3 ms·

> you own 51% of your company but over time you're forced to become a minority shareholder just in order to pay the tax, or you owned 100% of it and are require

> you own 51% of your company but over time you're forced to become a minority shareholder just in order to pay the tax, or you owned 100% of it and are required to take on external investment over time just to stay in business Doesn't this assume the owner receives no other income? I assume owners either receive a salary from the company, or are paid a dividend with which they could use to pay the monetary-valued tax. Or especially in the case of 100% owned company, the owner pays themselves a "bonus" equal to the tax. The company now is worth less, reduced by the amount of that bonus, so the owner's wealth has decrease and the tax has been paid.

bhupy 6y ago
> Doesn't this assume the owner receives no other income? I assume owners either receive a salary from the company, or are paid a dividend with which they could use to pay the monetary-valued tax. Not always. To use the extremely adversarial example, Bezos' annual salary is (famously) $82,000, and Amazon pays no dividends because our tax code incentivizes re-investing surplus into R&D rather than enriching shareholders. The wealth tax, as a result, adds the incentive to increase shareholder dividends and/or inflate executive compensation just for them to be able to maintain ownership in their own companies.