Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

221–230 of 498 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I worked at Apple when Steve Jobs was there. Yes he's amazing.

But people like Avie Tevanian, Tim Cook, Bertrand Serlet, Bob Mansfield, Johnny Ive, Dan Riccio etc. all played critical roles in turning Apple around.

iPhone simply isn't a success without all of the above functioning at a high level.

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

#222
post #106

Some observations: 1. Whatever happened to increasing tax rates, like pretty much every other country? Why these weird gimmicks? 2. A much greater cause of elite wealth accumulation is running deficits. Deficits are when you want to spend on social welfare but don't have the courage to pay for it with taxes. So you make both sides happy and increase spending while running up deficits. The reason we've seen this astro…

> 1. Whatever happened to increasing tax rates, like pretty much every other country? Why these weird gimmicks?

I live in one of those countries,... I used to live in another country, that had a red star in the flag, I haven't moved, but I now live in another country... which again has new parties with red star flags.

Every time I hear "tax the rich", the same thing happens... the poor already pay almost zero tax, so nothing happens to them. The rich open a company two countries away in one direction, and register their car two countries away in a different direction, and in the end, pay very little tax. And me? Earning an above-national-average engineering pay, but way below "rich" enough to make such manipulations worth it? I get fucked with new taxes.

In an ideal world, both people like me and people like bezos would pay a same amount (percentage) of tax for every dollar/euro going from our workplace to the crap we both buy, but somehow i get taxed as fuck, and Bezos doesnt ( https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-did-not-pay-incom... ).

So how about we first tax Amazon and Bezos at the same rate we tax the local mom and pop bookstore, and their owners paychecks, and then continue from there.

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

#223
post #193

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".

Elon Musk controls less than 25% of the voting shares of Tesla, yet the company still exists and in fact is thriving. How many shares of Apple did Steve Jobs control when he was the CEO? This is just a ridiculous argument that companies can only succeed if the Founders/CEOs have absolute voting control. There are many examples of shareholders being more than happy to put their votes behind whatever the CEO wants as l…

It's not a binary situation where you either own 51% or not. The larger the share of the company you own, the fewer stakeholders you need to convince to vote in your favor.

e.g. having 49% equity only requires ~2% of remaining shareholders to agree with any of your decisions.

If you're making remotely justifiable decisions, you're likely to get a decent chunk of shareholders supporting pretty much any position.

Also it's common to stack the board with allies who you can trust to vote in your favor/support your decisions.

So doesn't require much equity to have de facto control. But there will likely be a big difference in influence between, say, 10% and 20%

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking away the money, though, will cripple their ability to grow the companies. No SpaceX, no Tesla, no iPhone, etc.

We’ll when musk started both those companies he wouldn’t be affected by this tax. In fact it wouldn’t have hit him until a few years ago and he hasn’t given either company money in longer than that. And Steve jobs did t inject money into apple when they were creating the iPhone. So you’re entire point has been pretty much invalidated

Jobs put most of his fortune from Apple into developing Pixar, transforming it from a failure into a powerhouse. The rest went into Next, which formed the core(!) of Apple's resurgence when Apple merged with it.

No Jobs money => no Pixar => no Next => no iPhone

Neener neener!

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

You are not wrong. The only thing I would add to that is the wealthy invariably means simply "much richer than me". In particular it is obscene to see that the people who most hate billionaires and agitate for their punishment are, for the most part, millionaires. The whole movement is rooted in envy, transparently disguised as virtue.

> The whole movement is rooted in envy, transparently disguised as virtue.

Our whole economic system is itself grounded in the vicious promotion of the parochial interest of the capitalist, née mercantile, class, rooted in their envy of the privileges previously enjoyed by the feudal aristocracy, dressed up as virtue.

The capitalist class is now in the position the feudal aristocracy was in when the movement toward capitalism was young, for much the same reason.

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

#226

Well, one workaround would be to treat securitization of shares (eg for a loan) as a taxable event. This is a common (and currently legal) tax avoidance strategy. Another consideration is that maybe having sole control of a massive pot of cash or financial instruments by an individual is just a Bad Thing. Consider how Zuckerberg structured FB so that while he it's a public company, the bulk of the stock is non-voting…

A twitter reply says this: >I think everyone needs to read the bill and calm down. "Gains on private assets -- including harder-to-value assets like real estate, art and private companies -- would escape the annual levy, and only be taxable when sold. "

Isn’t Sweeney talking about publicly traded companies here though?

