(3) There usually aren't dividends. Capital gains isn't a thing until stock is sold. You *could* transfer an increasing ownership stake in virtually every highly successful business to the federal government, but obviously DON'T DO THAT.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
As long as they just auction off the stocks or do mirror voting seems like that would be fine? Agree we don't want active management by the IRS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robertwiblin @webdevMason
Actually having the IRS take 3% of the company on paper and just hold onto it and mirror vote solves your problem as everyone's votes are diluted equally!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robertwiblin
If you zoom out a bit, what this looks like is the federal government gradually taking ownership of the country's most successful businesses under the guise of a tax that doesn't actually raise revenue. At bare minimum, this looks very, VERY bad
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
Why bad? Only bad if they engage in active management. Otherwise it's just a sovereign wealth fund - the govt is accumulating wealth and when dividends are paid it can use that to fund expenditure, or borrow against its savings.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @robertwiblin @webdevMason
Rob, when did Amazon last pay divs? In fact, with your proposal, Amazon would be gov majority, with no cash! Instead of Bezos / mgmt focusing on building the most consumer focused company in the world, they'd slowly be eaten by a crocodile
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @misha_saul @webdevMason
If equity were signed over to the govt and they held it and just did mirror voting, why would it affect their business decisions in any significant way? They don't have to pay out but whether the gain comes in capital gains while the govt holds, or dividends, doesn't matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robertwiblin @webdevMason
I guess in effect this would be the same as a CGT tax, but a CGT tax *caps* the tax on company building - ie. at tax rate of [~22.5%] (im Aus) which would be ~7 years of company building under a 3% annual tax. Not obscene that after 30 years of building your co, gov owns 90%?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @misha_saul @webdevMason
The govt would own 60% actually! 0.97^30 = 0.401 The question of whether that's too much is about the appropriate rate. You could set the rate lower so on average CGT and wealth tax are the same.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not esp in favour of a wealth tax, I just didn't see that founder dilution or illiquidity/indivisibility of assets were such great practical problems.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I’m kinda shocked that you don’t seem to find the “people aren’t going to emigrate here to found a state-owned business” argument very convincing...?
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @misha_saul
Yeah that one makes good sense. I think that's why Piketty's ideas didn't take, as we are so far from the necessary tax coordination. Though taking a global utilitarian perspective, the US' loss is partly another country's gain, so the loss isn't as large as it might seem.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.