You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Under a 3% wealth tax, Bezos’ first-year “fair share” exceeds *all* his liquid assets. Founders’ wealth is in their companies, not yachts. There’s nothing worth enough to sell but ownership stake. A cartoon vision of wealth is going to dismantle the strongest economy in the world
Forget Bezos, this is essentially EVERY successful founder in the country selling off 2-3% of their stake in their own companies *every year,* regardless of performance. This is what it looks like to butcher the milk cow alive
The appeal of the wealth tax is that it makes the rich poorer. Whatever you think about the particulars of current tax schemes, they were broadly meant to avoid creating zero-sum games. The zero-sum game is the point, here. This is a policy reverse-engineered to guarantee losers.pic.twitter.com/9atXRgUVo3
Ok andrew
yes, and the real question is who buys those shares when he has to sell? some other, even richer person that is liquid enough to afford the tax? is this just a shift of “new money” start up wealth to “old money” investors? seems like a decent chance inequality gets worse.
Actually in Norway we have a 0.85% wealth tax, and that has been the case for several Startups. https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=no&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://m.nettavisen.no/na24/gikk-fra-250-millioner-i-formue-til-25-millioner-i-gjeld/8523540.html&xid=25657,15700021,15700186,15700191,15700248&usg=ALkJrhicsB8geJXu3fY_hOZGe4digCa3mQ …
You are the one suffering from a cartoon vision of the situation. Concentrated wealth is concentrated power, our liberty is at risk. Not only that, 2-3% of Bezos stake per year, would hardly make up for the taxes AMZN has avoided.
A side effect of this that people don't appreciate is that it eliminates publicly traded companies with strong executive direction. So, rather than a clear vision, you get all decisions being made for the short-term benefit for shareholders.
And, for that matter, private companies as well. You couldn't have something like SpaceX (a private company dedicated to sending people to Mars), because the people who hold that goal would be forced to sell off their ownership of it to corporate raiders who don't care.
Could this do the opposite: actually accelerate wealth concentration while making America poorer and less safe? Would MBS/SoftBank just start owning 2% of every valuable business every year...
would sales to pay wealth tax be subject to capital gains or income taxes? That could mean the percentage is actually higher...
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
