| ▲ | nfw2 3 hours ago |
| How exactly do you propose keeping a founder from becoming wealthier once their company scales past the point where they are worth a hundred million? |
|
| ▲ | siliconc0w 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The market is supposed to do that. Once an opportunity is identified there is a rush to compete and margin disappears, so the people still get the new, better thing, but for much cheaper. What can happen though is that companies figure out how to prevent meaningful competition to preserve high margins. They're worth millions for the innovation but they get to billions through anti-competitive and extractive practices. |
| |
| ▲ | nfw2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most things don't behave like pure commodities regardless of anything that can be considered monopolistic. |
|
|
| ▲ | knorker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree with you on it being hard. But we can start by not forgiving CG on death. That seems like a no brainer with no downsides. No downsides I respect, at least. "We want to keep the business in the family" should be ignored. |
| |
| ▲ | jonfromsf 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 100%. I don't understand how anyone defends the "death loophole" for capital gains. If you get rid of it you could actually get rid of estate taxes, which are a kludge to capture some of the capital gains that are given away by resetting the basis at death. It's a nutty system we have right now. | |
| ▲ | nfw2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My question was how do you prevent anyone from having over 100M? No motte and baileys please. |
|
|
| ▲ | didibus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| tax? |
| |
| ▲ | pclowes 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | On what? You force the company to break up and liquidate so they can pay taxes? You force the founder to give up their private property just because it is valuable? Remember these are not dollar bills in the founders bank account. It is just the company they created is now very valuable. It does not mean it is liquid. | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Owners being able to lock the value generated by workers solely within their family for generations has been tried. It ends in feudalism. | | |
| ▲ | nfw2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you proposing changing inheritance laws or are you proposing forcing companies to sell their stock in a firesale to be in accordance with the IRS? Be clear in your propositions please. | | |
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Progressive taxation, taxes on CG, inheritance taxes, and a well funded and non-partisan IRS. | | |
| ▲ | nfw2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | None of these will prevent someone from gaining more than 100M. That is what is under discussion. I am not against more progressive taxes. Which party is the IRS partisan towards? What do you mean by partisan? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blackoil 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You force the founder to give up their private property just because it is valuable? That's how taxes work. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | idiotsecant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's mind boggling that you view the solution to this as so counter to the interests of the capital class that you can't even speak it aloud You tax them. Wealth inequality of this magnitude is toxic to democracy. It's simply too much power. These men aren't gods, they are just flesh and blood and usually really terrible people. We are not staff at their resort. Let them live in luxury for the rest of their life, great. But they don't get to have more political power than half a million people put together. |
| |
| ▲ | nfw2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you're saying the obvious solution is to force founders to liquidate all shares necessary every year to keep their wealth under 100M? How to keep short sellers from feasting on this? Who will the buyers be if everyone is selling around tax season? If the stock crashes because there is government-mandated short interest and no long interest are they off the hook? On the point of democracy, none of the candidates who spend the most on major elections seem to be winning much lately, Bloomberg, Harris, Cuomo, Steyer, etc. | | |
| ▲ | bluecheese452 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe if you suck them off hard enough they will give you a few crumbs after you are done. | | |
| ▲ | nfw2 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Beats sucking off a communist in order to not starve when there is a food shortage |
| |
| ▲ | esseph an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > On the point of democracy, none of the candidates who spend the most on major elections seem to be winning much lately, Thomas Massie was just ousted in the most expensive house primary in US history. The difference between 1-2 mil that is normally spent and the $30+ million spent on that election alone. | | |
| ▲ | nfw2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Tom steyer spent half a billion to not even make it onto the final ca ballot |
|
| |
| ▲ | taffer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's mind boggling that you Please don't do this. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html |
|
|
| ▲ | bwhiting2356 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| anti-trust |
|
| ▲ | paulryanrogers 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Taxes. If they want to externalize the costs then society should socialize excessive surpluses. |
