6 ms·

> Why shouldn’t creating that much value in the world result in the owners collectively benefiting? One can benefit without being a billionaire.

smaddox 4y ago
Should we cap the benefit at some particular monetary value? Wouldn't that disincentivize building companies past a certain point of success? Is that really what we want?
- layer8 4y ago
  Looking at many of the big companies, that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad idea.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  I think we should scale income tax based on wealth personally
  - layer8 4y ago
    That will just lead people to outsource their wealth by whatever means, so that it doesn’t formally count as their wealth anymore, but they effectively still control it.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      Then I hope we can couple it with a well funded IRS. In theory this would be difficult to do unlike the games that occur now because you don't merely need to suggest that you're not earning the income. You can't give it to a family member or it gets it with a hefty gift tax. You can't stuff it into a shell corp because you still own the shell corp. You could donate it to a charity which you control which is a thing that happens now.
      - layer8 4y ago
        Or maybe you don’t receive it in the form of whatever formally counts as wealth in the first place.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        Our tax law definitions of fair market value are sufficient that I think this is a non critical issue.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes? GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes? Sure > GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth. Well good luck then.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even when they're already massively profitable, is one of the biggest issues with modern capitalism. It's how you get the world's most profitable (non-financial) company switching its focus to nickel-and-diming its customers for services because it's run out of new human beings to sell iPhones to, and how you get every video game company switching to scummy fomo and gambling to maximize shareholder revenue instead of mindshare, and how you get every company jumping over themselves to sell your data even if you're already paying for the product. Companies should be able to get to the point where leaving money on the table for the good of their customers, and society, is a valid move.
  - smaddox 4y ago
    Okay, but this would disincentivize individuals from building multiple successful companies after a certain point of personal success.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      No it wouldn't. It would cease to further incentivize them. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, maybe you don't need external incentives for your behavior? Maybe you should be encouraged to simply do whatever you find most fulfilling, without financial reward?
      - smaddox 4y ago
        > dis·in·cen·tiv·ize > verb > discourage (a person or course of action) by removing an incentive. Regardless, though, how exactly would your proposal not prevent someone from building future companies? If stock is considered monetary wealth (the only viewpoint from which we have billionaires), they would be forced to... What? Give away their existing stock in order start a new successful company?
avalys 4y ago
What do you think "being a billionaire" means? If you start and retain ownership of a company that is one worth day a billion dollars, you're a billionaire. That doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in cash. It doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in hard assets. It means you built a functioning organization that is performing some valuable service in society, and some accountant has associated some value to that entire organization of more than $1,000,000,000. At what point do you think founders should be punished for that accomplishment by having some of their ownership stake taken away from them?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > At what point do you think founders should be punished for that accomplishment by having some of their ownership stake taken away from them? When they sell it for a billion dollars.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    They don't sell it now they borrow money against the value of shares and get to keep the stock, not pay taxes because it is not income. Your plan would not work. No plan like this could work...
  - avalys 4y ago
    Sure, that would be a reasonable position, but most people the media characterizes as "billionaires" have not actually sold their company for a billion dollars. This is a fundamental misconception. These listings of "net worth", etc. all include the nominal market value of their remaining ownership of whatever company they founded. Jeff Bezos has a "net worth" of $160B. That's not because he sold Amazon for $160B. It's because Amazon is worth $2T and he still owns 8% of it. At what point would you suggest the government should have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become a billionaire?
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > At what point would you suggest the government should have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become a billionaire? I'm not suggesting that. It's ok if people are billionaires, if defined by having large holdings that, if liquidated, would shrink to non billionaire scales to give back to society.

smaddox 4y ago

Should we cap the benefit at some particular monetary value? Wouldn't that disincentivize building companies past a certain point of success? Is that really what we want?

layer8 4y ago
Looking at many of the big companies, that doesn’t seem like a particularly bad idea.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
I think we should scale income tax based on wealth personally
- layer8 4y ago
  That will just lead people to outsource their wealth by whatever means, so that it doesn’t formally count as their wealth anymore, but they effectively still control it.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Then I hope we can couple it with a well funded IRS. In theory this would be difficult to do unlike the games that occur now because you don't merely need to suggest that you're not earning the income. You can't give it to a family member or it gets it with a hefty gift tax. You can't stuff it into a shell corp because you still own the shell corp. You could donate it to a charity which you control which is a thing that happens now.
    - layer8 4y ago
      Or maybe you don’t receive it in the form of whatever formally counts as wealth in the first place.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        Our tax law definitions of fair market value are sufficient that I think this is a non critical issue.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes? GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > You don’t think that before the Constitutional Amendment to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes? Sure > GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children’s toys compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit without formally having $10^9 of net worth. Well good luck then.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even when they're already massively profitable, is one of the biggest issues with modern capitalism. It's how you get the world's most profitable (non-financial) company switching its focus to nickel-and-diming its customers for services because it's run out of new human beings to sell iPhones to, and how you get every video game company switching to scummy fomo and gambling to maximize shareholder revenue instead of mindshare, and how you get every company jumping over themselves to sell your data even if you're already paying for the product. Companies should be able to get to the point where leaving money on the table for the good of their customers, and society, is a valid move.
- smaddox 4y ago
  Okay, but this would disincentivize individuals from building multiple successful companies after a certain point of personal success.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    No it wouldn't. It would cease to further incentivize them. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life, maybe you don't need external incentives for your behavior? Maybe you should be encouraged to simply do whatever you find most fulfilling, without financial reward?
    - smaddox 4y ago
      > dis·in·cen·tiv·ize > verb > discourage (a person or course of action) by removing an incentive. Regardless, though, how exactly would your proposal not prevent someone from building future companies? If stock is considered monetary wealth (the only viewpoint from which we have billionaires), they would be forced to... What? Give away their existing stock in order start a new successful company?

avalys 4y ago

What do you think "being a billionaire" means? If you start and retain ownership of a company that is one worth day a billion dollars, you're a billionaire. That doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in cash. It doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in hard assets. It means you built a functioning organization that is performing some valuable service in society, and some accountant has associated some value to that entire organization of more than $1,000,000,000. At what point do you think founders should be punished for that accomplishment by having some of their ownership stake taken away from them?

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> At what point do you think founders should be punished for that accomplishment by having some of their ownership stake taken away from them? When they sell it for a billion dollars.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  They don't sell it now they borrow money against the value of shares and get to keep the stock, not pay taxes because it is not income. Your plan would not work. No plan like this could work...
- avalys 4y ago
  Sure, that would be a reasonable position, but most people the media characterizes as "billionaires" have not actually sold their company for a billion dollars. This is a fundamental misconception. These listings of "net worth", etc. all include the nominal market value of their remaining ownership of whatever company they founded. Jeff Bezos has a "net worth" of $160B. That's not because he sold Amazon for $160B. It's because Amazon is worth $2T and he still owns 8% of it. At what point would you suggest the government should have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become a billionaire?
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > At what point would you suggest the government should have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become a billionaire? I'm not suggesting that. It's ok if people are billionaires, if defined by having large holdings that, if liquidated, would shrink to non billionaire scales to give back to society.