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?

▲

paulryanrogers an hour ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/experts-warn-trump-imm...

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-irs-investigations...

	▲	nfw2 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree these are partisan and bad developments. It is also unrelated to the question at hand about how to prevent people from gaining over 100m which people have been able to do under the heretofore non-partisan irs

▲

bluecheese452 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean by “is”? What do you mean by “you”? By clear.

▲

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.