The tax would force share liquidations within a decade.
When politicians say they want to seize/tax "wealth" but actually mean "shares in your own company that you yourself founded", the real point is making it impossible for anyone to actually control their own company for more than a decade.
They won't let you stay, either.
Users praised Palmer Luckey's warning that wealth taxes target founder control of companies as honest and accurate, while others attacked him personally as a moron and labeled the position communist.
@MplsBarry The current "Billionaire Tax" proposal specifically says that shares with extra voting rights are to be taxed on the voting interest, not the financial interest.
They want to make it impossible to own private companies and force transfer of control to the government.
@PalmerLuckey @toly That’s a stretch. Taxing wealth ≠ taking control of companies. People can debate policy without turning it into “they’re coming for your ownership
@Miraculous44_ @toly They are coming for your ownership.
@PalmerLuckey
@PalmerLuckey @toly They only know two words: Tax and Seize. Which actually means the same thing.
@PalmerLuckey Makes you think why they won't go after waste and fraud, before trying to seize and tax 🤔
@PalmerLuckey Appreciate the clarification. Have not followed the way this has evolved (or degenerated possibly more accurate). The confiscatory aspect of it was bad enough, but diluting founder control ultimately more pernicious.
It's ultimately about ensuring that there are no sources of power in society beyond The Party.
Businesses, churches, culture, and tradition all get hollowed out and turned into skinsuits for the animating ideology of the managerial class. "Wokeness" was an attempt by that class to seize overt totalitarian control after they lost the ability to wield soft power effectively.
@PalmerLuckey @Miraculous44_ @toly bernie sanders explicitly said this in his times op-ed — the point of taking equity in the AI companies was for him (“the people”) to control them
@PalmerLuckey Yes, though could use dual class shares to potentially get around the control issue. Still hugely distortionate, so this is most assuredly not an endorsement.
The government has more resources and more hands and a larger infrastructure and it will outlast you and your company.
Be glad your creation can outlive what it otherwise could have.
It’s for the greater good and to ensure a robust and proper stewardship of its development long term.
It seems unfair to you but future generations will be thankful that it happened this way.
You ultimately want to create for humanity right?
This accomplishes that goal and you get the credit of being the inaugural concept and creator of what it ultimately becomes
It is worse than that, they use emotional arguments to manipulate people into choosing their side against whomever they target. Look at the wording they use "if only we had 5%, we could give everyone free college" or "We're evil because we want money so people can afford to go to the doctor and get an inhaler?". People just fall for it hook line and sinker without realizing, the US govt budget is trillions, that one item they bring up is a tiny drop in the bucket when compared to the budget and is doable within that budget.
They just want a piece of what people built to waste on all the other shit they waste money on, nevermind all the taxes that these companies generate for the government already 🙃
@PalmerLuckey Doubt it’s that philosophical tbh. You’re a fat goose and they’re broke. Everything else is window dressing.
While other tech companies invested in making our kids addicted to Social Media, Elon used his wealth to fund innovation for the benefit of humanity. His money is directly benefiting society.
Taking more from Elon will not solve our problems. He has literally paid more in taxes than any person in history.
@PalmerLuckey They’re insane the amount of risk, luck and work it takes to start and maintain a business is off the charts. Much easier to work a day job and have a life. Thats why the payoffs so high for entrepreneurs because the risks so high.
@PalmerLuckey @MplsBarry Why does the government think they can run companies better than the owners?
@PalmerLuckey Socialism is only possible by infringing on sovereignty.
Owning a company is a form of sovereignty.
@PalmerLuckey It will be fun to see Palmer Luckey become the second Trillionaire.
Depends on your view of "better" - I suspect even people proposing this would accept, if reluctantly (though in the face of overwhelming evidence), that they would not run them better as gauged by typical (my view: appropriate) standards (e.g. profitability, growth, etc) but that they would be run more of the interest of society (by which they mean in furtherance of their own agendas).
It is also worth bearing in mind that most of these people seem to genuinely believe, or at least operate as if, it is somehow a better world if everyone is poorer though basically equal, as compared to basically everyone (the poor included) being better off in absolute terms, though with some being very much better off and a few being dramatically rich. (And this is even ignoring the quality-of-life improvements profit-maximizing companies have produced which benefit everyone, or nearly everyone).
If the government seized his companies, the value of his companies would collapse overnight.
Their value is entirely tied to him owning and running them.
Leftist leaders know that. The point is to destroy his companies to punish him for dissent. Set an example for any other founder.
Notice they never call out “their” billionaires. Their focus is always on Musk.
