3 ms·

If we were to interpret that literally, wouldn't that mean public company founders/owners would have to essentially give up 8% ownership per year? That sounds l

If we were to interpret that literally, wouldn't that mean public company founders/owners would have to essentially give up 8% ownership per year? That sounds like a great way to kill growing companies

wmf 5y ago
From the left perspective, de-concentrating ownership is good.
dane-pgp 5y ago
There could be an exemption for shares in companies that were founded less than N years ago (with the shares being taxed at the point of sale).
- trinovantes 5y ago
  How would you determine N? Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla were unprofitable for a really long time. Would they be as successful or even exist if their CEOs lost majority control on year N+7 and public investors demand pivots to immediate revenues?
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > How would you determine N? Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla were unprofitable for a really long time. For context, Amazon was incorporated in 1994, IPO'd in 1997, and made its first profit in 2001, when it had a market cap of $4 billion. Also, Bezos currently owns only 11.1% of Amazon's shares. So I think that N could be as low as 5 to 10 years; but one of the major goals of a wealth tax would be to prevent multi-generational accumulation of wealth, so even 30 years of tax exemption might be an acceptable privilege to grant to founders of successful businesses. > Would they be as successful or even exist if their CEOs lost majority control on year N+7 and public investors demand pivots to immediate revenues? If the concern is that the founders lose majority control and the new owners make worse decisions, then the government could hold the shares (to be sold at some later date) but allow the founders to keep the voting rights that those shares represent for as long as they work at the company.
vmception 5y ago
What do you think about an uptick rule? It would cause a small tax on investments when the buyer purchases above the last known price, only on the delta between prior known price and the purchase price. Could be the last price or could be over a moving average or other high-water mark. The US already has similar rules at the federal level in force, just hasn't been applied to tricky a tax. I get that people want to "tax billionaires" or have people pay an undefined and undefinable "fair share", and this wouldn't really tax people not trading aka the billionaires, but it acknowledges that the market - other people - cause billionaires to have so much notional wealth, which is light years ahead of the false dilemmas debates right now. This would reach a goal of redistributing wealth along the way up, as the state is not currently getting any tax revenue from things that are not sold, and many billionaires borrow against their assets which also mitigates any tax event. This would at least create tax events as the price of assets go up.

wmf 5y ago

From the left perspective, de-concentrating ownership is good.

dane-pgp 5y ago

There could be an exemption for shares in companies that were founded less than N years ago (with the shares being taxed at the point of sale).

trinovantes 5y ago
How would you determine N? Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla were unprofitable for a really long time. Would they be as successful or even exist if their CEOs lost majority control on year N+7 and public investors demand pivots to immediate revenues?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > How would you determine N? Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla were unprofitable for a really long time. For context, Amazon was incorporated in 1994, IPO'd in 1997, and made its first profit in 2001, when it had a market cap of $4 billion. Also, Bezos currently owns only 11.1% of Amazon's shares. So I think that N could be as low as 5 to 10 years; but one of the major goals of a wealth tax would be to prevent multi-generational accumulation of wealth, so even 30 years of tax exemption might be an acceptable privilege to grant to founders of successful businesses. > Would they be as successful or even exist if their CEOs lost majority control on year N+7 and public investors demand pivots to immediate revenues? If the concern is that the founders lose majority control and the new owners make worse decisions, then the government could hold the shares (to be sold at some later date) but allow the founders to keep the voting rights that those shares represent for as long as they work at the company.

vmception 5y ago

What do you think about an uptick rule? It would cause a small tax on investments when the buyer purchases above the last known price, only on the delta between prior known price and the purchase price. Could be the last price or could be over a moving average or other high-water mark. The US already has similar rules at the federal level in force, just hasn't been applied to tricky a tax. I get that people want to "tax billionaires" or have people pay an undefined and undefinable "fair share", and this wouldn't really tax people not trading aka the billionaires, but it acknowledges that the market - other people - cause billionaires to have so much notional wealth, which is light years ahead of the false dilemmas debates right now. This would reach a goal of redistributing wealth along the way up, as the state is not currently getting any tax revenue from things that are not sold, and many billionaires borrow against their assets which also mitigates any tax event. This would at least create tax events as the price of assets go up.