The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m always fascinated that people accept the idea that the flow of wealth is billionaire down and not peon up. I don’t think many people really think about or think about what money is.

It's a bit of both. No-one is working and getting paid before someone takes a risk makes and investment to start a business (leaving aside people who only use other people's money to get started). People who start businesses deserve a significant risk/reward motivation. I have no problem if people get stinking rich from their business investments, up to one million billion dollars.

Once they get the ball rolling, though, they absolutely build the business with their workers, without whom they wouldn't have a sustainable business. Even to get the ball the rolling they are benefiting from an education system, infrastructure, government grants and incentives, etc. It should be a no-brainer to share the success of the company with its employees and the society that gave it the environment to grow in.

[Jason14h]

They do share their “wealth”

The business pays business taxes , and the individual income taxes and capital gains taxes

Now we want to take more after tax money that exceeds X amount , just “because”?

Not to mention how would that even work ? Force the billionaire to sell off their business every year and ensure their net worth never exceeds 1 billion until they lose a controlling interest in their company , etc ?

You want the government or someone less effective (non founders) running every large company ? Because why would anyone work after their net worth was 1 billion

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It's a bit of both. No-one is working and getting paid before someone takes a risk makes and investment to start a business (leaving aside people who only use other people's money to get started). People who start businesses deserve a significant risk/reward motivation. I have no problem if people get stinking rich from their business investments, up to one million billion dollars.

The bolded is almost every business owner ever. Whether you're talking about an entrepreneur who received a government grant or small business loan or a startup founder who received funding from angel investors and venture capitalists, pretty much everyone who has ever started a business did so using other people's money. And the relatively few people that can afford to start a business without outside help are almost always already wealthy or come from old money.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It's a bit of both. No-one is working and getting paid before someone takes a risk makes and investment to start a business (leaving aside people who only use other people's money to get started). People who start businesses deserve a significant risk/reward motivation. I have no problem if people get stinking rich from their business investments, up to one million billion dollars.

Once they get the ball rolling, though, they absolutely build the business with their workers, without whom they wouldn't have a sustainable business. Even to get the ball the rolling they are benefiting from an education system, infrastructure, government grants and incentives, etc. It should be a no-brainer to share the success of the company with its employees and the society that gave it the environment to grow in.

The money used to purchase capital is just stored labour done previously all money starts as either human energy or extracted from the earth. Everything starts from human labour over centuries.

People staring businesses becoming a billionaire in the process is a lot different than after they become a billionaire. I’m general it’s upper middle class individuals who are the correct age at the right time with access to small amounts of capital that create these game changing companies.

I agree and certainly think the profit motive is the best way to commercialize ideas and research and pick winners and losers and through that process people will get crazy rich and there is nothing wrong with that. There is just a point where you being that rich has no benefit.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They do share their “wealth”

The business pays business taxes , and the individual income taxes and capital gains taxes

It’s fairly evident that billionaires and corporations shield their income in tax shelters and avoid paying taxes where they live and operate.

Where they do pay taxes locally they lobby politicians for exemptions and loopholes.

It’s why companies have Irish subsidiaries that book the majority of overall profits.

It’s why billionaires are tax residents in Monaco, Caymen Islands or Florida, or better yet make very little income but own numbered companies worth billions that are domiciled in tax free jurisdictions and just so happen to own property and assets wherever the billionaire lives.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They do share their “wealth”

The business pays business taxes , and the individual income taxes and capital gains taxes

Now we want to take more after tax money that exceeds X amount , just “because”?

Not to mention how would that even work ? Force the billionaire to sell off their business every year and ensure their net worth never exceeds 1 billion until they lose a controlling interest in their company , etc ?

You want the government or someone less effective (non founders) running every large company ? Because why would anyone work after their net worth was 1 billion

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.

[Just a guy]

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

[GGG]

Note this discussion is not about the hundredth wealthiest Canadian there are only 65 billionaires in Canada. That’s how ridiculous that amount of money is.

