4 ms·

You can tax something without owning it. It is the owning part that bothers me. It implies that the government is going to shovel ridiculous amounts of money

You can tax something without owning it. It is the owning part that bothers me. It implies that the government is going to shovel ridiculous amounts of money into these things and when the bubble finally pops We The People get nothing out of it.

dylan604 5mo ago
That sounds like a brilliant idea if you're a board member of one of these companies.
fny 5mo ago
Taxing X% ownership means you get X%. You don't pay for it. So if the bubble pops, you still get X% ownership. To your point, it may be smarter to tax the IPO valuation and buy more later.
- fhdkweig 5mo ago
  I'm mostly commenting on the story a few days ago regarding having index funds change their rules to automatically purchase shares in the impending IPOs so that passive investors would end up buying shares without their direct knowledge. It struck me as a way for executives to cash out of what they know is a bubble. A lot of people in that thread didn't seem to have any issue with that.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
exe34 5mo ago
Wait, is the idea to buy that 50%?
- fhdkweig 5mo ago
  I don't know what their plan is, but that is one way to "own half". I'm really hoping that isn't their plan, but this administration seems to love shoveling tax money to people who don't deserve it.
  - wasabi991011 5mo ago
    > I don't know what their plan The plan Bernie Sanders is proposing is clearly stated in TFA, which is to take 50% of shares as a one-time tax, not as a purchase.
- wasabi991011 5mo ago
  No, it isn't, it's to take 50% as a tax, as stated in TFA.
  - exe34 5mo ago
    Yeah that's more sensible.
vrganj 5mo ago
Who said anything about the government shoveling in money?
- fhdkweig 5mo ago
  Usually to "own" something requires to spend money to get it.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    The government gets half my paycheck without buying it from me.
  - grim_io 5mo ago
    Really? Poor Elon must be going bankrupt any time now, seeing how much of Tesla and SpaceX he owns.
  - vrganj 5mo ago
    ... or force.
triceratops 5mo ago
I think you've misunderstood the proposal. The government levies a tax in the form of shares, not cash. It doesn't pay for the shares. FTA: "It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock."
- AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
  That seems like it would be pushing pretty hard against the Takings clause. Federal wealth taxes in general are rather precarious in the US because the 16th amendment allows taxing income, not assets.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    How are property taxes legal?
    - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
      There is no federal property tax, and even state property taxes are collected in dollars rather than shares of ownership and as a small recurring percentage rather than a one-time taking of what amounts to a controlling interest.
      - triceratops 5mo ago
        Thanks for the clarification.
  - jcranmer 5mo ago
    Strictly speaking, that's not accurate. Article 1, Section 8 has the general taxation clause: > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; but Section 9 has the apportionment clause: > No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. The term "direct tax" isn't fully explained, but it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax. Congress imposed an income tax, but SCOTUS said in Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co that a tax on rental income is effectively a property tax, and so must be apportioned. The 16th Amendment was enacted specifically to overrule the Pollock decision, and allowed for income taxes to not have to be apportioned. In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.

dylan604 5mo ago

That sounds like a brilliant idea if you're a board member of one of these companies.

fny 5mo ago

Taxing X% ownership means you get X%. You don't pay for it. So if the bubble pops, you still get X% ownership. To your point, it may be smarter to tax the IPO valuation and buy more later.

fhdkweig 5mo ago
I'm mostly commenting on the story a few days ago regarding having index funds change their rules to automatically purchase shares in the impending IPOs so that passive investors would end up buying shares without their direct knowledge. It struck me as a way for executives to cash out of what they know is a bubble. A lot of people in that thread didn't seem to have any issue with that.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

exe34 5mo ago

Wait, is the idea to buy that 50%?

fhdkweig 5mo ago
I don't know what their plan is, but that is one way to "own half". I'm really hoping that isn't their plan, but this administration seems to love shoveling tax money to people who don't deserve it.
- wasabi991011 5mo ago
  > I don't know what their plan The plan Bernie Sanders is proposing is clearly stated in TFA, which is to take 50% of shares as a one-time tax, not as a purchase.
wasabi991011 5mo ago
No, it isn't, it's to take 50% as a tax, as stated in TFA.
- exe34 5mo ago
  Yeah that's more sensible.

vrganj 5mo ago

Who said anything about the government shoveling in money?

fhdkweig 5mo ago
Usually to "own" something requires to spend money to get it.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  The government gets half my paycheck without buying it from me.
- grim_io 5mo ago
  Really? Poor Elon must be going bankrupt any time now, seeing how much of Tesla and SpaceX he owns.
- vrganj 5mo ago
  ... or force.

triceratops 5mo ago

I think you've misunderstood the proposal. The government levies a tax in the form of shares, not cash. It doesn't pay for the shares. FTA: "It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock."

AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
That seems like it would be pushing pretty hard against the Takings clause. Federal wealth taxes in general are rather precarious in the US because the 16th amendment allows taxing income, not assets.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  How are property taxes legal?
  - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
    There is no federal property tax, and even state property taxes are collected in dollars rather than shares of ownership and as a small recurring percentage rather than a one-time taking of what amounts to a controlling interest.
    - triceratops 5mo ago
      Thanks for the clarification.
- jcranmer 5mo ago
  Strictly speaking, that's not accurate. Article 1, Section 8 has the general taxation clause: > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; but Section 9 has the apportionment clause: > No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. The term "direct tax" isn't fully explained, but it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax. Congress imposed an income tax, but SCOTUS said in Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co that a tax on rental income is effectively a property tax, and so must be apportioned. The 16th Amendment was enacted specifically to overrule the Pollock decision, and allowed for income taxes to not have to be apportioned. In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.