7 ms·

> If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. That's not how corporate owne

by bhupy 6y ago

> If your $10 billion dollar asset isn't returning you much more than 2% per year, it has a terrible ROI, and you need to divest. That's not how corporate ownership works. It's not about the ROI, it's about ownership in the company you founded / are running. If your goal is just ROI, then you will willingly divest from your own company, at which point your wealth is taxed as a capital gain.

learc83 6y ago
For most people they start a company to make money, so ultimately it's about the ROI. They think they'll make more by controlling the company than the alternative When we are talking mutli billionaires like Bezos who may be driven by more grandiose incentives like amassing power, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to effectively remove some of their control.
- bhupy 6y ago
  That's a pretty broad generalization, and you've basically taken what's in reality a spectrum, and characterized it by the two extremes. In reality, there are loads of people in between: founders of medium size businesses. The wealth tax is imposed on everyone in this spectrum. The capital gains tax is only imposed on those that amass the most amount of power.
  - learc83 6y ago
    Even the most aggressive wealth tax that is proposed is for a tax on wealth of over $50 million. So the founder of businesses valued up to around $100 million dollars would reasonably be able to maintain control without paying any wealth tax. So I'm perfectly OK saying you can't single-handedly control a business larger than $100 million without paying the rest of society extra compensation for maintaining that kind of power. Seems perfectly fair to me. Power is finite in the same way land is. If controlling a company is valuable to you in some other way other than just amassing power, say you are really behind the mission of going to space, you can reorganize into a non profit.

by bhupy 6y ago

learc83 6y ago

For most people they start a company to make money, so ultimately it's about the ROI. They think they'll make more by controlling the company than the alternative When we are talking mutli billionaires like Bezos who may be driven by more grandiose incentives like amassing power, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to effectively remove some of their control.

bhupy 6y ago
That's a pretty broad generalization, and you've basically taken what's in reality a spectrum, and characterized it by the two extremes. In reality, there are loads of people in between: founders of medium size businesses. The wealth tax is imposed on everyone in this spectrum. The capital gains tax is only imposed on those that amass the most amount of power.
- learc83 6y ago
  Even the most aggressive wealth tax that is proposed is for a tax on wealth of over $50 million. So the founder of businesses valued up to around $100 million dollars would reasonably be able to maintain control without paying any wealth tax. So I'm perfectly OK saying you can't single-handedly control a business larger than $100 million without paying the rest of society extra compensation for maintaining that kind of power. Seems perfectly fair to me. Power is finite in the same way land is. If controlling a company is valuable to you in some other way other than just amassing power, say you are really behind the mission of going to space, you can reorganize into a non profit.