5 ms·

People own their own property and they can decide what to do with it. That’s what property means. They can leave a company to whoever they want, just like they

People own their own property and they can decide what to do with it. That’s what property means. They can leave a company to whoever they want, just like they can leave Aunt Gertrude’s silverware. Companies are property and people can make extremely foolish decisions with them if they want because they are their property. I can buy an original Hiroshige print and use it to light a fire if I want. By the same token you can leave your billion dollar company to your feckless coke snorting, whore frequenting grandson if you want. That’s what owning something means.

jedberg 5y ago
Sure but at some point when the company gets to be that big and employ that many people, there is a public interest to see it continue to exist. Also as a public company they have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to keep it running well. There's some pretty good arguments to be made that when a major shareholder of a public company dies, their shares should be distributed by the board and not their will.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Taking (a part of) someone’s property is a tax. Deciding that you will do that to companies above a certain size is a tax on getting big, a discouragement to do so. Security of property rights is a pretty compelling public interest. Keeping a particular company going is not on remotely on the same order. The fiduciary duty is a red herring. If you want to destroy your own property you can. If you make poor decisions about your own property that’s on you. Public companies are actively traded. If you don’t like management sell the shares. There are an uncountable number of ways that management can mess up. Why mess with property rights for one particular small class of ways companies can be messed up? If there is an argument for taking someone’s property upon their death and give it to other people because they are co-owners of a company please make it.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    You talk about a red herring and then say this: > Deciding that you will do that to companies above a certain size is a tax on getting big, a discouragement to do so. That's the biggest lie of all. High taxes has never discouraged someone from starting or growing a company. No one ever says, "gee I have a great idea but I don't want to pay a lot of tax on my windfall earnings so I just won't bother". But if you're so worried about discouraging growth, then fine. Make it apply to the death of any shareholder -- upon death the board gets to say where the voting rights of the shares go. Let the owner will the value of the shares to whomever they want, but let the board decide where the voting power goes.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      > That's the biggest lie of all. High taxes has never discouraged someone from starting or growing a company. No one ever says, "gee I have a great idea but I don't want to pay a lot of tax on my windfall earnings so I just won't bother". This is not consistent with my model of human behavior. Some indicative evidence pointing to people caring about tax rates would be the skill bias of migration from the EU to the US, the gap in GDP per capita between Switzerland and its neighbors or how US natives are much less likely to go into STEM fields than immigrants. People do actually respond to incentives. > But if you're so worried about discouraging growth, then fine. Make it apply to the death of any shareholder -- upon death the board gets to say where the voting rights of the shares go. Let the owner will the value of the shares to whomever they want, but let the board decide where the voting power goes. This has an obvious failure mode. The people on the board deciding on who gets to vote for the board is just institutionalizing corruption. Once the board gets to decide who is on the board without outside input the process is complete.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Your model is wrong or incomplete, then. Corporate taxes were at 40+% during the 1950s, which was one of the most prosperous periods in American history. [0] During that same period, the top marginal bracket for individuals exceeded 80%. [1] Nobody says “oh, I’m just not going to bother making a lot of money” just because they face a high tax rate. —— [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... [1]: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highes...
  - sputr 5y ago
    "Security of property rights is a pretty compelling public interes." Is it really? You seem to be saying that public property is sacred. If that is true its the only thing ever. Everything else has "within reason" attached to it, why not property rights.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      I’m not saying public property is sacred. I’m not saying private property is sacred either. But security of private property is a big deal and shouldn’t be messed with for reasons that are too incoherent to be called an argument. Far better to increase the corporate tax rate than to just take people’s stuff. We can adjust the tax rate up and down. The government messing with property rights is a lot more durable. You can destroy a lot of trust very quickly and it takes a long time to build it up again.
    - JonChesterfield 5y ago
      Property rights are the foundation of our society. If your stuff can be summarily taken off you without consequence (branded 'haircut', 'nationalise','theft' etc) then you are strongly disincentivised to accumulate stuff. Capitalism folds and those who want better quality of life go elsewhere.
- JackFr 5y ago
  You’re basically saying that if a company is successful it should be taken from its owners without compensation. And you claim (with no evidence) that there are good arguments for this.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    I never said taking anything from anyone without compensation. I said when someone dies the board of the company should decide where the shares go. I didn't say anything about their estate not getting compensated. Would it be clearer if I said that the board should get to decide who can buy the shares, whether that be the estate (who would pay itself for them) or someone else?
411111111111111 5y ago
Then why do they get bailed out by the government? What you're saying is am ideal which doesn't reflect reality
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Most companies aren’t GM, Chrysler or CitiBank. Most companies Weill never get bailed out.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Except they already did in the form of massive relief carelessly slushed around.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Property rights are a useful construction. That they are useful should be separated from the fact that they are a construction.
- kbelder 5y ago
  Do you feel that way about all human rights?

