Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

241–250 of 498 posts

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

#241

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. "

Ah, so in effect, this bill is just a massive IPO disincentivizer.

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

#242

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.

I don't think your first sentence was necessary.

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

#243
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, maybe they would count that.

Are those markets liquid enough to support large sales by the owners though?

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

#245

Curious. Doesn't this open up the possibility of debt slavery of the entrepreneur, to the government ? If my stock in my biotech startup goes thru the roof and i get taxed X, i could perhaps sell some stock to cover. More likely, though, I will get into an installment plan with the IRS since the gains are so massive its going to be tough to sell so much stock without a discount, to pay the IRS off. Next year, FDA doe…

Imagine if that was policy during the dotcom boom and bust.

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

#246
post #239

Curious. Doesn't this open up the possibility of debt slavery of the entrepreneur, to the government ? If my stock in my biotech startup goes thru the roof and i get taxed X, i could perhaps sell some stock to cover. More likely, though, I will get into an installment plan with the IRS since the gains are so massive its going to be tough to sell so much stock without a discount, to pay the IRS off. Next year, FDA doe…

if you tax unrealized capital gains, it's only fair to return unrealized losses. so > stock tanks to near $0 means you get all your paid tax back.

Which opens the government up to actually having to pay back substantial sums from the IRS, in the event of an equity downturn.

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I highly doubt the majority of people agitating against billionaires are millionaires. There aren’t enough millionaires for that to be likely. And I think there are lots of good arguments being made about the detriments of income inequality if you don’t dismiss the people making them as envious out of hand...

There are millions of millionaires in the US. A lot of fairly normal doctors, lawyers, and engineers will reach this bar by late middle age if they're saving and investing part of their income.

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

#248
It'd be pretty easy to levy completely fair and progressive tax structure that only directly impacts the wealthy, and is sufficient to cover the spending.

- Tax capital gains >1m a year as regular income.

- Fix loopholes that allow for equity as collateral for perpetual loans without ever selling the underlying.

- Remove step up in cost basis on inheriting assets.

- Tax stock buybacks at same level as dividends.

- Don't bring back SALT deduction.

Pretty easy to justify. Why should capital gains get favorable tax treatment over income, especially for wealthy who have this as a primary income source? Overall, proportion of assets allocated to investment capital would not dip due to change in tax, where else would they put the money?

Buybacks are effectively a technique to consolidate wealth primarily for the CEO and board of a company, who are paid primarily in equity comp. Very few companies do buybacks for legitimate operational reasons, like purchasing stock when it's undervalued to reduce operational expenses re dividends. It's mostly a buy at any price to juice valuations. I'm not against companies returning money to shareholders, but buybacks shouldn't be tax advantaged vs dividends.

SALT is a direct handout to wealthy homeowners. The fact that this is even in the spending bill shows how far the narrative of fixing wealth inequality has deviated from the actual legislation.

I suspect Congress doesn't do these things because it would actually impact their own finances. And of course they need unilateral agreement on any approach.

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a billionaire leave the US? There they are like gods with services to cater to their every whim. Nowhere else in the world will roll out the carpet for big money like the US does (excluding maybe Monaco and other small states). I just see 3 as a false assumption, as any country they 'flee' to will have higher taxes anyway. I live in New Zealand and a billionaire here can have a lot of land but otherwise we…

Warren Buffet lives in a 6000 sq ft (~600 sqm) house, drives a 2014 Cadillac, and has McDonald's for breakfast. Despite owning one of the most valuable companies in the world at most one could say he lives like a single-digit millionaire. If your characterization of the "average people" of New Zealand is true, then it seems like he would have no problem fitting right in.

Warren Buffet would be welcome but he'd have a hard time meeting new founders and companies to invest in. Gabe Newell has been hanging out here for a while too and he's fairly down to earth.

I guess my point is that you lose a lot of the perks of being rich by leaving the USA. If you are happy without them then maybe the wealth tax doesn't impact you anyway and you stay where you are

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

#250
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil had such a tax for a long time. It was sub-1%, and was largely agreed as a bad model, since it led to lower liquidity, drying of credit markets, lower consumption, cash hoarding, etc. So not necessarily a great idea. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249882612_The_Econo...

> cash hoarding That used to be called saving and it was considered a good thing. Lower consumption would be better for the environment as well.

Saving is when you put your money in the bank, who then loan it out to businesses and homebuyers.

Putting cash under your mattress just takes it out of circulation.

Post reply on HN