It’s sad that even the idea of a very high tax rate for even the top 0.1% is off the table. I really like the suggestion of capping net worth at $999 million and the government gets the rest.
I completely agree. It is likely a constitutional amendment will be needed to institute a wealth tax/ceiling. But it is needed, for national security. The centre cannot hold.
Genuine question: How would this apply to private companies like Valve? Do they still follow principles of share distribution even if they’re not on the public stock market?
Sure, why wouldn’t they? You can’t really convince me that ‘taking away’ ownership from the founder is a big deal… by the time a company’s net worth is high enough to give him a billion dollars worth of stock, that company has far more than just him alone making the company worth that much. You also can’t really say that the janitor is less of a deal than any other random employee and thus deserves no stock… It takes everyone to make things work.
As to the actual ‘value’ of the company, and therefore the owner’s worth? Ask him how much he wants for his shares, and he is forced to sell at that amount for say, the next 6 months if people want the stock. This prevents him from giving a ridiculously low value and gaming the system so he doesn’t have the net worth he truly does, because it would trigger a rush of people buying the stock for such a good deal, and it also prevents him from giving a ridiculously high number to manipulate people into buying stock, as it would push the net worth too high.
Would that idea work for every company? I know there would be issues with implementation. Is it the owner that gets asked the stock price? The board? A shareholder meeting? The employees of the company? Each would have its downsides, and manipulation possibilities.
I don’t know, mate, these are just things off the top of my head. I’m sure with some serious thought from people much more in tune with these concepts than I am, we’d have a good framework to go off of.
Could you imagine the talent pool the most profitable companies would have if all net profits over X billion dollars were automatically redistributed to it’s labor force? Suddenly the wealthiest middle class on earth would be in the US until then somehow clawed that money back.
That’s how it should be. When you actually think about how a few rich people who don’t actually do the work get to “own” the entire company it’s absurd.
It’s sad that even the idea of a very high tax rate for even the top 0.1% is off the table. I really like the suggestion of capping net worth at $999 million and the government gets the rest.
There’s talk of our country reducing disability payments. It’s fucked.
I completely agree. It is likely a constitutional amendment will be needed to institute a wealth tax/ceiling. But it is needed, for national security. The centre cannot hold.
How does that work when for example a single company is worth two billion? Does the government now own >50% of it?
Companies are not people. That court case needs to be overturned. Companies can be worth more. People should not have that much money.
People don’t have that much money. They have companies that are worth that much.
Easiest implementation would be shares start getting shared to all other employees. No more big owner when profits come from the laborers.
Genuine question: How would this apply to private companies like Valve? Do they still follow principles of share distribution even if they’re not on the public stock market?
Sure, why wouldn’t they? You can’t really convince me that ‘taking away’ ownership from the founder is a big deal… by the time a company’s net worth is high enough to give him a billion dollars worth of stock, that company has far more than just him alone making the company worth that much. You also can’t really say that the janitor is less of a deal than any other random employee and thus deserves no stock… It takes everyone to make things work.
As to the actual ‘value’ of the company, and therefore the owner’s worth? Ask him how much he wants for his shares, and he is forced to sell at that amount for say, the next 6 months if people want the stock. This prevents him from giving a ridiculously low value and gaming the system so he doesn’t have the net worth he truly does, because it would trigger a rush of people buying the stock for such a good deal, and it also prevents him from giving a ridiculously high number to manipulate people into buying stock, as it would push the net worth too high.
Would that idea work for every company? I know there would be issues with implementation. Is it the owner that gets asked the stock price? The board? A shareholder meeting? The employees of the company? Each would have its downsides, and manipulation possibilities.
I don’t know, mate, these are just things off the top of my head. I’m sure with some serious thought from people much more in tune with these concepts than I am, we’d have a good framework to go off of.
Could you imagine the talent pool the most profitable companies would have if all net profits over X billion dollars were automatically redistributed to it’s labor force? Suddenly the wealthiest middle class on earth would be in the US until then somehow clawed that money back.
That’s how it should be. When you actually think about how a few rich people who don’t actually do the work get to “own” the entire company it’s absurd.
Companies would be handled differently than persons.
However there should be regulations too.
No single person has 1 billion. They just own companies that are worth that much.
Well then you shouldn’t be allowed to own multiple companies worth that much.
Also I think that shares should count as money too. In tax view at least.
Single companies also can be worth that much.