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

#227
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what seems to be the intention of the tax plan it would be regardless of if the asset was available in a stock exchange so if the value of Tim's shares put him above the threshold he would still have to pay the tax. His wealth through epic would likely be less then if it were a publicly traded company though. The effect of paying tax on shares was always true as it becomes a realized capital gain and is already…

The stories I see, like https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/senate-democrats-push-for-bi... , says the tax on unrealized gains only applies to "tradeable assets." It doesn't seem like that would cover private companies. From what that article says, it would invoke an increased tax due to the deferral of taxes though.

there are liquid secondary markets.

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means they were not successful at crushing their competitors.

Those largest companies from 20 years ago didn't fail, they are all doing very well (well, GE excepted), they just did not grow nearly as fast as new tech did.

They were bad investments over that time period. I'm still smarting over my disastrous Cisco investment.

How's Intel doing lately? Nvidia ate their ice cream.

Cisco and Intel could do no wrong prior to 2000.

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

#229
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we can have conversation. To me, the numbers are secondary to their effects, that is kind of the thesis of the function finance paper too. Concretely stuff like UBI and a JG at least in the first order takes away a power of employers now amount of nominal inequality can give back. And if the limits to spending are real and not nominal, and rich people don't spend their wealth so much, taxing them hardly…

So, consider for a moment that I've understood MMT for almost two decades now. Also consider that there is a lot that MMT does not address, in its maniacal focus on whether it's possible to fund government programs without paying for them with taxes. There are other problems, like assuming savings demands are inelastic, but let's just focus on the distributional aspects. One of the main drawbacks is that ZIRP or mass…

It's great you are familiar with the stuff, but you against skirted the question I asked. I'll repeate what is so bad about inequality? To be clear I don't think it's good either, and I would not be opposed to all manner of wealth taxes. But just saying "It's bad, duh", "MMT is a con for Mosler" doesn't give me anything concrete to respond to.

I mean really, would would you want me to say in response? Mosler would need a time machine to con Abba Lerner or Kalecki.

> Then consider that none of the social democracies that have large safety nets use MMT principles and all of them run fairly balanced budgets for a reason. That reason is not lack of knowledge about fiat currencies.

A good reason? The Euro is constitutionally ordoliberal and fucking over Greece in a way that makes the even Krugmans cringe doesn't look like deep wisdom to me. German nuclear policy is also insane, fwiw. I don't see the EU as being especially enlightened at all, I just saw a better and stronger legacy of the postwar era than over here, and better voting systems on the national level.

I can well believe they don't get it same as over here by and large, and the left fringe is only "wiser" in the anglosphere as a consequence of being radicalized harder by pan-Anglo austerity. That's certainly not an accelerationism worth being proud of.

> ZIRP is also a great way to privilege land over productive investment, because when you increase the duration of assets, then you want more stable assets whose value is guaranteed at the expense of more risky (productive) assets.

So do the hardcore form LVT where we essentially, and instant-auction keeps self-assessments honest.

> Anyways, if you want to create a feudal society, then this is a good way to do it. But don't worry, there will be a job guarantee in there for you.

FWIW I am clearly not a 100% MMT orthodox person because I kept on bringing up UBI in a positive light. I do want to reduce working hours and the cultural valorization of work too and so I find pure JG kind of aethetically abhorent, even if it could put preasure on the workweek.

-------

To sum up, I fully grant that unchecked unequality could allow a new powerful elite to suddenly end the JG or UBI. But a world in which either of those are possible in the first place is a) quite different b) should allow for the type of politics that also go after wealth / massage private property / undemocratic workplaces / whatever your boogieman is.

But I believe that in great powers not savaged by war, there can't be good politics without tight labor markets, so to the extent there is a economic--political chicken and egg problem, Post-Keynesian ideas like this provide when of the few forseable bootstraps.

If we fail to do so, we will get to that neo-feudalism you fear by austerity anyways, as lax labor markets make capital investment including maintainence uneconomical, and we barrel towards a less productive more dysfunctional society.

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

#230

Well, one workaround would be to treat securitization of shares (eg for a loan) as a taxable event. This is a common (and currently legal) tax avoidance strategy. Another consideration is that maybe having sole control of a massive pot of cash or financial instruments by an individual is just a Bad Thing. Consider how Zuckerberg structured FB so that while he it's a public company, the bulk of the stock is non-voting…

A twitter reply says this: >I think everyone needs to read the bill and calm down. "Gains on private assets -- including harder-to-value assets like real estate, art and private companies -- would escape the annual levy, and only be taxable when sold. "

Does that means founders would lose control when they IPO?
Post reply on HN