Voting classes of shares solvers the loss of control issue like Rogers and Shaw trusts.

Look at your list of things they are all obsessive behaviours about power and control. They likely work for zero dollars. Effectively they do work for zero real dollars as there is no mechanism for which to use that money.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Note this discussion is not about the hundredth wealthiest Canadian there are only 65 billionaires in Canada. That’s how ridiculous that amount of money is.

Voting classes of shares solvers the loss of control issue like Rogers and Shaw trusts.

Look at your list of things they are all obsessive behaviours about power and control. They likely work for zero dollars. Effectively they do work for zero real dollars as there is no mechanism for which to use that money.

Didn't say it was about the 100 wealthiest, just that I have had the opportunity that most people would not to be able to see what it takes.

Agree that they are dysfunctional people. Not just the billionaires. Any top corporate person gives up similar qualities of life, but they do not leave the safety of the corporate world.

The reality is that they do give up so much to achieve their results. You want to punish them for that because you won't or can't do the same.

Again, how arbitrary is the $1B limit? Some would say $100M is too much. You couldn't spend that reasonably in a lifetime. Why not $5B? Or $50M? To my point above, anyone trying to limit people from succeeding should likely look inside themselves and ask why.

[Cain]

That everyman vs billionaire list sure is something.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Didn't say it was about the 100 wealthiest, just that I have had the opportunity that most people would not to be able to see what it takes.

Agree that they are dysfunctional people. Not just the billionaires. Any top corporate person gives up similar qualities of life, but they do not leave the safety of the corporate world.

The reality is that they do give up so much to achieve their results. You want to punish them for that because you won't or can't do the same.

Again, how arbitrary is the $1B limit? Some would say $100M is too much. You couldn't spend that reasonably in a lifetime. Why not $5B? Or $50M? To my point above, anyone trying to limit people from succeeding should likely look inside themselves and ask why.

It’s not about stopping people from succeeding. It’s about a failure in an economic system. An unintended side affect of how we organize our society. Capitalism is just a means to distribute labour and resources when it produces unintended consequences that don’t benefit society we regulate. I don’t see this as any different, the creation and concentration of wealth is an inevitable result of capitalism if there is no mechanism to tax the underlying capital it will concentrate in fewer and fewer hands.

So that’s the symptom that needs addressing. There needs to be a mechanism to prevent wealth concentration

You are correct that 100 million would likely be just as reasonable of a number. I think the numbers could be looked at by people far smarter than me. As to why not more than a billion? Above 1 billion you are in very small quantities of people that diminishes rapidly as to make it all meaningless. At 5 billion your down to about 7-15 depending if you count individual families like the Thomson’s as one or many.

Anyway if you don’t like wealth taxes what do you see as the solution to the wealth concentration problem?

[Wormius]

How is even what’s being proposed stopping someone from succeeding?

It’s also strange and dismissive to suggest that the ultra-rich are the only ones that work hard, and put in time beyond office hours.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

How is even what’s being proposed stopping someone from succeeding?

It’s also strange and dismissive to suggest that the ultra-rich are the only ones that work hard, and put in time beyond office hours.

First suggesting that over an arbitrary limit you force them to sell their stock. That is stopping someone at an arbitrary point.

Didn't say people don't work hard or over office hours. I am saying these people do so on an entirely different level. In fact I mentioned that I through hard work, which includes working off hours has helped me succeed. Just not to the point I need to have li it's put on me by some people on this board.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

First suggesting that over an arbitrary limit you force them to sell their stock. That is stopping someone at an arbitrary point.

Didn't say people don't work hard or over office hours. I am saying these people do so on an entirely different level. In fact I mentioned that I through hard work, which includes working off hours has helped me succeed. Just not to the point I need to have li it's put on me by some people on this board.

I asked how it prevented someone from succeeding.

Your list of “everyman vs billionaire” traits said that.

