think that’s not enough? I understand closing loopholes, but you apparently think we should go further? You think that we should set a hard cap on wealth? How would that not create adverse economic incentives?

khazhou 9y ago
Yes, taxes should effectively impose a cap on wealth, reaching 99% tax rate at some point (certainly, when you're in the billions). If a founder decides to move on because he can no longer earn a billion... well, we as a society will just have to live with that tragic loss of leadership, and hope that somebody will be brave enough to take over. Also, I'm not confused about people agreeing to their compensation terms. That's true and not the issue, any more than royalty was "ok" because for many hundreds of years, people were ok with it. There's a funnel that leads to one human being having over 75-million times more than another. We tolerate this today. And here in the tech world, we make apologies for it (even while many still manage to scoff at Wall St)
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  The difference is that people voluntarily agreed to the terms of compensation with Facebook.. the same can’t be said of people who deal with royalty existing in their society. People may have been ok with it, but they didn’t have a choice. Your whole argument seems to come from the viewpoint that wealth is zero-sum.. when it so obviously isn’t.

khazhou 9y ago

Yes, taxes should effectively impose a cap on wealth, reaching 99% tax rate at some point (certainly, when you're in the billions). If a founder decides to move on because he can no longer earn a billion... well, we as a society will just have to live with that tragic loss of leadership, and hope that somebody will be brave enough to take over. Also, I'm not confused about people agreeing to their compensation terms. That's true and not the issue, any more than royalty was "ok" because for many hundreds of years, people were ok with it. There's a funnel that leads to one human being having over 75-million times more than another. We tolerate this today. And here in the tech world, we make apologies for it (even while many still manage to scoff at Wall St)

thatswrong0 9y ago
The difference is that people voluntarily agreed to the terms of compensation with Facebook.. the same can’t be said of people who deal with royalty existing in their society. People may have been ok with it, but they didn’t have a choice. Your whole argument seems to come from the viewpoint that wealth is zero-sum.. when it so obviously isn’t.