Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

nytimes.com

411–412 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#411
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One big issue is feasibility: It's much easier to track, meter, and tax income as it changes hands than it is to track/meter/tax accumulated wealth.

Actually it is much harder to tax income than wealth hence why there is so much tax avoidance. The simplest way is tax the asset directly and let who ever owns it pay the tax. The block of land is taxed, the bank account is taxed, the bond is taxed, the factory is taxed, the truck is taxed, the cow is taxed, the patent is taxed, the copyright on a movie is taxed, etc, etc. If you did this you would not need a very hi…

I actually /really/ like this idea. It also implies that anything of such value must be registered and that it only gets taxed that one time.

For the intangible things I would say that an open bidding process every census period would be a good way of judging what the market thinks it's worth. Adjustments might be necessary for changes in the constitution of an asset. (E.G. There's now a building, discovered natural resource, or it's part of a different sized lot unit.) Approximations in resource description could be used to round up/down and group together the units in an area for some anonymity and consistency.

To prevent collusion in 'sitting' on an area those who own it would also be required to bid in buying it back. If they come out over the median bid then they get their land back (but are taxed at the rate they sold it for), if they don't then they can keep the land but get taxed at the 95th percentile bid rate for that area. The top 1% of bidders would also have the option of buying any asset forfeitures within that area at the price that they listed. That would also be the assessed tax value of that land for that period.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#412
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Buffett's day, value investing made a lot of sense and allowed Buffett to put out wise-sounding soundbites like "I don't invest in what I don't understand" and helped shore up the folksy image of Berkshire Hathaway, who owned ostensibly uncomplicated companies like Heinz. But today we live in a world where the way to make money is through regulatory arbitrage (Uber) or startups chasing risky business models. Addit…

Sorry but no. It ALWAYS makes sense to sell high and buy low, even if you're buying the exact same company. In other words, just find one value play if you want, and follow the cycle. The skill is in determining what high and low is - i.e. you do need to have a sense of what the asset is worth. The easy answer is - figure out what its worth to you. i.e. what level of earnings or dividend does it seem attractive, and…

That is an oversimplification that assumes that markets are efficient and there is no information asymmetry and evrryone operates on a long investment time horizon. If Warren Buffett and I both invested in Goldman Sachs in 2008, I would have to base my decision based on quarterly earnings reports and my guesses on the direction of Fed's monetary policy. Buffett on the other hand would be invited inside the Goldman boardroom and likely told of the company's situation without the sort of CFO doublespeak that occurs during an earnings call.
Post reply on HN