If other investors really are too risk averse why are they keeping these founders around? We could also do a carve-out if this mattered a lot where founders can sign over dividends and capital gains on 3% of their equity each year while retaining voting rights on the shares.
-
OK — Is there any percentage of total ownership stake that you would *not* want the federal government to have? >20%? >50%? Would it have the right to sell its holdings? Borrow against them? Might it eventually try to do either of those things in some roundabout way?
(Remember that if there is significant capital flight, other tax revenues will drop dramatically. The same populist fever dream that seeks to literally trap the wealthy who want to leave will have to be trusted to not do what it likes & claim it's not violating any agreements.)
-
-
The main concern with this is that they would become active managers. The share that's too much is when other investors don't have enough of a stake to actively manage well. They can sell off their shares if desired, that seems fine. Don't see a prob with borrowing against them.
-
Is that the main concern? I would be just as concerned if forfeited stock was converted to non-voting a 3% annual wealth tax is effectively nationalization of industry. In less than a century, the gov't would own > 95% of all existing businesses
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
How are Bezos,wal-mart,google different than Rockefeller/JP Morgan ? The pattern. Innovate once => crush all further innovation => Capture govt The culture you worship, innovated decades ago, and now they seek to prevent your generation from doing the same.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.