TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

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

263 点作者 hncurious超过 3 年前

36 条评论

ncallaway超过 3 年前
I think the comments here miss a couple of factors.<p>First, and primarily, Tim Sweeny states: &quot;If this tax scheme had been place, I’d have been forced to liquidate nearly my entire ownership.&quot; This is absolutely false.<p>The proposed law (legislative text available here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.finance.senate.gov&#x2F;chairmans-news&#x2F;wyden-unveils-billionaires-income-tax" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.finance.senate.gov&#x2F;chairmans-news&#x2F;wyden-unveils-...</a>) would not apply the tax scheme to Epic Games. At all.<p>See Section 491, which applies the new tax scheme to &quot;tradable covered assets&quot;, and Section 497 which defines &quot;Tradable Covered Assets&quot;. Those are defined assets traded on established securities markets or readily available on secondary markets. Epic Games is a privately held company, and not traded on established securities markets or readily available on secondary markets.<p>Additionally, the law allows each person to designate up to $1B of normally &quot;tradable covered assets&quot; as &quot;nontradable covered assets&quot;. Which means if this law <i>did</i> apply to Tim Sweeny, it wouldn&#x27;t have impacted his holdings by as much as he implies, as $1B of his assets is removed from his &quot;assets&quot; at the start of the calculation. This significantly reduces the amount of shares he would have to liquidate to cover his take burden.
评论 #29022306 未加载
评论 #29022226 未加载
评论 #29022050 未加载
评论 #29022344 未加载
评论 #29022215 未加载
adam_arthur超过 3 年前
It&#x27;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.<p>- Tax capital gains &gt;1m a year as regular income.<p>- Fix loopholes that allow for equity as collateral for perpetual loans without ever selling the underlying.<p>- Remove step up in cost basis on inheriting assets.<p>- Tax stock buybacks at same level as dividends.<p>- Don&#x27;t bring back SALT deduction.<p>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?<p>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&#x27;s undervalued to reduce operational expenses re dividends. It&#x27;s mostly a buy at any price to juice valuations. I&#x27;m not against companies returning money to shareholders, but buybacks shouldn&#x27;t be tax advantaged vs dividends.<p>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.<p>I suspect Congress doesn&#x27;t do these things because it would actually impact their own finances. And of course they need unilateral agreement on any approach.
评论 #29021708 未加载
评论 #29022262 未加载
评论 #29022127 未加载
评论 #29022664 未加载
评论 #29021962 未加载
评论 #29021994 未加载
评论 #29021971 未加载
anigbrowl超过 3 年前
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.<p>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&#x27;s a public company, the bulk of the stock is non-voting so he has <i>de facto</i> sole control of the firm. No matter how destructive of shareholder value or public goods his executive decisions, it&#x27;s virtually impossible for anyone else to overturn them barring some novel legal line of attack.<p>I have no particular feelings about Tim Sweeney&#x2F;Epic, but would the economy or the gaming world be worse off if he no longer had founder control? If he&#x27;s great at his job I presume shareholders would want to keep him on as CEO and would compensate him handsomely in cash money.
评论 #29020118 未加载
评论 #29020521 未加载
评论 #29021696 未加载
评论 #29020097 未加载
评论 #29021469 未加载
评论 #29021183 未加载
评论 #29021404 未加载
评论 #29020329 未加载
rsj_hn超过 3 年前
Some observations:<p>1. Whatever happened to increasing tax rates, like pretty much every other country? Why these weird gimmicks?<p>2. A much greater cause of elite wealth accumulation is running deficits. Deficits are when you want to spend on social welfare but don&#x27;t have the courage to pay for it with taxes. So you make both sides happy and increase spending while running up deficits. The reason we&#x27;ve seen this astronomical increase in top incomes is because of massive deficit spending.<p>3. Any tax bill targeting billionaires is going to fail since they can give up US citizenship and offshore whatever they want. If you are serious about soaking the rich, you need controls on capital flight. But that goes against the neoliberal project of globalization. Commitment to that project is going to make any soak-the-rich effort not work. It will end up hitting the upper middle class that can&#x27;t offshore -- they are the real targets.<p>4. Envy-based politics don&#x27;t work. There is a dangerous game being played here. You want to inculcate solidarity and national purpose, but again that goes against the liberal project that only tells us who we are supposed to hate based on their race and&#x2F;or class.<p>5. If you have a low interest rate policy, then you are going to make a lot of billionaires much richer via capital appreciation. That&#x27;s not the fault of the billionaires. If you want to reduce that, then raise interest rates. All these billionaires will become much poorer. Because this is all just paper wealth.<p>6. The Original Sin of the left is trying to mess with prices instead of incomes. Tax incomes, not repricing of wealth.
