He’s trying to make sure he doesnt lose control of his company to pay a forced tax bill on unrealized gains. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me even if others dont like it.
If this passes it probably won’t be the last either which would have further jeopardized things. Now he has money for future things too.
Edit: Zuck has 60% of the company. Do this a couple times and he loses his company. I get wanting to tax him, but taxing him and taking his company are two different things.
I’ll be willing to accept that they are unrealized gains once they can no longer used as collateral to secure loans or used to calculate wealth. Until then they have value and should be taxed either when given (which is different than bought) or as an annual wealth tax.
Seems like that wasn’t argued, just a maneuver to preserve the control facet of the shares even while surrendering some of the financial value could be seen as acceptable…
Wealth tax is a property tax, and just like I am forced to pay tax based on a presumed amount I could sell my house for, it can absolutely make sense to do the same for stocks. But I can totally accept that whatever that is, it shouldn’t mean someone must cede control of a company based merely on a tax burden.
Of course, that said, these ‘too big’ companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that’s a separate discussion than the taxation part.
Of course, that said, these ‘too big’ companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that’s a separate discussion than the taxation part.
I agree, thats a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with a tax or this citizen ballot measure.
I’d be fine if they took him below 50% control. Companies that large should be required to be owned by many multiples of the number of people who currently own them and anyone seeking to remain on top of such a thing should be dancing for their many masters daily.
If they hadn’t done the stock split he’d be at risk of losing his company if he had to pay the tax bill. He’d probably be okay this one time, but if it happened a 2nd time he’d maybe lose it.
Now he cant lose his company to pay the tax bill.
Edit: its possible the 1st one could have made him lose the company though as a 5% tax bill floods the markets with shares and the price cant support it and drops, so he has to sell more shares to pay the bill from the original price he was billed at. But I think he might have been okay with a 1 time hit. We can watch what happens to the stock price when he sells his class C shares and see what would have happened after the fact though.
Edit: people also know he would have to sell before this stock split maneuver happened and could try to take advantage of it to purposefully increase the price before his bill, then depress the price after he got his bill. It could have turned into some hostile action to remove him. That kind of stock manipulation happens all the time.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Yeah, without that „Stock Move“ He May had to reduce his possession by selling real shares.
Tbh, even I am not a big fan, I think it’s okay like this. I mean, at least he is paying. And it would kinda be unfair de-thronizing him with sanctions.
Also an interesting thought about this being a maneuver. I personally think he will be removed the day, a different (I mean really different) US-Goverment gets voted. He‘s having a good Cooperation with the corrente one.
He’s trying to make sure he doesnt lose control of his company to pay a forced tax bill on unrealized gains. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me even if others dont like it.
If this passes it probably won’t be the last either which would have further jeopardized things. Now he has money for future things too.
Edit: Zuck has 60% of the company. Do this a couple times and he loses his company. I get wanting to tax him, but taxing him and taking his company are two different things.
I’ll be willing to accept that they are unrealized gains once they can no longer used as collateral to secure loans or used to calculate wealth. Until then they have value and should be taxed either when given (which is different than bought) or as an annual wealth tax.
Seems like that wasn’t argued, just a maneuver to preserve the control facet of the shares even while surrendering some of the financial value could be seen as acceptable…
Wealth tax is a property tax, and just like I am forced to pay tax based on a presumed amount I could sell my house for, it can absolutely make sense to do the same for stocks. But I can totally accept that whatever that is, it shouldn’t mean someone must cede control of a company based merely on a tax burden.
Of course, that said, these ‘too big’ companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that’s a separate discussion than the taxation part.
I agree, thats a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with a tax or this citizen ballot measure.
He’d have to sell shares which would be realized gains at that point.
I’d be fine if they took him below 50% control. Companies that large should be required to be owned by many multiples of the number of people who currently own them and anyone seeking to remain on top of such a thing should be dancing for their many masters daily.
The ballot measure isn’t should large companies be allowed a majority shareholder. Thats a very different issue than wanting them to pay taxes.
Voting shares are not being diluted.
If he hadn’t done this.
Ah, ok. That condition wasn’t clear.
In my understanding he‘s not losing his company. He only will sell the shares that do not include parts of the company
If they hadn’t done this he would have been at risk. Hes no longer because of this.
What exactly do you mean with being „at risk“? That he could not have paid that?
Even so, I think it is okay. Now he is able to pay the money.
If they hadn’t done the stock split he’d be at risk of losing his company if he had to pay the tax bill. He’d probably be okay this one time, but if it happened a 2nd time he’d maybe lose it.
Now he cant lose his company to pay the tax bill.
Edit: its possible the 1st one could have made him lose the company though as a 5% tax bill floods the markets with shares and the price cant support it and drops, so he has to sell more shares to pay the bill from the original price he was billed at. But I think he might have been okay with a 1 time hit. We can watch what happens to the stock price when he sells his class C shares and see what would have happened after the fact though.
Edit: people also know he would have to sell before this stock split maneuver happened and could try to take advantage of it to purposefully increase the price before his bill, then depress the price after he got his bill. It could have turned into some hostile action to remove him. That kind of stock manipulation happens all the time.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Yeah, without that „Stock Move“ He May had to reduce his possession by selling real shares.
Tbh, even I am not a big fan, I think it’s okay like this. I mean, at least he is paying. And it would kinda be unfair de-thronizing him with sanctions.
Also an interesting thought about this being a maneuver. I personally think he will be removed the day, a different (I mean really different) US-Goverment gets voted. He‘s having a good Cooperation with the corrente one.