you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Companies have true value, so the stocks do hold real value, but the way they can be inflated skews what that worth really is. Companies have assets and revenue and profits which are measurable, but when you start looking forward things start to get murky as people try to predict future value.

Add onto that, just like people can borrow against their house, they can then borrow against these stocks, and our system is set up where they can do this tax free. So they have inflated values beyond the actual value of the stock which they can borrow against. Elon doesn't actually have a trillion dollars. If he actually tried to realize it all, he'd probably end up somewhere in the low hundreds of billions or even below that, as the market would crash as he flood it with new shares. He could try to do it over many years and he'd come out with more, but that'll take time. But he can borrow against his stock as if he had a trillion dollars which is a real problem.

I'm personally against taxing unrealized gains, but I believe at least past a certain threshold, we should figure out how to tax people borrowing against their stock indefinitely and never paying taxes. (edit: the borrowing itself also leaves a paper trail that can be used to audit and fine / jail people if they try to hide it) That's a big part of the problem were facing. They have this wealth AND they get to use it, without paying taxes. We need to tax their usage. If we tax their usage, that will alter their behaviour. They'll either keep spending and we tax it as they lose ownership, or they'll reduce spending, but keep the ownership in the companies that their shares bestow, but they can't do both.

E.g Someone worth billions will buy a house worth 10s of million of dollars, and just pledge some stock against it, and perpetually keep that loan alive until they die. Their house staff, paid the same way. They do have to pay interest on that loan, but they just can just pledge more stock against that as well.

Edit: This also works better with higher tax brackets. If they try to realize/borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, we need new tax brackets for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Sounds slow.

    If Elon wants to claim he is a Trillionaire for ego points, fine, we tax him at that, at 100% for any worth over 1 billion dollars.

    Or he can STFU and talk about his actual "value". And then we still tax the hell out of it because no one needs anywhere near that much money over ten lifetimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    And now you've stolen the company he founded and self funded with a hundred million dollars and given it to venture capitalists and hedge funds, because of some perceived and unrealized gain.

    It'd be the same for any person with a meaningful stake in a company.

    Your basically advocating that once a company reaches a certain size, the founders and possibly the early investors have to give up their ownership and the influence that offers.

    Edit: a company like SpaceX and countless others simply wouldn't exist under rules like that.

    Edit: and that size is literally at the whim of the markets since stock values dont represent the current day value. Imagine a company being led by a founder and hedge funds scheme a plot to raise the stock price through something like a gamma squeeze to force the founder to sell shares from that temporary gain, so they can do a hostile takeover. If thats possible, itll happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, thats kind of the idea, they sell to others, it spreads the interest of the company out so it better represents societies needs and not the whims of one asshole. You don't want that to happen, you run it privately off its own profits without the shareholder parasite class involved.

    And we don't need Space X. We fucking HAD NASA. Space was fun and hopeful but now Space is stupid because its all under the umbrella of this single Nazi asshole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Founders often run their companies better

    https://hbr.org/2016/03/founder-led-companies-outperform-the-rest-heres-why

    Specifically, the study found that S&P 500 companies where the founder is still CEO are more innovative, generate 31% more patents, create patents that are more valuable, and are more likely to make bold investments to renew and adapt the business model — demonstrating a willingness to take risk to invent the future.

    The "spread it out" doesn't get spread out to society, it will get spread out to other venture capitalists and hedge funds, and they are never as interested in the long term vision and plans for the company as its founders are.

    Saying, sorry, you can't run the company the way you want after a certain size (edit: within the law obviously), is just plain shortsighted.

    I'm not saying don't tax them when they try to realize those gains via selling or borrowing, and it can even be at incredibly high rates, but stealing the company from them is not the right decision. Make them choose, their company or the wealth it generated.

    Edit: And just to be clear - yes you can be a CEO without any shares, but without your founding shares giving you influence, you won't have the same kind of influence within the company, ultimately neutering your ability to function the way you'd like and stiffling whatever vision / passion you might have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I somewhat agree with you, but the overwhelming valuations of the companies give me some concern too.

    At this point, whether I like it or not, a handful of tech bros control the fate of my retirement account even if I have nothing to do with them. If someone has a bunch of VOO, then at this point half their value is in the hands of a few tech companies. On top of direct potential impact from messing up, the companies know they have the economy at large as a hostage, and government has proven it's happy to recognize "too big to fail" and socialize the losses while letting the gains be private.

    So an institution passing a certain size broadly gives me concerns.

    Now on the other hand, the other "capitalist" outcome outside of founder mindset is usually ruining the company faster, selling it for parts or otherwise exploiting previous success for short term gains. I totally get that the only thing more risky for a business than founder-aligned capitalism is the "capitalist for the sake of capitalism" that will drive great things into the ground if it means a few more percent wealth right now.

    So I think you either somehow limit the relative value of such companies to the broader market (no idea how, but somehow), or accept some societal governance over these 'too big to fail' companies. If society is going to be on the hook for bailouts, then society should have some say in governance ahead of the bad outcome that demands a bailout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    So I think you either somehow limit the relative value of such companies

    If things like anti-trust, monopoly, anti-consumer laws were properly enforced that would at least help. Meta shouldn't have been able to buy Instagram or Whatsapp for example. The Paramount + Warner Brothers merger should never happen. Its not an entire solution to the problem, but it's a start, and there are already existing laws to make it work, but the regulators (edit and courts) have all been captured (which itself is a side effect of capitalism)

    There could also be something about big companies getting split into smaller ones in ways that make sense as a company gets too large. Like maybe Starlink is eventually required to be spun out from SpaceX even though that was done internally. You could maybe even keep some of that 'founder' mindset by having someone internal that worked on the project from the start take it over in the split. Maybe the original founder could still have some input as well, but you'd make them divest to a certain level so it's not just 2 companies, but still being owned by the same person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well, "true" value is a weird one, everything ultimately is relative and somewhat subjective.

    I'm with you, and perhaps more aggressive about taxing loans against stock as if they were realized gains. Loans that have nothing to do with acquiring the asset that backs the loan (e.g. a loan to buy a house or even improve an existing house backed by the house itself, ok, sure that can get a pass, at least on the primary residence). In the interest of fairness, have an ability to reconcile the tax situation upon repayment of the loan by tax credit. So if one wants to whine about "double taxation", they can be mollified that they will get their extra taxation back if they pay back their debts in the manner expected by tax code. They may still whine that by paying taxes now on gains to be realized later they are giving the government a 0% loan, but that's just the price of accessing their wealth early.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Well, “true” value is a weird one

    Ya, thats fair. I was more meaning things like, they own the land and building on it, but even that is somewhat subjective. But it's better than, this stock has a PE ratio of 100x because of some perceived future value.

    And absolutely there should be a way to get a tax credit if they repay it, which would likely mean some form of realizing gains, or using already taxed assets.

    They may still whine

    I would also expect whining about oh how complicated this makes things, and it's going to cost so much money to properly record it all, but bitch, you got the money. Sell some assets to pay for it. 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, I expect there would be whining, but like you say, they have the money. It wouldn't even be the most convoluted tax stuff, on par with some fairly common tax stuff faced by fairly mundane taxpayers. They seem all too ready to handle the complexity when it represents a loophole to avoid taxes, so they should be ok with complexities to close the loan loophole.

  • source
  • parent