评论 #29021553 未加载
评论 #29021067 未加载
评论 #29021783 未加载
评论 #29021360 未加载
评论 #29020894 未加载
评论 #29020923 未加载
评论 #29020889 未加载
评论 #29021108 未加载
IG_Semmelweiss超过 3 年前
Curious.<p>Doesn&#x27;t this open up the possibility of debt slavery of the entrepreneur, to the government ?<p>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.<p>Next year, FDA does not approve my device, and my stock tanks to near $0. Now even if i sold all my stock, I can&#x27;t even pay back the IRS for my tax debt.<p>I now have lost my company, but I have also incurred massive debt in the process. And if I am not mistaken, IRS debt is not dis-chargeable in bankruptcy.<p>Am I reading this wrong ?
评论 #29022049 未加载
评论 #29021640 未加载
评论 #29021636 未加载
评论 #29021642 未加载
评论 #29021902 未加载
评论 #29021675 未加载
coenhyde超过 3 年前
Bad idea to tax unrealized capital gains. Proposal; How about we gut our entire tax code and replace it with a single tax that taxes when money moves from one entity to another. Let&#x27;s call it a Transaction Tax. It would replace Sales Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc and introduce tax on debt creation (when the bank gives you the money). This would close all loop holes and put the entire tax industry out of business. Given it would be taking a slice of every transaction, the rate could probably be super low. 1-2% would be my guess. What can you see wrong with this proposal?
评论 #29020883 未加载
评论 #29020751 未加载
评论 #29020956 未加载
评论 #29020691 未加载
评论 #29021141 未加载
评论 #29021451 未加载
评论 #29021134 未加载
评论 #29021343 未加载
fhrow4484超过 3 年前
&gt; It doesn’t apply to shares held by hedge funds like KKR, nor to corporate investors like Tencent and Sony.<p>If that&#x27;s the case, then what prevents billionaires like him from creating &quot;Tim Sweeney angel fund LLC&quot; and have that entity retain control of Epic?<p>Then since this entity is private, couldn&#x27;t it defer that tax at the time it sells the entity?<p>With the whole deferred tax scheme that applies to assets not traded on an exchange, i.e. a &quot;deferral charge meant to replicate interest payments on taxes that went unpaid each year, together totalling a tax capped at 49%&quot; as described in <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rollcall.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;wyden-details-proposed-tax-on-billionaires-unrealized-gains&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rollcall.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;wyden-details-proposed-t...</a>
评论 #29020489 未加载
评论 #29020503 未加载
评论 #29020494 未加载
评论 #29024689 未加载
评论 #29021496 未加载
TameAntelope超过 3 年前
Okay, doesn&#x27;t it feel crazy that we&#x27;re just throwing ideas out there and if it seems to justify the spending for something totally unrelated, it&#x27;ll have a reasonable chance of becoming literally the highest law of the land?<p>Maybe it&#x27;s because I&#x27;m not in the room, but this feels incredibly slapdash for something so incredibly important.
评论 #29021473 未加载
评论 #29021799 未加载
评论 #29021705 未加载
评论 #29020957 未加载
new_realist超过 3 年前
The current tax situation is like property taxes in California before Prop 19: nobody sells, so ownership and control never changes. This facilitates wealth transfer from generation to generation (in the equity case, though the use of trusts) and perpetuates wealth inequality.
