4 ms·

Imagine an America with Steep Billionaire Taxes. No Amazon, Pixar, SpaceX, Tesla

2 points by memish 5y ago

Festro 5y ago
Strange way to look at it on the whole. Article suggests that a tax on the ultra-wealthy would impact the motivation of those individuals to be who they are. It doesn't seem to follow that someone like Steve Jobs is solely motivated by money, nor that a tax on the highest level of earnings would actually impact their motivation in a meaningful manner. The article tries to convince the reader that we wouldn't have certain companies with such a tax. But that's pure speculation. It also seeks to define success purely by profit and company value. The problem needs to be looked at another way. Companies can have relatively unbound earning potential as long as they keep their revenue cycling back into the economy. There's no problem with big, great, companies. There is a problem with companies siphoning cash to private individuals and then being stored in tax-evading systems that keep the money out of the economy or in self-sustaining investment loops. We can't all have the same success as the wealthiest people in society, if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. It's always going to be true that comparatively, there will be a few people at the top. The point is to rein in the gap between top and bottom. That's not a punishment for the people at the top. They can still do and afford everything they wish to do, and projects like SpaceX can still be possible. We need to reframe our discussion on personal wealth and hoarding. It's totally compatible to do with the idea of big companies and big ideas still remaining possible.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. Do you say that because such a system would provide no financial incentive for people to work hard (or at all)? What if we didn't need humans to work at all, and they could follow their passions instead?
  - sharemywin 5y ago
    There will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Unique pieces of art, beach front property, I'm sure less desirable things as well . what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > There will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Well, to a first approximation, you just have to come up with a market value for each of those resources and then tax anyone who has more than the average total wealth. People would be free to decide which assets they sell to pay the tax. Things do get complicated when you take into account depreciation of assets, but as long as the amount of depreciation is less than the amount of new value created every year (by the robots?) then you don't have to worry about taxing the people whose assets haven't depreciated as much. > what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions. I don't think this hypothetical world requires that addictive drugs and violence becomes legal. I suppose someone might enjoy destroying their own property, but any asset destroyed that way could be assigned a nominal value that is the same as it was before destruction, so that the owner wouldn't be rewarded for their self-vandalism.
retrac 5y ago
Some of these examples, particularly SpaceX, are actually a pretty good place to make the case against the rule-by-billionaires. Individual agency and freedom of action is great when one starts out. We wouldn't have reusable rockets without that freedom of enterprise early on. But I think it starts to have drawbacks at scale, as things pass from development into being business as usual with critical infrastructure. Like, what happens if Elon Musk goes insane? Seriously. The future of human space flight in America basically hinges on SpaceX. The American economy increasingly hinges on technology launched by SpaceX satellites. Particularly in the case of SpaceX, it's a privately held with a majority controlling stake. The Ukrainian state is now relying on Starlink. But nothing much stops him from simply liquidating it all tomorrow because he's decided space guns are a better method of launch. (Of course, if he actually did that I suspect we'd see parts of the company nationalized, to be honest. Which I think naturally raises the question of whether such an important project of such scale should be subject to entirely private whims.)
sharemywin 5y ago
founders are hugely important to the success of the companies they found. where would Microsoft be if Bill gates stopped running it. or if Steve jobs stopped running apple.
- sharemywin 5y ago
  And it's a good thing to all these rich people that hung out with Epstein have come to justice.
- sharemywin 5y ago
  I remember Bill Gates saying a 99% tax is excessive. and I'm like I totally agree why waste your time for a measly $1B.
  - memish 5y ago
    That's one way to look at it. Another is to compare Bill's effectiveness with that money vs the government. There's no contest. Bill is insanely better at capital allocation and society is better off that he manages it.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      You make it sound like no one would be able to create operating systems if there had been no Microsoft, whereas I think many people here (and the DoJ) would say that Bill Gates became a billionaire at least in part by illegally preventing other (better) companies from becoming successful. A wise man once said "Every billionaire is a policy failure"[0], and you have to remember that if you allow Gates to hoard his wealth and spend it on ethically dubious things[1][2] then you also have to allow every other billionaire and millionaire to do the same, many of whom are providing even less value to society. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-adviser-dan-riffle-every-billionaire-policy-failure-billionaires-philanthropy-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-adviser-dan-riffle-every... [1] https://www.grunge.com/400020/the-shady-truth-about-the-bill-gates-foundation/ https://www.grunge.com/400020/the-shady-truth-about-the-bill... [2] https://www.workers.org/2021/07/58034/ https://www.workers.org/2021/07/58034/
winkeltripel 5y ago
This article is ignoring any upside to a hypothetical situation, without defining the parameters. If we had a better federal social safety net from all that tax revenue, more people would choose to become entrepreneurs, which might result in 10 new film studios, 5 rocketry companies, and hundreds of unique retail businesses instead.

