5 ms·

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

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
  Do you think a 2% wealth tax would have prevented Musk's fortune?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    No. That’s why I spitballed more than one idea.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      So you were just spitballing things you dont even think will work? Neither of them seem even remotely close to sufficient, either alone or in combination in preventing another Musk. 2% seems irrelevant and he would probably be even richer if prevented from buying twitter due to the ban on collateralized lending. If we are just spitballing, I think we should charge Billionaires a nickel every time they tie their shoes, and a dime on Sunday. One option that might actually work is following a more feudal model, where the POTUS/Trump executes or disappears any oligarch that accumulates more than X amount, as assessed by the executive. My actually preferred option is to simply get the money out of politics.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > So you were just spitballing things you dont even think will work? No? I think they’d work. I think we need more than one thing to do it. I leave the formal 87 page policy proposals up to the experts. > 2% seems irrelevant 2% per year. If that number isn’t enough, it can go higher. Again, that’s what we have experts for.
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
NickC25 1y ago
>would a 499 billion cap make you happy? Yeah. No single individual needs that much money. especially in this day and age where politicians are cheap as fuck to buy and the markets will reward any and all regulatory capture in the name of increasing short-term value of stock....while not giving a damn about the long-term ramifications of how it perverts our entire economic system. >100 Billion? That would too. Let me ask you - if you had $99 billion USD, would you whine that you don't have $100 billion, or would you, y'know, go out and use the money to enjoy your life and take care of people? I know which I'd do. Hint: I'd be extremely fucking happy with what I'd have and I'd do all I could to spread the wealth around as far as I could. I wouldn't whine, I'd be overjoyed that I'd have more wealth than all but approximately 30 people on the planet. The only "work" I'd do at that point is to figure out which diseases could likely be eradicated with enough money, and figure out how to give enough money to get it done. Gates, for all his faults, did pretty much just that. His money kicked malaria's ass. >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? It most certainly is quite easy. If you have over a certain number in net worth (say, $100 billion), you can't take out loans against your stock portfolio - you have to sell stock or assets. The loans-against-portfolio system was designed to help middle class individuals buy homes, not to help centibillionaires buy $500mm yachts. If you are the sole founder of a multi-trillion dollar organization, your business expenses should cover quite literally anything you could ever need. The mechanism isn't the government taking away a company, and it's certainly not disruptive to investment nor growth. In fact, as a founder myself, I'd take it as a badge of honor if the government came in and said "hey bro you are now worth a hundred billion dollars, you've won capitalism, go enjoy time with your friends and family". My investors, who invested small amounts of capital at a valuation in the low single digit millions, would be thrilled at a 100 billion dollar exit. That's nearly a 100,000x multiple ROI. If you, say, as an investor, dropped $10,000 on an investment. It gave you a return, after a decade, of 100,000x, or a billion dollars. Your reaction to that would be to complain that the government is discouraging and disrupting growth?
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  > The loans-against-portfolio system was designed to help middle class individuals buy homes, not to help centibillionaires buy $500mm yachts. If you are the sole founder of a multi-trillion dollar organization, your business expenses should cover quite literally anything you could ever need. This is nonsense. It wasn't "designed" to help the middle class. Portfolios are clear collateral assets and a natural backstop that doesnt need a "designer". It will arise in any financial system that allows free contracting and doesnt explicitly prohibit it. > In fact, as a founder myself, I'd take it as a badge of honor if the government came in and said "hey bro you are now worth a hundred billion dollars, you've won capitalism, go enjoy time with your friends and family...". This is such a contrived example it isnt worth discussing. The realistic outcome is the government taking it and giving you nothing. We aren't discussing the government "buying" anything.
chipsrafferty 1y ago
100 million cap, no money beyond that

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
Do you think a 2% wealth tax would have prevented Musk's fortune?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  No. That’s why I spitballed more than one idea.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    So you were just spitballing things you dont even think will work? Neither of them seem even remotely close to sufficient, either alone or in combination in preventing another Musk. 2% seems irrelevant and he would probably be even richer if prevented from buying twitter due to the ban on collateralized lending. If we are just spitballing, I think we should charge Billionaires a nickel every time they tie their shoes, and a dime on Sunday. One option that might actually work is following a more feudal model, where the POTUS/Trump executes or disappears any oligarch that accumulates more than X amount, as assessed by the executive. My actually preferred option is to simply get the money out of politics.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > So you were just spitballing things you dont even think will work? No? I think they’d work. I think we need more than one thing to do it. I leave the formal 87 page policy proposals up to the experts. > 2% seems irrelevant 2% per year. If that number isn’t enough, it can go higher. Again, that’s what we have experts for.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago

NickC25 1y ago

>would a 499 billion cap make you happy? Yeah. No single individual needs that much money. especially in this day and age where politicians are cheap as fuck to buy and the markets will reward any and all regulatory capture in the name of increasing short-term value of stock....while not giving a damn about the long-term ramifications of how it perverts our entire economic system. >100 Billion? That would too. Let me ask you - if you had $99 billion USD, would you whine that you don't have $100 billion, or would you, y'know, go out and use the money to enjoy your life and take care of people? I know which I'd do. Hint: I'd be extremely fucking happy with what I'd have and I'd do all I could to spread the wealth around as far as I could. I wouldn't whine, I'd be overjoyed that I'd have more wealth than all but approximately 30 people on the planet. The only "work" I'd do at that point is to figure out which diseases could likely be eradicated with enough money, and figure out how to give enough money to get it done. Gates, for all his faults, did pretty much just that. His money kicked malaria's ass. >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? It most certainly is quite easy. If you have over a certain number in net worth (say, $100 billion), you can't take out loans against your stock portfolio - you have to sell stock or assets. The loans-against-portfolio system was designed to help middle class individuals buy homes, not to help centibillionaires buy $500mm yachts. If you are the sole founder of a multi-trillion dollar organization, your business expenses should cover quite literally anything you could ever need. The mechanism isn't the government taking away a company, and it's certainly not disruptive to investment nor growth. In fact, as a founder myself, I'd take it as a badge of honor if the government came in and said "hey bro you are now worth a hundred billion dollars, you've won capitalism, go enjoy time with your friends and family". My investors, who invested small amounts of capital at a valuation in the low single digit millions, would be thrilled at a 100 billion dollar exit. That's nearly a 100,000x multiple ROI. If you, say, as an investor, dropped $10,000 on an investment. It gave you a return, after a decade, of 100,000x, or a billion dollars. Your reaction to that would be to complain that the government is discouraging and disrupting growth?

s1artibartfast 1y ago
> The loans-against-portfolio system was designed to help middle class individuals buy homes, not to help centibillionaires buy $500mm yachts. If you are the sole founder of a multi-trillion dollar organization, your business expenses should cover quite literally anything you could ever need. This is nonsense. It wasn't "designed" to help the middle class. Portfolios are clear collateral assets and a natural backstop that doesnt need a "designer". It will arise in any financial system that allows free contracting and doesnt explicitly prohibit it. > In fact, as a founder myself, I'd take it as a badge of honor if the government came in and said "hey bro you are now worth a hundred billion dollars, you've won capitalism, go enjoy time with your friends and family...". This is such a contrived example it isnt worth discussing. The realistic outcome is the government taking it and giving you nothing. We aren't discussing the government "buying" anything.

chipsrafferty 1y ago

100 million cap, no money beyond that