评论 #29020551 未加载
评论 #29020147 未加载
评论 #29021072 未加载
评论 #29020342 未加载
评论 #29020192 未加载
hn_throwaway_99超过 3 年前
This proposal seemed utterly reasonable to me, especially this:<p>&gt; US budget deficits don’t require a radical confiscation scheme like this. We already have a very effective progressive tax system which applies the same rules - but different rates - to everyone. If tax revenue is too low, just raise the top tax brackets<p>That, together with closing the step-up-in-basis loophole, are the simplest ways to more equitably raise revenue.
评论 #29021391 未加载
maerF0x0超过 3 年前
I&#x27;m actually in favor of this.<p>I&#x27;ve long held that there should be public liquidity in all companies over a certain valuation and the company should not be allowed to bar you from selling the stock (though it could retain right to beat any pending offers)<p>It&#x27;s asinine that companies are allowed to treat equity pay as pay, and IRS can tax it as realized (AMT), but the worker does not in fact have any instrument with which to pay the bill.<p>Edit: Also this is a really smart tweet IMO<p><pre><code> Give yourself a salary that pays for your wealth tax obligations. You don&#x27;t have to sell anything. </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;macrofacet&#x2F;status&#x2F;1453487461989076997" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;macrofacet&#x2F;status&#x2F;1453487461989076997</a><p>The valuation would grow slower due to burn rate, but the ownership % would not change.
评论 #29020145 未加载
评论 #29020120 未加载
评论 #29020117 未加载
评论 #29020593 未加载
评论 #29020835 未加载
评论 #29020374 未加载
randyrand超过 3 年前
It will also add very odd incentive to not grow your company after you reach the billionaire tax-level.<p>A. you&#x27;ll maintain ownership<p>B. you wont have to pay taxes on the gains<p>Tons lot of founders care about &#x27;A&#x27; a lot more than is &quot;rational&quot;.<p>It sounds okay, but the USA will miss out on a lot of potential wealth and tax revenue from people who choose not to grow their companies into huge multinational corporations.
评论 #29020248 未加载
评论 #29020344 未加载
评论 #29020188 未加载
varelse超过 3 年前
If the rate is too high, I suspect wealth will be transferred to assets like real estate with lower annual taxations. And this will lead to a new class of speculation. Or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic because we haven&#x27;t solved the fundamental problem that there are just too many bespoke deductions for the rich.
kragen超过 3 年前
You know, one of the worst things about <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> is the degree to which its villains are cartoonish strawmen, doing things like... passing tax bills that end founder control of independent companies.
dzonga超过 3 年前
the reasonable thing, would be to tax loans underwritten by securities as income. that loophole, of borrowing on stocks you own is pretty much giving a bazooka to sycophants or crooks who are prone to abusing it. look at adam neuman for example. otherwise, this so called bill is gonna punish the people it didn&#x27;t intend to punish, while leaving the current beneficiaries of low wealth tax unharmed.
amelius超过 3 年前
If the gains are theoretical, wouldn&#x27;t it make sense to make the tax theoretical too?
AdamN超过 3 年前
There&#x27;s some truth to it ... but why is that a bad thing exactly?
评论 #29020462 未加载
评论 #29020049 未加载
评论 #29020099 未加载
评论 #29020323 未加载
eftychis超过 3 年前
I am still trying to go through everything proposed and well I don&#x27;t see a final draft somewhere -given that a lot of sub clauses, that are tax critical, seems to be flying around:<p>I agree with Tim&#x27;s tweet and the article: not sure it will actually bring more money. It might bring much less.<p>Essentially the fundamental assertion this breaks is that the stock market is going to stay the same. This might be a great tool now for predicting stock upper value: you are the majority owner and have to decide if you are going to do a buyback or liquidate corporate stock. If your paper value is close to a billion of money you will never see but will pay taxes to, I think you have a strong incentive to keep control of your company and screw the rest of your investors, who would love a buyback as that is the tax effective way of making money of stock right now. Maybe dividends will do a comeback? Regardless, I would be surprised if some stock -- say tesla -- remain high.<p>So a lot of small investors &#x2F; average Joe get to declare tax losses so that a big fish that has greater control on the stock price might declare wins???<p>I am missing some clause I guess. I am not touching IPO implications as that is anothwr minefield and a lot of other threads are discussing it
kinghajj超过 3 年前
It looks like Epic Games is a private company, so from what I understand in the proposal, this wouldn&#x27;t affect him, since his shares are not publicly tradable. The proposal might affect him when&#x2F;if he were to sell any shares, though, since it has a provision to accrue tax liability on illiquid assets like art&#x2F;etc, to be owed at time of sale.
