Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
What is your evidence that non-founders are less effective at running billion dollar empires. I’d argue that founders are less likely to be the correct person to run a billion dollar corporation as there skill was creating an idea so novel it became dominant. That skill set is far different than running a fully grown behemoth. But I don’t have any evidence to support that either
How would it work? One way is to charge a 4% plus inflation wealth tax where your assets are sold until you have paid the tax or net worth is less than 1 billion.
Another option would you could allow them to hold all of their assets but if any shares are sold or collateralized they would immediately be taxed. This would solve your loss of control issue.
As to why would a person work once they become a billionaire? First I don’t think we care if they do. Secondly why does a billionaire currently work if they have a billion dollars. You can’t ever use that much money. You have a guy like musk buying twitter so he can control the town square regardless of losing billions on it.
So yes I support the forced sale of assets and loss of founder control of the mega companies. I do wonder if founders would start to just maintain veto powers without shares though to prevent loss of control because power is what matters rather than money. Something like the Rogers family Trust has where I think they aren’t majority owners but maintain control.
|
My take. I have had the opportunity to know people from welfare families to ultra rich (>$1B) and many in between. How I see the differences.
Everyman:
• Target quality of life
• Enjoy family and friends
• Work within specified times/norms
• Want equality of outcome
• Satisfied with being successful within your station
Billionaire:
• No concept of quality of life (They have toys and time, but are always working)
• Every ultra rich person I know have almost no family life and very dysfunctional relationships
• If they are awake, they are working.
• Believes in personal responsibility and consequences/rewards
• Does not see barriers. Sees opportunities
Everyman wants to enjoy the benefits of the sacrifices the Billionaire without making the same sacrifices. “Billionaire makes too much money and I should have some of it”. Even if you say you don’t, taxing them higher than yourself means you get the benefits of government programs disproportionately.
I believe it is ridiculous to say that once you have achieved a certain arbitrary amount of wealth, that you should ultimately lose control of what you spent your life building and ultimately by giving up what Everyman holds dear.
Does anyone think that limiting growth (taking control away from the founder) for a particular company would be good? Think what brand of vehicle you drive. All started by an eventual ultra rich person. No personal brand names will get you Lada’s or Yugo’s (Yay Communism!!). How about the computer or phone you use? Where would the world be without Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Both great examples of what I point out above, but allow Everyman to enjoy life better than before they intervened.
Of all the people on this board, I would guess the majority work for someone else. I would guess that they are fine the owner making money off of their efforts. If not then they should start their own company and charge what the market will bear and suffer the down times and enjoy the up times. The issues seem to be that one person needs to have an arbitrary limit on the number of people they can make money off of. Even though each and everyone makes the decision to work for someone else as mentioned above.
For clarity, I was raised in a very poor family and worked hard and taken risks to achieve a reasonably comfortable life. I am related to a person that is among the 100 wealthiest people in Canada and have personally seen what they have given up to get to that place. Not for me! End rant