4 ms·

> This is a totally legitimate, efficient, and reasonable method of taxation. No it's not. It's a totally arbitrary proposal aimed at a small portion of the po

> This is a totally legitimate, efficient, and reasonable method of taxation. No it's not. It's a totally arbitrary proposal aimed at a small portion of the population. Why does it target billionaires? Why not all shareholders? Why does having the foresight to invest in quality businesses mean you should be taxed so highly when it pays off? Are they going to pay back 60% of losses to those billionaires who were holding shares that have gone down? > will remain extremely wealthy after the tax is levied But may loose substantial control of the businesses they're invested in. Musk would need to liquidate over half his Tesla shares.

_ph_ 6y ago
Exactly. This law could wipe out the company Tesla. With all jobs attached.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  I am following the financials of Tesla closely, and while I am a huge supporter of Tesla, I know how much the company keeps a delicate balance with financials. Yes, currently the stock price of Tesla is overvalued, but right now, they have the opportunity of raising a lot more cash, when the stocks enter the S&P 500, by issuing more stocks. However, with a stock that volatile, this needs to be done with care. Forcing Musk to sell off a substantial part of his stock could disrupt the stock value significantly and of course means, that Musk influence in the company would be significantly decreased. The control could end up with "investors" and financing organisations, which have ruined more than one company already.
cryptica 6y ago
>> But may loose substantial control of the businesses they're invested in. Musk would need to liquidate over half his Tesla shares. How is that a bad thing? That would decentralize control of these companies. That alone would be a good thing.
- babesh 6y ago
  No it wouldn’t. Why would I prefer you controlling that company versus someone who grew it to its present size?
  - cryptica 6y ago
    With lower net worths, billionaires would have less political power and wouldn't be able to influence politicians to create terrible laws and regulations like we have today which allow these billionaires to accumulate even more wealth and power and exclude competition. That's the problem which most voters care about now. Nobody actually cares about what happens to the CEOs of these megacorps. Personally I don't care if they all get thrown in jail.
    - babesh 6y ago
      You are biased. Not all billionaires exclude competition. Being a CEO doesn’t mean that you should be thrown in jail. You also assume that the average person or group of average persons controlling a company would be better. There isn’t any reason to assume that. History says that end result won’t be better. For instance, someone or some group whose reason is blurred with anger and venom will do worse with such power. Instead of creating value, they will destroy it. It is better to focus on creating fair conditions for competition and basic standards than dictating results of competition.
      - cryptica 6y ago
        I also disagree with this. I see recurring failure and shuffling of economic power as essential to a functioning economy and democracy. This is not just my opinion either; Nassim Taleb wrote about this idea called 'Antifragility' which suggests that failure at the company and individual level plays an essential role in avoiding systemic failure (like the too-big-to-fail events of 2008 and 2020).
        babesh 6y ago
        There is a reshuffling. It’s called death. Just have a reasonable inheritance tax. Artificial failure is nonsensical. It incentivizes failure. You spoke above with venom and hate instead of reason. That is the worse person to trust with power.

_ph_ 6y ago

Exactly. This law could wipe out the company Tesla. With all jobs attached.

_ph_ 6y ago
I am following the financials of Tesla closely, and while I am a huge supporter of Tesla, I know how much the company keeps a delicate balance with financials. Yes, currently the stock price of Tesla is overvalued, but right now, they have the opportunity of raising a lot more cash, when the stocks enter the S&P 500, by issuing more stocks. However, with a stock that volatile, this needs to be done with care. Forcing Musk to sell off a substantial part of his stock could disrupt the stock value significantly and of course means, that Musk influence in the company would be significantly decreased. The control could end up with "investors" and financing organisations, which have ruined more than one company already.

cryptica 6y ago

>> But may loose substantial control of the businesses they're invested in. Musk would need to liquidate over half his Tesla shares. How is that a bad thing? That would decentralize control of these companies. That alone would be a good thing.

babesh 6y ago
No it wouldn’t. Why would I prefer you controlling that company versus someone who grew it to its present size?
- cryptica 6y ago
  With lower net worths, billionaires would have less political power and wouldn't be able to influence politicians to create terrible laws and regulations like we have today which allow these billionaires to accumulate even more wealth and power and exclude competition. That's the problem which most voters care about now. Nobody actually cares about what happens to the CEOs of these megacorps. Personally I don't care if they all get thrown in jail.
  - babesh 6y ago
    You are biased. Not all billionaires exclude competition. Being a CEO doesn’t mean that you should be thrown in jail. You also assume that the average person or group of average persons controlling a company would be better. There isn’t any reason to assume that. History says that end result won’t be better. For instance, someone or some group whose reason is blurred with anger and venom will do worse with such power. Instead of creating value, they will destroy it. It is better to focus on creating fair conditions for competition and basic standards than dictating results of competition.
    - cryptica 6y ago
      I also disagree with this. I see recurring failure and shuffling of economic power as essential to a functioning economy and democracy. This is not just my opinion either; Nassim Taleb wrote about this idea called 'Antifragility' which suggests that failure at the company and individual level plays an essential role in avoiding systemic failure (like the too-big-to-fail events of 2008 and 2020).
      - babesh 6y ago
        There is a reshuffling. It’s called death. Just have a reasonable inheritance tax. Artificial failure is nonsensical. It incentivizes failure. You spoke above with venom and hate instead of reason. That is the worse person to trust with power.