评论 #29019990 未加载
评论 #29019993 未加载
emodendroket超过 3 年前
Can&#x27;t really say I&#x27;m shocked to learn a guy who would have to pay more taxes under the new tax plan opposes it.
vburg超过 3 年前
Buffet&#x2F;Gates&#x2F;Bloomberg&#x2F;Soros&#x2F;Cuban have been saying for years the rich need to pay more taxes. Propose a tax increase that actually hits the super-rich and the screaming begins. Guess all along they meant the &quot;other rich&quot;, anyone making 200k.
评论 #29021720 未加载
评论 #29021753 未加载
madrox超过 3 年前
I&#x27;m curious how new tax schemes like the proposal Sweeney is criticizing get vetted. It&#x27;s probably impossible to determine actual economic effects of radical tax reform in advance. Further, from a rational perspective there&#x27;s no incentive for the best minds to advocate loophole closure in tax schemes as there&#x27;s more value in exploiting them.<p>I wonder if this is the kind of thing CNNs might be good at simulating some day.
necovek超过 3 年前
What&#x27;s to stop individual founders from setting up their &quot;proxy&quot; LLCs owned by them to own their stock? As LLC would be privately owned, they&#x27;d have no stock value, and their owners could not be taxed on the gains.<p>If LLC company does not qualify as a &quot;corporate investor&quot; like Sony or Tencent (from Tim&#x27;s examples), is there a structure that does?
lr1970超过 3 年前
In American system corporations have personhood. In such context, why this new tax law applies only to individuals holding the stock and not to the corporations, banks, hedge-funds, etc. I genuinely do not understand! If it were to apply uniformly for all stock owners the absurdity of the proposal would become obvious.
anonporridge超过 3 年前
Question I&#x27;ve had for a while.<p>Assuming a wealth tax gets through, couldn&#x27;t the wealthy just take out a loan at near 0% against their stocks to pay the bill?<p>Could they get away without selling any stock at all?<p>Especially in an inflationary environment that many people think will get even more inflationary and a Fed that seemingly won&#x27;t let the stock market crash.
评论 #29021781 未加载
summerlight超过 3 年前
Beside of whether this particular tax reform bill is good or not, does it have any chance to survive in the current Supreme Court setup? If it&#x27;s definitely not, I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a good idea to pursue it&#x27;s going to shrink the future political possibility of taxing multi-billionaires.
belltaco超过 3 年前
A twitter reply says this:<p>&gt; I think everyone needs to read the bill and calm down. &quot;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. &quot;<p>So this wouldn&#x27;t have even applied to Epic Games?
评论 #29021784 未加载
ameen超过 3 年前
Would this also not affect angel investing&#x2F;seed investing by individuals?<p>If there&#x27;s no huge incentive for an investor once a company makes it to hold their stock, every successful company will be led by corporate hedge funds&#x2F;investment firms.
phonon超过 3 年前
Seems to me stock asset taxes should be on the same order as real estate taxes...1% per year or so of total assets (with a very healthy carve-out&#x2F;minimum). If it&#x27;s truly 25% per increase that seems counter-productive.
ttul超过 3 年前
The best way to fund Democrat programs is a value added tax. But of course nobody wants to talk about that. Every other country with significant social programs has a VAT. It’s not a coincidence.
thedz超过 3 年前
Talk about property taxes next tim
brnt超过 3 年前
An altogether _very_ reasonable price for what we&#x27;re getting in return.
评论 #29020283 未加载
8bitsrule超过 3 年前
A billion dollars ought to be enough for anybody.
web2sucks超过 3 年前
Everyone in this thread is talking about how to properly tax. How about we remove taxes all together. Everything should be private other than roads.