[iggy_oi]

This thread might actually be worse than twitter.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s not about stopping people from succeeding. It’s about a failure in an economic system. An unintended side affect of how we organize our society. Capitalism is just a means to distribute labour and resources when it produces unintended consequences that don’t benefit society we regulate. I don’t see this as any different, the creation and concentration of wealth is an inevitable result of capitalism if there is no mechanism to tax the underlying capital it will concentrate in fewer and fewer hands.

So that’s the symptom that needs addressing. There needs to be a mechanism to prevent wealth concentration

You are correct that 100 million would likely be just as reasonable of a number. I think the numbers could be looked at by people far smarter than me. As to why not more than a billion? Above 1 billion you are in very small quantities of people that diminishes rapidly as to make it all meaningless. At 5 billion your down to about 7-15 depending if you count individual families like the Thomson’s as one or many.

Anyway if you don’t like wealth taxes what do you see as the solution to the wealth concentration problem?

Several issues. Define wealth. Is it free cash? Most wealth is held in form of stocks, which is only obtained when selling the stock. If they sell the stock, then reinvest it in other stocks,which you or anyone else can buy (not their original company) is that okay? Or do they need to sell these as well?

It is really perspective. I know people that if you say you make $100k per year would consider you rich. Their line could be that if your net worth is say $2M, then you need to redistribute your wealth. Is that okay? If not why not?

You say it is a problem. People invest in these companies and gain on the way up. I would guess most on this board have these investments. Stop the 65 people in Canada and then who are you going to invest in?

Without digging, assume the top 100 are worth $4B each on average. That totals $400B. The other 38.6M average $330k net worth or total $11T. So where is the concentration? They have about 5% of the wealth in Canada.

I don't see it as a problem as investors (you and I) ride their coat tails up and are happy to do so.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I asked how it prevented someone from succeeding.

Your list of “everyman vs billionaire” traits said that.

My point was against the statement that once a person reaches an arbitrary limit they need to sell off their investment. That is at the least limiting success and I would say preventing success to the denominator decided by someone else.

I don't think my list says that. It is a list of traits (generalized) that I have observed.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

They do share their “wealth”

The business pays business taxes , and the individual income taxes and capital gains taxes

Now we want to take more after tax money that exceeds X amount , just “because”?

Not to mention how would that even work ? Force the billionaire to sell off their business every year and ensure their net worth never exceeds 1 billion until they lose a controlling interest in their company , etc ?

You want the government or someone less effective (non founders) running every large company ? Because why would anyone work after their net worth was 1 billion

I'd just like to see a system where the guys at the top pay around 40%(Or more) of their income to the government just like you and me.

The system has backslid in such a way that allows the super rich to pay relatively less taxes than the middle class which is just broken.

"Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. Kennedy explicitly called for a top rate of 65 percent, but added that it should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions were not phased out at the top of the income scale.[29][30][31] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. It slowly increased to 39.6% in 2000, then was reduced to 35% for the period 2003 through 2012.[28] Corporate tax rates were lowered from 48% to 46% in 1981 (PL 97-34), then to 34% in 1986 (PL 99-514), and increased to 35% in 1993, subsequently lowered to 21% in 2018."
-The wikipedia.

Taxes on the wealthiest people in society have been cut continuously over the last 70 years and now we are seeing too much concentration of wealth in the top 1%. It's an easy fix, but the way I see regular joes argue against any kind of tax increase on the rich makes me think the propaganda used is too effective to overcome.

[Fuzz]

Oh wow, the billionaire boot licker came out overnight.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh wow, the billionaire boot licker came out overnight.

Amazing, somehow saying they are dysfunctional and not what I would ever be is bootlegging. Maybe come up with counter points and I'll take you seriously.

I understand that you feel a certain amount of money is too much for any one person. My original point is that most people don't understand what it takes to get there and ultimately are incapable of doing so. I know that I am not nor would I want to be knowing the price.