4 ms·
By taking the excess yearly, and that's very doable. When Bezos divorced, Mackenzie Bezos was awarded 25% of their Amazon shares valued at over 38 billion doll
by deaux 4mo ago
By taking the excess yearly, and that's very doable.
When Bezos divorced, Mackenzie Bezos was awarded 25% of their Amazon shares valued at over 38 billion dollars.
Just by the above being possible, that means there's no reason why such a "divorce" couldn't happen once per year, and there's also no reason why it has to be 25% rather than "everything above 100M". It means that the tools for this exist. The government takes the place of Mackenzie Bezos. During the divorce, not a single mention of "oh it's just _impossible_ to take 25% of Jeff Bezos' Amazon shares, it will cause collapse". Just all of a sudden if you replace MacKenzie Bezos with "the government" or "the pension fund", suddenly there's all kinds of supposed reasons why it can't happen - even though there's zero reason why it couldn't.
No "but technically they will temporarily have over 100M in the intermediary period" please.
- skeptic_ai 4mo agoI’msure they will just ensure they will never reach 100m and stash their cash somewhere hidden. So won’t work that well. But might work for a one off cut. Which is good.
- deaux 4mo agoWhy didn't Bezos just stash his assets somewhere hidden so that he wouldn't have to give $38 billion of it to his ex? Because it doesn't work that way at that level of wealth, especially for tech CEOs. You can't just hide billions worth of shares in a company.
- nfw2 4mo agoThe amazon shares weren't liquidated in the divorce. Are you saying the government will receive shares instead of cash?
- deaux 4mo agoYes.
- butlike 4mo agoSo then the government becomes a stakeholder with vested interest in certain companies and not others?
- deaux 4mo agoYou can simply mandate by law that these sells must be sold to the market at, say, 2% per month, and that the government will not make use of voting rights during that period. There's so many possible options.