Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 498 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#91

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

coenhyde wrote: post #72

Bad idea to tax unrealized capital gains. Proposal; How about we gut our entire tax code and replace it with a single tax that taxes when money moves from one entity to another. Let's call it a Transaction Tax. It would replace Sales Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc and introduce tax on debt creation (when the bank gives you the money). This would close all loop holes and put the entire tax in…

It'd net out to a consumption tax which is strongly negative economically to nearly everyone.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#92

Post by karkisuni »

hncurious wrote: post #58
lavezza wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I think Elon giving himself a multi-billion dollar salary to cover a jump in Tesla stock would upset a lot of people.

Would SpaceX even exist if this law had been in place? Serious question. Let's think this through. Also what if it had been in place during the dotcom boom and bust?

jesus christ, yes. Elon didn't become a billionaire including assets until 2012, well after nasa awarded them the cargo contract and two years after Falcon 9 started launching. Before that, he was barely a millionaire after PayPal and his investments in Tesla and SpaceX. This tax wouldn't have affected him at all until both SpaceX and Tesla were relatively healthy with both Falcon 9 and Model S.

There's a reason CEO's at this level take $1 in salary.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#93

Post by WalterBright »

bskrobisz wrote: post #73
jimbob45 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generational wealth transfer is a good thing. It's the main reason most people work hard in life - to provide a better life for their offspring. Wealth inequality is a good thing too. People who work harder necessarily live better lives. If you want to start stealing their hard work to give to the lazy, you're going to find that the hard-working flee the country à la the USSR.

I think the primary issue is not precisely 'wealth inequality' but rather a lack of accountability and responsibility from people with large amounts of wealth. If one has assets whose value is representative of the life's work of several thousand people, it's one thing to have someone who is demonstrably capable and responsible manage it, and another thing entirely to have someone /own/ it. If I had to guess (and I c…

If you own your house, is it unfair that you don't share it with all the people who contributed to building it? Or is it fair that you paid them what they asked for their efforts?

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#94

Post by satyrnein »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #28
new_realist wrote: post #6

The current tax situation is like property taxes in California before Prop 19: nobody sells, so ownership and control never changes. This facilitates wealth transfer from generation to generation (in the equity case, though the use of trusts) and perpetuates wealth inequality.

You mean old middle class, and poor homeowners, can stay in the house they raised a family in? The only reason my high school educated 80 years old mother in declining health can stay in a home, and county, she feels somewhat safe is because of prop 13. Her biannual property taxes are still a big deal when they arrive. I've said this before, but I'm beginning to think if you didn't live through the craziness before P…

What seems odd to me (if I understand it correctly) is that prop 13 keeps your property tax low, but you still get the full benefit of the appreciation in price when you sell the property. It kind of seems like if it's artificially keeping the tax low, the full tax bill should come due at some point, which would logically be at the change of ownership.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#95

Post by WalterBright »

threeseed wrote: post #81
WalterBright wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt SpaceX or Tesla would exist if they were controlled by a committee. Doing great things usually requires control by a single person who is able to say "screw it, we're going for X".

This is simply nonsense. All companies once they reach a certain size (including Tesla, SpaceX) have a Senior Leadership Team which decides on the critical decisions affecting the company. This personality obsession is really only perpetuated by people who haven't worked in business and don't realise just how much of a team effort it is.

> nonsense

May I present Steve Jobs, another obvious example? Ray Croc who built McDonald's from a single location into a world empire.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#97

Post by enumjorge »

WalterBright wrote: post #79
nicoburns wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller companies may be a net benefit over the long term. These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours.

> These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours. This complaint I've heard my entire life about the dominant companies of the day that have since collapsed of their own accord. Companies like RCA, IBM, Sears, Kodak, etc. 10 biggest companies by market cap 20 years ago: GE Cisco Exxon Phizer Microsoft Walmart Citigroup Vodafone Intel Roy…

The fact that giant companies eventually collapse under the weight of their own greed and complacency doesn’t mean they don’t engage in anticompetitive behavior while they’re at the top.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#98

Post by young_unixer »

cosmotic wrote: post #36
lavezza wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I think Elon giving himself a multi-billion dollar salary to cover a jump in Tesla stock would upset a lot of people.

I'd be in favor of this I think. It might force Elon, Tesla, or the shareholders to address the elephant in the room: Teslas market cap vs their revenue. Teslas market cap is 1030m on 31.5m of revenue. GM is 79m on revenue of 122.5m. That's 50x the market cap per revenue.

If a company is doing tons of R&D, and everything suggests that that R&D will give huge dividends in the future, then it seems perfectly normal for such a company to have a high market-cap/revenue ratio.

If having too big of a market cap relative to revenue is wrong, then you're basically saying that companies should not invest too much in their future, just use their money to sell as much as possible right now.

You know who else has extremely high ratios of mktcap/revenue? Pharmaceutical companies trying to cure diseases that have no available cure. Is it wrong to try to cure those diseases?

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#99

Post by WalterBright »

enumjorge wrote: post #97
WalterBright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours. This complaint I've heard my entire life about the dominant companies of the day that have since collapsed of their own accord. Companies like RCA, IBM, Sears, Kodak, etc. 10 biggest companies by market cap 20 years ago: GE Cisco Exxon Phizer Microsoft Walmart Citigroup Vodafone Intel Roy…

The fact that giant companies eventually collapse under the weight of their own greed and complacency doesn’t mean they don’t engage in anticompetitive behavior while they’re at the top.

It means they were not successful at crushing their competitors.

Re: Tim Sweeney: Tax bill would likely end founder control of independent companies

#100

Post by sbuttgereit »

coenhyde wrote: post #72

Bad idea to tax unrealized capital gains. Proposal; How about we gut our entire tax code and replace it with a single tax that taxes when money moves from one entity to another. Let's call it a Transaction Tax. It would replace Sales Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc and introduce tax on debt creation (when the bank gives you the money). This would close all loop holes and put the entire tax in…

Because it fails to sate the emotional rationalization that sits behind so much of the rhetoric that has been used to justify such measures. The wealthy are evil, duplicitous, exploitative, and in the best cases, merely lucky... regardless of what a wealthy person actually did or didn't do to come to their wealth... and the not wealthy are blameless, innocent, unlucky victims that are unable to change their lot in life in part because of the oppression of the wealthy and in part because their betters in government aren't yet empowered enough to protect their best interests.... again all without regard to how they came to their unfortunate lot in life.

Now, of course, I'm exaggerating, but only a little I think. And, of course, this happens on both sides of the debate... but the side in power right now is the one making taxation proposals. Personally, I support your idea by and large. An amount that scales to the degree of the transaction ensures that big transactions pay larger amounts and that everyone has a stake.

Post reply on HN