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

The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

moeonmargin.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#111

Post by skybrian »

Guvante wrote: post #33
skybrian wrote: post #23

If the US government got nonvoting shares in startups along with VC's then that could bring in lots of revenue from capital gains without calling it "taxes." If it were in return for a tax break then they might even do it voluntarily. The key would be to get in while valuation is low.

What capital gains? The governments balance sheet doesn't matter... Think of it like the original Bitcoin wallet, its value is $0 because none of those will ever be sold. If dividends are involved it could matter but the government basically gets 20% of dividends already and extra 4% doesn't make a huge difference. Returning to blocking stock buybacks as price manipulation and forcing businesses to give out dividends…

Dividends and stock buybacks are equivalent except for the tax consequences. Money is flowing from the company to investors. If, say, the government had 20% of the stock and sold it into the buyback to remain at 20%, that's similar to a dividend.

So this ends up being equivalent to taxes on both dividends and buybacks (and other economic participation like buyouts from mergers), except that no investor in particular has to pay the tax.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#112

Post by ashdksnndck »

ceejayoz wrote: post #72
ImHereToVote wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I need people to understand that 1860s Republicans and 2020s Republicans are somewhat different. I'm begging at this point.

They’d roll in their graves if they knew the party eventually turned into monarchists.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#114

Post by robocat »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #67

There was a really interesting episode of EconTalk podcast about 6 years ago which had a guest (woman, if it helps find it) arguing that the US gov should invest in and have ownership of a lot more startups, similar to how they funded Tesla.

Investment is about voting/control, not just money.

From a purely financial perspective, federal taxation on companies would be similar to owning shares (except ≈preferential since the government usually gets paid first).

From a voting and control perspective, we usually don't want the government getting involved (the government should be using industry regulations, and avoiding trying to pick winners).

In New Zealand our government screws up everything it has an ownership stake in (notably electricity and rail).

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#116

Post by throwaway27448 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #95
throwaway27448 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it'd be a lot cheaper to work with china rather than pretend like they're going to attack us.

When it comes to China it's best to remember the Boy and the Rattlesnake Story.

We are the country with the proven record as nefarious and backstabbing. This is, in fact, the reason why I am complaining in the first place and don't trust our state to represent our interests (long before I was born—this is a bipartisan problem).

It's quite amazing that we were the target of 9/11 and failed to learn a damn thing that might help us avoid another.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#118

Post by Guvante »

skybrian wrote: post #111
Guvante wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What capital gains? The governments balance sheet doesn't matter... Think of it like the original Bitcoin wallet, its value is $0 because none of those will ever be sold. If dividends are involved it could matter but the government basically gets 20% of dividends already and extra 4% doesn't make a huge difference. Returning to blocking stock buybacks as price manipulation and forcing businesses to give out dividends…

Dividends and stock buybacks are equivalent except for the tax consequences. Money is flowing from the company to investors. If, say, the government had 20% of the stock and sold it into the buyback to remain at 20%, that's similar to a dividend. So this ends up being equivalent to taxes on both dividends and buybacks (and other economic participation like buyouts from mergers), except that no investor in particular…

"Ignoring tax consequences" when talking about government funding? That makes your entire response worthless.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#119

Post by Avicebron »

pixelready wrote: post #110
SoftTalker wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to China it's best to remember the Boy and the Rattlesnake Story.

We’ll need a more apt parable for dueling superpowers and the effect on their citizens. Perhaps “The Giants and the Ants”, where the ants beseech the giants to stop stepping on them as they fight in the fields where they have built their nest. Each of the giants argue that if they look down to avoid stepping on the ants, their rival will gain advantage and win the duel. When the ants ask the giants why they must duel…

wrong metaphor, read leviathan by hobbes. It's all ants.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#120

Post by therealdrag0 »

robocat wrote: post #114
therealdrag0 wrote: post #67

There was a really interesting episode of EconTalk podcast about 6 years ago which had a guest (woman, if it helps find it) arguing that the US gov should invest in and have ownership of a lot more startups, similar to how they funded Tesla.

Investment is about voting/control, not just money. From a purely financial perspective, federal taxation on companies would be similar to owning shares (except ≈preferential since the government usually gets paid first). From a voting and control perspective, we usually don't want the government getting involved (the government should be using industry regulations, and avoiding trying to pick winners). In New Zealan…

Ack.

Here’s the podcast if you’re interested. I know the host shares more of your view so it was an interesting discussion though I don’t remember the details. https://www.econtalk.org/mariana-mazzucato-on-the-value-of-e...

AI summary:

Mazzucato argues that: * Governments do far more than correct market failures—they actively create markets. * Public investment has been essential to many major technological breakthroughs. * Governments should be willing to invest in high-risk innovation, much like venture capitalists. * When taxpayers finance risky innovation, the public should sometimes receive a share of the upside rather than only bearing the downside.

Post reply on HN