Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's not the size of the company but rather the value of the shares of any individual.

Let me ask this.  Why is it bad that a person owns $100,000,000 in shares in a company?  And...why should the government be allowed to force them to not own that?

If I start a business from scratch and build it to $100,000,000, that sucked nothing out of the community and society.  In fact, it probably added to it.  I probably built the company and needed to build buildings and infrastructure and give jobs to people that are all taxed.  (unless I'm Amazon which we all agree is a whole other story).  To be honest, that $100,000,000 doesn't benefit me other than the income I get off of the company.  TAX THAT!!!.  Now, if I sell the company for $100,000,000...TAX THAT!!!!

 

But, there are too many bad things that can happen when we start forcing individuals to sell of or completely restructure the ownership of the company....just to pay taxes.

 

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then it'll create an opportunity for those that will. Or we could make additional changes in the law for either the government to hold those shares or a special new category of shares that are publicly-held shares of a private company. We can write the laws however we want, so we could make the wealth-tax shares of private companies non-voting shares (maybe those shares are non-voting and threefore cannot get control of the company).

 

OK....what benefit does society get by forcing me to transfer shares of my company so the government can hold them?  Is everyone else all of a sudden better off simply because I don't have $100,000,000 on my personal balance sheet?  If so....How????

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That changes nothing.

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.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Question for “the other side” ( not you Buster).  Does the individual get paid back the money he paid in the following year if his paper wealth then declines below the threshold?   I’m sure everyone realizes that there were many paper wight figure millionaires and billionaires in the late 1990’s who lost darn near everything.  Same in the 2001 crash and the 2007/8 crash. 

Very good question.  If my company is worth $100,000,000 and I'm forced to give the government shares in my company to pay the taxes and all of a sudden 2007 hits and my value is cut in half, is the government going to pay me back?

2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

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.

And...why is that a problem?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

And...why is that a problem?

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. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, deedsker said:

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. 

Why is it a problem if I own a business worth $100,000,000 but three people owning that business is just fine?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why is it a problem if I own a business worth $100,000,000 but three people owning that business is just fine?

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. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Let me ask this.  Why is it bad that a person owns $100,000,000 in shares in a company?  And...why should the government be allowed to force them to not own that?

If no one in society did not have enough to live and we had enough resources to fund and build everything that society needs, then I'd have no issue with it. But no one needs $100 million dollars or anything even close to that to live an extremely comfortable lifestyle, so it's a matter of how much is enough and how much starts depriving others.

 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If I start a business from scratch and build it to $100,000,000, that sucked nothing out of the community and society.  In fact, it probably added to it.  I probably built the company and needed to build buildings and infrastructure and give jobs to people that are all taxed.  (unless I'm Amazon which we all agree is a whole other story).  To be honest, that $100,000,000 doesn't benefit me other than the income I get off of the company.  TAX THAT!!!.  Now, if I sell the company for $100,000,000...TAX THAT!!!!

And how about the hundreds of years of infrastructure and societal structures that allowed you to do these things? You get more benefits from the infrastructure like police, roads, education, etc. that protect and help your business that others without business ownership do not benefit from. Look at how that business would have faired in a third-world country without all the benefits our society gives you and your business.

 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, there are too many bad things that can happen when we start forcing individuals to sell of or completely restructure the ownership of the company....just to pay taxes.

This is an empty argument that's no different than other arguments of why you shouldn't have to support society (primarily by taxes). I'm all for addressing problems and concerns, but vague "too many bad things" are just fear-mongering.

 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK....what benefit does society get by forcing me to transfer shares of my company so the government can hold them?  Is everyone else all of a sudden better off simply because I don't have $100,000,000 on my personal balance sheet?  If so....How????

The idea is that those shares will be converted to taxes at some point. I'm just proposing a way to put the liquidity risk and responsibility on the government instead of private companies as that was your concern.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If no one in society did not have enough to live and we had enough resources to fund and build everything that society needs, then I'd have no issue with it. But no one needs $100 million dollars or anything even close to that to live an extremely comfortable lifestyle, so it's a matter of how much is enough and how much starts depriving others.

You realize, the example we are discussing doesn't mean someone has $100,000,000 right?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You realize, the example we are discussing doesn't mean someone has $100,000,000 right?

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. 

Link to comment

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And how about the hundreds of years of infrastructure and societal structures that allowed you to do these things? You get more benefits from the infrastructure like police, roads, education, etc. that protect and help your business that others without business ownership do not benefit from. Look at how that business would have faired in a third-world country without all the benefits our society gives you and your business.

Yep....and they are taxed in many ways for using it.  You truck something down the road?  It's taxed.  You use the water and sewer system, they are billed for it.  You create income off of using those resources, tax it.  You sell the company after you build it?  Tax it.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, deedsker said:

That isn't the proposal.

Obviously.  Which, brings up a whole other question.  If I'm forced to sell stock to pay taxes, am I taxed on the sale of the stock that's sold to pay taxes?

 

If I pay this wealth tax as I'm building and owning a business and I finally sell the entire business, am I still taxed on that transaction?

Link to comment

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 independent of all barriers. We are sorry for your loss.

 

Thank you for playing capitalism in America!

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...