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

Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#121

Post by Terretta »

appplication wrote: post #118
_heimdall wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system. Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer. We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.

Put simply, people in these brackets don’t need more options for tax breaks.

The audience of HN are striving to be "people in these brackets" and far more here have experienced paper gains over $100M then seen it evaporate, than the few that end up at a place they are insensitive to marginal dollars.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#122

Post by EasyMark »

mike_hearn wrote: post #111
EasyMark wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If said activists are part of a company that approves of their activities why isn’t their censorship legitimate? Commenters/posters are free to take their comments and posts somewhere else. Why don’t the “censors” get a say on what goes up on their platform?

The activists aren't a part of the company. Facebook outsources fact checking to third parties.

They still control it, and it’s still their right as a corporation. I’m asking where is it wrong or in the US Constitution that says a company has to allow all points of view? That’s a moral call, and I can see people arguing that, but it is not illegal or amoral from the point of the company or those who say free speech/property rights apply to all

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#123

Post by _heimdall »

appplication wrote: post #118
_heimdall wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system. Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer. We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.

Put simply, people in these brackets don’t need more options for tax breaks.

Putting it even more simply, people don't need tax breaks. If our current system has loop holes it needs to be simplified such that loop holes can't reasonably exist.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#124

Post by Terretta »

andy_ppp wrote: post #120
Terretta wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups with rapidly increasing value but no way to take money off the table? It doesn't take much to cross "$100m in assets" as a startup, say, $2.5M in revenue at 40x valuation (or $5M at 20x, etc.), even while loss-making. How should the founders and equity investors in a bootstrapped high growth unicorn that is neither public nor profit-making handle this pr…

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable.

* To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S.

These days, instead of citing nebulous public good, perhaps it could be thought of as NOA and SOA fees: Nation Owners' Association fees, and State Owners' Association fees. You can look for a different neighborhood, or contribute to improve this one.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#125

Post by bjtitus »

Terretta wrote: post #124
andy_ppp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing…

Who are these non-wealthy individuals who can't afford ramen but hold over $100 million in assets of _publicly traded companies_?

> the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S.

This was a representational issue, not non-transactional taxation. Property taxes existed in many colonies 100 years before the revolution.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#126

Post by Terretta »

andy_ppp wrote: post #120
Terretta wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups with rapidly increasing value but no way to take money off the table? It doesn't take much to cross "$100m in assets" as a startup, say, $2.5M in revenue at 40x valuation (or $5M at 20x, etc.), even while loss-making. How should the founders and equity investors in a bootstrapped high growth unicorn that is neither public nor profit-making handle this pr…

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it.

On the contrary, many variations of proposals (they keep popping up) cover partnerships or other forms of company holders as well.

Even in the Harris plan, though not usually talked about, even for the illiquid not-tradable group there would be a new deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon exit. To be fair, "exit" implies an ability to pay that.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#127

Post by andy_ppp »

Terretta wrote: post #124
andy_ppp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing…

It’s hard to put into pithy terms but check out Citibank’s former top trader on wealth inequality and why we need to find a way to tax back some of the wealth from the rich: https://youtu.be/TflnQb9E6lw

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#128

Post by throw310822 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
throw310822 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick reminder of how democracy works: people's choice -> government -> media -> narrative -> people's choice

> people's choice -> government -> media -> narrative -> people's choice In this toy model, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have zero influence over either the media or government?

No, of course you're right, the "toy model" is exaggerated. I think it was more true in some countries than others and several decades ago, when there was no internet and the media were dominated by a few players (including the government itself, in many countries) all very much established.

Let's say that I suspect that democracy is a system that assumes public opinion to be directed so that it doesn't stray too much from a narrow range of possibilities. This can be done just by manipulating the Overton window.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#129

Post by Terretta »

bjtitus wrote: post #125
Terretta wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing…

Who are these non-wealthy individuals who can't afford ramen but hold over $100 million in assets of _publicly traded companies_? > the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. This was a representational issue, not non-transactional taxation. Property taxes existed in many colonies 100 years before th…

It is accurate that the latest incarnation*, the supposed Harris version, within that $100 million club, you'd only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradeable assets (i.e., not shares of private startups or real estate).

Not usually mentioned: even for this illiquid group there would still be an additional deferred tax of up to 10% on the unrealized capital gains upon exit.

* Once passed, anything like this is unlikely to escape tinkering until it matches most other versions, that are not limited to "tradable". Look at how worried farms are, for example, another relatively cash neutral but cap gain increasing growth (ahem) business.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#130

Post by Xen9 »

chasd00 wrote: post #46

When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

Counterpoint: https://rumble.com/v4e0xw0-tucker-carlson-interviews-mike-be...
Post reply on HN