• xenspidey@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    You all realize they don’t have that money laying around to pay the IRS right? They own companies, those companies are worth that much. To pay that you would have to liquidate those companies. So no more Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc…

    • Luke@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      no more Amazon, Tesla, Space X, etc…

      Oh no! Anyway, so how can we make this happen, like, yesterday?

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t be a bootlicker or bot or idiot.

      When they sell their shares to buy twitter or pay the tax man, those companies still exist. It just means that other people get to buy those shares and that’s a good thing, because that way those companies get owned by the public.

      Tesla and SpaceX still exist even after Elon overpaid by some $30B for his Twitter adventure.

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would be happy to take taxes in the form of ownership of the company

      here the tax genius of Henry the 8th comes into play “pay me my money or else”

      when noblemen didn’t pay william the conqueror the taxes he felt were due on time he would boil them. The principle being that if the rich face consequences for breaking the law they obey.

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can billionaires liquidate their assets? Yes, it is theoretically possible

        The real question is, who is going to buy the assets?

        Let’s say we have a billionaire that owns a billion dollar company.

        Could that billionaire sell all their shares, get a billion dollars in cash, and then give it away. Yes, it is possible.

        But that billion dollars in cash has to come from somewhere. Either the citizens have to come with a billion dollars in cash or the government.

        If the citizens spend a billion to buy the shares, then the government takes the billion in cash from the billionaire, then the government gives a billion back to the citizens. You just basically printed an extra billion dollars for the economy, which causes inflation. Because the citizens now have two billion in stocks and cash, compared to just one billion in cash.

        Our fiat money system has flaws, one day it is going to crash.

        But Besos’ 100+ billion in Amazon stock is money tied up outside of the economy until he sells.

        Forcing him to sell and introduce that money into the economy has repercussions.

        • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t need to make him dump all of his money all at once. Make an investment plan so that sum of money doesn’t disturb the market, extend the dump for two-three years and you can put 100 million without destroying the system

          • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say you needed to make them dump it all at once, but no matter how you do it, you’re introducing more money into the economy.

            Make an investment plan so that sum of money doesn’t disturb the market

            Again, great the market isn’t disturbed and stocks are still worth a billion total. You’re still going to introduce another billion into the economy in “two-three” years by giving it to the poor.

            The whole point of taking money from billionaires is to affect the economy. There’s no point in doing it if it’s not going to affect anything.

            • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The money is already in the economy, it is just not moving hands. When talking about disturbing the economy I was alluding to inflation, lots of poor families will gladly welcome that money. Also if we allowed us to take a little bit more, the social services will be allowed to improve substantially

              • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Say I invented the cure for cancer today and started the business Cancer Cure Inc. tomorrow.

                I own 100% of the shares of the company. Say there are 100 shares.

                Each share of Cancer Cure Inc. would be valued at X/100 amount of money because Cancer Cure Inc. would be valued at X.

                If Cancer Cure Inc. company was valued at a billion dollars. Each share would be worth 10 million dollars.

                I would be seen as a billionaire because I own the 100 shares. Yet I haven’t sold a single share. No money has exchanged hands for the shares.

                A billion dollars doesn’t just magically enter the economy because Cancer Cure Inc. exists. It would take an existing billion dollars to buy my shares.

                Now, if people wanted to give me a billion dollars in cash for my 100 shares, and I sold them. I’d have a billion dollars in cash, and the people would have a billion dollars in Cancer Cure Inc. stock.

                Now, if the government takes my billion dollars in cash and hand that to the people, they now have a billion dollars in stock and a billion dollars in cash.

                It doesn’t matter if I own 100 stocks of Cancer Cure Inc. or if 100 different wealthy people own 1 stock each. What changed is that there is now 1 billion more cash floating in the economy.

                That’s what causes inflation

                I’m not saying it’s right. Capitalism has winners and losers, rich and poor. It’s just how the capitalism system has to work.

                • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The people on here want you to work hard and take all the risk, create Cancer Cure Inc. Then take all your company and give it to the workers so you have nothing.

    • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they’d just need to liquidate their share in those companies. Those shares would then get bought up by other people or by pension funds.

    • Slotos@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      All they’d need to liquidate is part of their ownership in said companies. Companies themselves will be ok, don’t you worry your bleeding heart.

      • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not true at all. Loss of controlling ownership makes a company vulnerable to a hostile takeover. The new owners will pick it apart like the vultures they are.

        RIP grannies pension plan

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing people don’t get. The ultra wealthy are wealthy on paper.

      On an average years. All of us make more than Elon in wages.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does that matter? He doesn’t take wages intentionally. He has a large stock portfolio that he can borrow against and thereby pay no taxes on that “income”.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        What did Elon get paid, excluding stock options at companies he works for?

        I bet he still makes more than me.

          • MNByChoice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That actually almost seems worse. He is not paying into Social Security or his local community. He is being generously compensated on stock, which is taxed differently.

            Edit: I do want to thank you for providing that link. I was only finding a Forbes article about him being the highest compensated CEO of that year.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              He’s paying in the local community through property taxes.

              He’s highly compensated through stock and when he bought twitter. We got some huge amount of money in Taxes.

              You’re correct. He rarely pays into social but that’s a problem for Congress to solve.

              There are many ways to solve this bullshit and one is not allow them to borrow against their stock. That’s how they live for so cheap. I’m not opposed to stopping that at all.

              • Dark_Blade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Borrowing against stock needs to stop yesterday, especially if it’s not specifically for the interests of the company whose stock is being used.