评论 #29021808 未加载
015a超过 3 年前
This is legitimately one of the dumbest, most boneheaded tax schemes I&#x27;ve ever seen the left devise. I&#x27;m all for taxing the rich, but not like this.<p>First, this creates a perverse incentive for founders to stifle the growth (or more specifically, in private companies: valuation) of their companies in order to avoid a high-tax event. This may actually be something the Board would approve, in some companies, because this high-tax event would involve the dilution of founder control; companies grant founders tons of shares for a reason, its because they&#x27;re assumedly doing something to deserve it, and if the Board wanted those shares in someone else&#x27;s hands they would have done that in the first place.<p>Second, this is again especially true for private companies but also applies to public ones: it adversely impacts American companies and American founders. We are a global society. If a strong, American company is forced to sell a significant portion of their shares, either on the public market or through private investors, in order to pay a large tax bill, who is going to buy those shares? Investors, generally, which includes entities both domestic AND FOREIGN. These taxable events will move significant wealth out of American hands and into foreign investment entities who are not subject to the same laws.<p>Third, many people don&#x27;t realize that the total valuation of the stock market outweighs the total value of all US Dollars in circulation by ~30x (~$50T vs ~$1.5T). Tim could not be more right when he says that he&#x27;s not really a billionaire, and Musk is not an almost-trillionaire. Stock wealth ISN&#x27;T REAL, and I don&#x27;t just mean that in nebulous, floaty terms, I mean it in very physical, real, &quot;If Democrats try to make stock market wealth real, they will destroy the economy, full stop, there are literally not enough US Dollars to represent the wealth of the US Stock market in real terms.&quot; Because taxes are paid in US Dollars, not in TSLA shares, these taxable events will reify a MASSIVE portion of fake-wealth currently tied up in the stock market, which is already significantly inflated due to the Fed&#x27;s QE over the past decade.<p>Fourth, this is basically a &quot;Delaware C-Corp&quot; situation; the only reason this tax bill would generate so much income for the US Government is because it is new; billionaires haven&#x27;t prepared for it. So, it&#x27;ll make a ton of money, ONE TIME. Looking into the future, its unsustainable; it creates a massive incentive to offshore personal founder wealth, and possibly even citizenship and corporate headquartering. With COVID accelerating remote work, there&#x27;s a ridiculously real possibility of companies, in the near near future, being founded outside the US, but still accessing as much US talent as they need. The USG can tax the middle class people who work for the company within their borders, but the rich founders? They&#x27;re on an island. Ayn Rand was an idiot, but she wasn&#x27;t wrong about everything; rich people will do anything to escape a tax bill.<p>But the dumbest thing, above all else, is how fucking self-servingly idiotic this bill is. I know our policymakers all share one brain cell, and Biden has been using it a lot recently, but this is beyond reproach. The democrats need money to pay for social programs. That isn&#x27;t wealth redistribution; its a handout. That money will come from taxing American businesspeople, forcing them to sell shares, which will then be bought by other corporations and investment entities, and the wealth gap will just keep getting bigger and bigger; on the one side are average Americans who can&#x27;t breach into the INSANE wealth inside corporate America, but are at least kept going on food stamps and free childcare. On the other side, people still insanely rich, just a little bit less so, and their companies are now owned by Tencent and the CCP.<p>The better path forward for some kind of wealth redistribution bill is something which creates incentives for companies to distribute significantly more corporate shares to more employees. I don&#x27;t know what that looks like, specifically, but: Every single employee of every single company should see a portion of their compensation be represented as shares in the company, even if its just a handful, from the Waitresses serving tables at the Cheesecake Factory to the CEO who plans strategy. Ultimately this benefits the company, at least in some way, because it aligns financial success at every level, it benefits employees because its an additional vector for compensation which is anti-inflationary at a macroeconomic level (unlike a minimum wage increase, which is absolutely still necessary, but I don&#x27;t feel is enough), it benefits tax revenue because many lower-wage roles will liquidate these shares very quickly (if possible) (a taxable event), and it benefits US political policy because it keeps ownership of many American corporations in the hands of Americans, rather than foreign investment entities.
评论 #29021273 未加载
lugged超过 3 年前
Watch progressives double down and spin this tweet as alt right.