jedberg 5y ago

Sure but at some point when the company gets to be that big and employ that many people, there is a public interest to see it continue to exist. Also as a public company they have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to keep it running well. There's some pretty good arguments to be made that when a major shareholder of a public company dies, their shares should be distributed by the board and not their will.

barry-cotter 5y ago
Taking (a part of) someone’s property is a tax. Deciding that you will do that to companies above a certain size is a tax on getting big, a discouragement to do so. Security of property rights is a pretty compelling public interest. Keeping a particular company going is not on remotely on the same order. The fiduciary duty is a red herring. If you want to destroy your own property you can. If you make poor decisions about your own property that’s on you. Public companies are actively traded. If you don’t like management sell the shares. There are an uncountable number of ways that management can mess up. Why mess with property rights for one particular small class of ways companies can be messed up? If there is an argument for taking someone’s property upon their death and give it to other people because they are co-owners of a company please make it.
- jedberg 5y ago
  You talk about a red herring and then say this: > Deciding that you will do that to companies above a certain size is a tax on getting big, a discouragement to do so. That's the biggest lie of all. High taxes has never discouraged someone from starting or growing a company. No one ever says, "gee I have a great idea but I don't want to pay a lot of tax on my windfall earnings so I just won't bother". But if you're so worried about discouraging growth, then fine. Make it apply to the death of any shareholder -- upon death the board gets to say where the voting rights of the shares go. Let the owner will the value of the shares to whomever they want, but let the board decide where the voting power goes.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    > That's the biggest lie of all. High taxes has never discouraged someone from starting or growing a company. No one ever says, "gee I have a great idea but I don't want to pay a lot of tax on my windfall earnings so I just won't bother". This is not consistent with my model of human behavior. Some indicative evidence pointing to people caring about tax rates would be the skill bias of migration from the EU to the US, the gap in GDP per capita between Switzerland and its neighbors or how US natives are much less likely to go into STEM fields than immigrants. People do actually respond to incentives. > But if you're so worried about discouraging growth, then fine. Make it apply to the death of any shareholder -- upon death the board gets to say where the voting rights of the shares go. Let the owner will the value of the shares to whomever they want, but let the board decide where the voting power goes. This has an obvious failure mode. The people on the board deciding on who gets to vote for the board is just institutionalizing corruption. Once the board gets to decide who is on the board without outside input the process is complete.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Your model is wrong or incomplete, then. Corporate taxes were at 40+% during the 1950s, which was one of the most prosperous periods in American history. [0] During that same period, the top marginal bracket for individuals exceeded 80%. [1] Nobody says “oh, I’m just not going to bother making a lot of money” just because they face a high tax rate. —— [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St... [1]: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highes...
- sputr 5y ago
  "Security of property rights is a pretty compelling public interes." Is it really? You seem to be saying that public property is sacred. If that is true its the only thing ever. Everything else has "within reason" attached to it, why not property rights.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    I’m not saying public property is sacred. I’m not saying private property is sacred either. But security of private property is a big deal and shouldn’t be messed with for reasons that are too incoherent to be called an argument. Far better to increase the corporate tax rate than to just take people’s stuff. We can adjust the tax rate up and down. The government messing with property rights is a lot more durable. You can destroy a lot of trust very quickly and it takes a long time to build it up again.
  - JonChesterfield 5y ago
    Property rights are the foundation of our society. If your stuff can be summarily taken off you without consequence (branded 'haircut', 'nationalise','theft' etc) then you are strongly disincentivised to accumulate stuff. Capitalism folds and those who want better quality of life go elsewhere.
JackFr 5y ago
You’re basically saying that if a company is successful it should be taken from its owners without compensation. And you claim (with no evidence) that there are good arguments for this.
- jedberg 5y ago
  I never said taking anything from anyone without compensation. I said when someone dies the board of the company should decide where the shares go. I didn't say anything about their estate not getting compensated. Would it be clearer if I said that the board should get to decide who can buy the shares, whether that be the estate (who would pay itself for them) or someone else?

411111111111111 5y ago

Then why do they get bailed out by the government? What you're saying is am ideal which doesn't reflect reality

barry-cotter 5y ago
Most companies aren’t GM, Chrysler or CitiBank. Most companies Weill never get bailed out.
- burnished 5y ago
  Except they already did in the form of massive relief carelessly slushed around.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

Property rights are a useful construction. That they are useful should be separated from the fact that they are a construction.

kbelder 5y ago
Do you feel that way about all human rights?