2 points by memish 5y ago

Strange way to look at it on the whole. Article suggests that a tax on the ultra-wealthy would impact the motivation of those individuals to be who they are. It doesn't seem to follow that someone like Steve Jobs is solely motivated by money, nor that a tax on the highest level of earnings would actually impact their motivation in a meaningful manner. The article tries to convince the reader that we wouldn't have certain companies with such a tax. But that's pure speculation. It also seeks to define success purely by profit and company value. The problem needs to be looked at another way. Companies can have relatively unbound earning potential as long as they keep their revenue cycling back into the economy. There's no problem with big, great, companies. There is a problem with companies siphoning cash to private individuals and then being stored in tax-evading systems that keep the money out of the economy or in self-sustaining investment loops. We can't all have the same success as the wealthiest people in society, if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. It's always going to be true that comparatively, there will be a few people at the top. The point is to rein in the gap between top and bottom. That's not a punishment for the people at the top. They can still do and afford everything they wish to do, and projects like SpaceX can still be possible. We need to reframe our discussion on personal wealth and hoarding. It's totally compatible to do with the idea of big companies and big ideas still remaining possible.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> if we did and we all had equal wealth, we wouldn't call that success. Do you say that because such a system would provide no financial incentive for people to work hard (or at all)? What if we didn't need humans to work at all, and they could follow their passions instead?
- sharemywin 5y ago
  There will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Unique pieces of art, beach front property, I'm sure less desirable things as well . what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > There will always be limited resources so how do you distribute those? Well, to a first approximation, you just have to come up with a market value for each of those resources and then tax anyone who has more than the average total wealth. People would be free to decide which assets they sell to pay the tax. Things do get complicated when you take into account depreciation of assets, but as long as the amount of depreciation is less than the amount of new value created every year (by the robots?) then you don't have to worry about taxing the people whose assets haven't depreciated as much. > what if your passion is destructive behavior? drugs, violence other addictions. I don't think this hypothetical world requires that addictive drugs and violence becomes legal. I suppose someone might enjoy destroying their own property, but any asset destroyed that way could be assigned a nominal value that is the same as it was before destruction, so that the owner wouldn't be rewarded for their self-vandalism.

retrac 5y ago

Some of these examples, particularly SpaceX, are actually a pretty good place to make the case against the rule-by-billionaires. Individual agency and freedom of action is great when one starts out. We wouldn't have reusable rockets without that freedom of enterprise early on. But I think it starts to have drawbacks at scale, as things pass from development into being business as usual with critical infrastructure. Like, what happens if Elon Musk goes insane? Seriously. The future of human space flight in America basically hinges on SpaceX. The American economy increasingly hinges on technology launched by SpaceX satellites. Particularly in the case of SpaceX, it's a privately held with a majority controlling stake. The Ukrainian state is now relying on Starlink. But nothing much stops him from simply liquidating it all tomorrow because he's decided space guns are a better method of launch. (Of course, if he actually did that I suspect we'd see parts of the company nationalized, to be honest. Which I think naturally raises the question of whether such an important project of such scale should be subject to entirely private whims.)

sharemywin 5y ago

founders are hugely important to the success of the companies they found. where would Microsoft be if Bill gates stopped running it. or if Steve jobs stopped running apple.

sharemywin 5y ago
And it's a good thing to all these rich people that hung out with Epstein have come to justice.
sharemywin 5y ago
I remember Bill Gates saying a 99% tax is excessive. and I'm like I totally agree why waste your time for a measly $1B.
- memish 5y ago
  That's one way to look at it. Another is to compare Bill's effectiveness with that money vs the government. There's no contest. Bill is insanely better at capital allocation and society is better off that he manages it.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    You make it sound like no one would be able to create operating systems if there had been no Microsoft, whereas I think many people here (and the DoJ) would say that Bill Gates became a billionaire at least in part by illegally preventing other (better) companies from becoming successful. A wise man once said "Every billionaire is a policy failure"[0], and you have to remember that if you allow Gates to hoard his wealth and spend it on ethically dubious things[1][2] then you also have to allow every other billionaire and millionaire to do the same, many of whom are providing even less value to society. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-adviser-dan-riffle-every-billionaire-policy-failure-billionaires-philanthropy-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-adviser-dan-riffle-every... [1] https://www.grunge.com/400020/the-shady-truth-about-the-bill-gates-foundation/ https://www.grunge.com/400020/the-shady-truth-about-the-bill... [2] https://www.workers.org/2021/07/58034/ https://www.workers.org/2021/07/58034/

winkeltripel 5y ago

This article is ignoring any upside to a hypothetical situation, without defining the parameters. If we had a better federal social safety net from all that tax revenue, more people would choose to become entrepreneurs, which might result in 10 new film studios, 5 rocketry companies, and hundreds of unique retail businesses instead.