3 ms·
I don’t think Paul forgot, it’s why he phrased it in terms of stock not dollars. If you start a company and hold on to ownership for 60+ years, you could be for
by rel2thr 6y ago
I don’t think Paul forgot, it’s why he phrased it in terms of stock not dollars. If you start a company and hold on to ownership for 60+ years, you could be forced to sell X% to cover the wealth tax over the years
- Miner49er 6y agoYes, but at the end you'll still have more real value in that stock then you had at the start, assuming your stock at least performs equal with the market.
- austhrow743 6y agoWhich is good and fine if all you want is real value. What you wont own any more is your company.
- theplague42 6y agoI don't think he forgot; he's being intentionally misleading. What about dividends? Starting another company? Working as a CEO or board member? The article has a terrible foundation because he's intentionally misleading the reader.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe board is unlikely to agree to give a CEO or board member enough stock to maintain control of the company. I don't even think this is an unintentional goal - most wealth tax proponents I've seen are explicitly trying to prevent situations like with Cargill or Walmart, where the founder and his descendants can control the company forever.
- hanniabu 6y agoI think the word you're looking for is vague. He's being intentionally vague, not misleading.