4 ms·

> But he's "allowed" to be worth a lot because if he were doing what he's doing elsewhere, he'd facilitate a multi-trillion dollar wealth transfer from America

> But he's "allowed" to be worth a lot because if he were doing what he's doing elsewhere, he'd facilitate a multi-trillion dollar wealth transfer from America to that place. That was the argument against Massachusetts taxing millionaires. Instead, it made double even the optimistic estimates. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-05-21/millionaires-tax-revenue-reaches-1-8-billion-on-pace-to-double-estimates https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-05-21/millionaires-t... Turns out there's usually a good reason people settle in a place. (And the US government gets a big say if you try to move a critical national security asset out of the country, too.)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
I’m not talking about taxes, I’m talking about raw wealth creation. Musk is rewarded in part so America stays attractive to the next potential Musk. We could double his taxes and that message would still hold.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  He's "allowed to be worth half a trillion dollars" because we don't tax him enough.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    would a 499 billion cap make you happy? 100 Billion? It would require substantial punitive taxes and penalties to prevent this accumulation. Would founders and investors still develop in the USA if their upside were curtailed? Would Musk Found spaceX if they were not allowed to profit from it? Also, it is not as simple as taxing profits. Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. What is the mechanism here? If you are too successful, the government seizes your company? Dont you think that would be disruptive to investment and growth?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Would founders and investors still develop in the USA if their upside were curtailed? Yes. Unified consumer market. Incumbency. Deep and international access to risk capital. China only has the first two. It's still got a thriving start-up ecosystem. > Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. What is the mechanism here? Selling equity. This is a theoretical question for e.g. a closely-held family business. It's not for a public or mature private company. > the government seizes your company? Guess who ushered in the administration that's embraced this option!
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        OK, where would you place this hard wealth cap and company forfeiture limit? Should we confiscate everything over 100 billion? 100 million? Do you actually endorse confiscation of companies, or are you just taking a reactionary copy cat stance?
        chipsrafferty 1y ago
        Yes, 100% tax over 100 million seems fair.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. Start by banning or curtailing these techniques they utilize to borrow against that equity or put it in tax advantaged accounts. https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidanc... And perhaps a 1-2% wealth tax.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > And perhaps a 1-2% wealth tax After $100mm. (I guess if you want to get the evangelicals on board you could do $39 or $390mm.)
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > He's "allowed to be worth half a trillion dollars" because we don't tax him enough On a technical level, sure. On a practical level, he'd still be fabulously rich and powerful, and the comment you're responding to would be asking why he's allowed to be worth hundreds of billions of whatever. The problem isn't that Musk was "allowed" to become wealthy. It's that a trivial fraction of that wealth let him corrupt not only himself, but also his government.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

I’m not talking about taxes, I’m talking about raw wealth creation. Musk is rewarded in part so America stays attractive to the next potential Musk. We could double his taxes and that message would still hold.

ceejayoz 1y ago
He's "allowed to be worth half a trillion dollars" because we don't tax him enough.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  would a 499 billion cap make you happy? 100 Billion? It would require substantial punitive taxes and penalties to prevent this accumulation. Would founders and investors still develop in the USA if their upside were curtailed? Would Musk Found spaceX if they were not allowed to profit from it? Also, it is not as simple as taxing profits. Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. What is the mechanism here? If you are too successful, the government seizes your company? Dont you think that would be disruptive to investment and growth?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Would founders and investors still develop in the USA if their upside were curtailed? Yes. Unified consumer market. Incumbency. Deep and international access to risk capital. China only has the first two. It's still got a thriving start-up ecosystem. > Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. What is the mechanism here? Selling equity. This is a theoretical question for e.g. a closely-held family business. It's not for a public or mature private company. > the government seizes your company? Guess who ushered in the administration that's embraced this option!
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      OK, where would you place this hard wealth cap and company forfeiture limit? Should we confiscate everything over 100 billion? 100 million? Do you actually endorse confiscation of companies, or are you just taking a reactionary copy cat stance?
      - chipsrafferty 1y ago
        Yes, 100% tax over 100 million seems fair.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Almost all of this value is simply equity in controlled companies. Start by banning or curtailing these techniques they utilize to borrow against that equity or put it in tax advantaged accounts. https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidance-techniques-irs-files https://www.propublica.org/article/billionaires-tax-avoidanc... And perhaps a 1-2% wealth tax.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > And perhaps a 1-2% wealth tax After $100mm. (I guess if you want to get the evangelicals on board you could do $39 or $390mm.)
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > He's "allowed to be worth half a trillion dollars" because we don't tax him enough On a technical level, sure. On a practical level, he'd still be fabulously rich and powerful, and the comment you're responding to would be asking why he's allowed to be worth hundreds of billions of whatever. The problem isn't that Musk was "allowed" to become wealthy. It's that a trivial fraction of that wealth let him corrupt not only himself, but also his government.