Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,082 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You have more than $50 million dollars in personal net worth. Congratulations, you won capitalism! Now we will slowly ask you to pay a certain percentage of whatever resources you have to benefit the nation on an ongoing basis. We are so sorry that the very system built to help you have the ability to gain such outsized influence is now asking you to contribute a very narrow margin of what you accumulated to help everyone. If you would like to stop being a part of the society that has allowed you to gain such resources, please exit the system and join another nation willing to let you operate
  2. They have $100 million in total personal wealth, yes. They could have $100 million in cash with nothing else, a $200 million dollar company and a $100 million dollar personal loan, or infinitely number of other possibilities.
  3. That isn't a problem. There isn't a problem with someone owning a $1 billion company. People who have more the $50 million in personal wealth would be taxed.
  4. What problem? We are just talking about people who have done well enough to own an outsized portion of the world's resources as we value them as a society to help build public health and communities.
  5. It actually is the crux of the discussion we are having. A company worth $100 million dollars owned by three individuals privately isn't falling victim to this proposal. Only a person deriving all of their worth from a single company over $50 million is being discussed.
  6. Use your current liquidity, take a loan, increase your salary, start changing pay structures to include ESOP to lower equity in the firm, rob a bank /s, sell the whole company to avoid the problem in the future. Get creative, you have a company worth millions and you can't find anyone to help you solve a financial issue?
  7. It is a 2.5% tax between $50-100 million or effective 1.25%. I just helped simplify the overall impact.
  8. No one is forcing you. You could do an infinitely number of things to pay the tax and not sell the company. We are hung up on one narrow case of an edge case of an edge case as to why not do something good for the whole.
  9. I agree. So if this means someone has to sell 15, 25, 40, or 51% of their business to make it work once to pay the 1.25% tab, they can then reinvest that money anywhere else to make a profit. Heck, they could use their newly found freedom to start other businesses or invest in public companies to diversify their wealth versus being at the whims of a single business in a single market that could go plum in a jiffy. Sounds like a minor tiff to then make some of the most wealthy actually pay some taxes, don't you think?
  10. Another thing, just because a company is privately held, doesn't mean it doesn't have multiple shareowners. Once a company grows to a certain size, infusion of capital, expertise, and other factors often bring new people into a privately held business that helps it grow. If you build a company as a sole owner to over $100 million, bringing in someone as a 1% owner, non-voting member, to your business still would have many benefits if you find someone missing any area of expertise or resources from other related businesses they are a part of.
  11. I agree to an extent, but the quoted article is asking for nothing of people valued at $50 million or less. For anyone under $100 million, it would be <1.25% tax which isn't hard to get out of your wealth generating assets. They may be some edge cases where the entire wealth of an individual is tied to a single private company valued at $100 million dollars, but it would help structurally to change the way certain advantages are taken as you go higher up the ladder. Above $1 billion dollars, you get to >4.5% effective tax and there is no way that is tied to a single private company.
  12. I think the more formulaic and definitional ways to enter the playoff are more important than the number. 1. Did you win you conference? 2. Did you beat more teams automatically in the playoffs and how many opportunities did you have? 3. Have you already lost to a playoff team? I would honestly like to see some flexibility in the parameters to allow up to 12, but also limit, to say 6, when certain criteria are met or not. Have 7 undefeated teams? That seems like a good place to stop. Have a gobble of 2 loss teams that doesn't make sense? Shove them i
  13. If NC State finds a way to beat Kopps, then they probably deserved their ranking, but that doesn’t mean Nebraska should have been placed with Arkansas anyway.
  14. Nebraska scored 7 runs in 15 innings outside of Kopps. NC State is currently 2 in 9. After tomorrow when Kopps is expected to start we can see how much NC State is holding up. Nebraska also allowed 13 runs in 25 innings. Can NC State give up negative 8 in the next two games they win?
  • Create New...