It depends on the day and how honest people feel. If it were truly about numbers they would probably find more success in getting their government to spend smarter.
I honestly don't see how this outcome isn't all but guaranteed. It is actually almost comically self-destructive. Taxes based on the same idea of (just take a bit from the rich) destroyed the Swedish financial markets (basically forever).
> As a result, revenues from these taxes were disappointing. For example, revenues from the tax on fixed-income securities were initially expected to amount to 1,500 million Swedish kronor per year. They did not amount to more than 80 million Swedish kronor in any year and the average was closer to 50 million.[4] In addition, as taxable trading volumes fell, so did revenues from capital gains taxes, entirely offsetting revenues from the equity transactions tax that had grown to 4,000 million Swedish kronor by 1988
So off by an order of magnitude in their estimates _and_ nuked revenue from the capital gains taxes. Overall probably one of the dumbest ideas ever executed because it was so easy to forecast the second order effects.
A transaction tax is not the same as a wealth tax.
Property taxes, paid by every single homeowner, are a wealth tax. The difference is that for most homeowners, their house is their most valuable asset. Not the case for billionaires.
The SEC is very good at creating complexity, but has been terrible at protecting shareholders. The SEC has failed to detect and prosecute almost every massive fraud, including Madoff and Enron (despite being tipped off in both cases).
Ah concur, so long as the Scoattish pronunciation's brought in line wi' a proper Manc twang:
«Ah pit the roobbish oot in the mornin’, then catch the booss wi’ a goon tucked doon ma kecks» («I take the rubbish out in the morning before taking the bus with a gun in my pants»).
Is this hyperbole? Or did you actually look into details? I'm curious about your understanding of what happened here. I believe this is an exchange of share types, but I could be mistaken.
They gave every shareholder a non-voting share for each share they own. Effectively a stock split. Zuck can sell his non-voting shares to pay the tax without losing control of the company.
In some sense Meta has doubled the voting power of Zuckerberg's shares. Previously he had X shares with 10X votes. Now he has 2X shares, can sell half of them for close to the market price, and still keep his 10X votes.
"The board establishes a new Class C share type with no votes. It also announces a one-time dividend of a Class C share for each Class A and B share outstanding".
You changed your post. You mentioned Levine. I don't know what else you changed. But Levine posted this in his article. I don't know where you're getting the part where he can sell half his shares.
"If Zuckerberg needs to pay taxes, he can sell his new zero-vote shares to raise money without diluting his voting rights. Not too many: He can “immediately sell or transfer up to 20% of the shares of Class C common stock that he receives in the Dividend, representing 10% of his overall economic stake in the Company, for any reason,” but the board “negotiated for and obtained Mr. Zuckerberg’s agreement that 80% of the shares of Class C common stock that he receives in the Dividend be subject to the Stapling Condition,” under which he can’t sell those no-vote shares without also selling some high-vote shares. The basic deal remains intact — he needs to own a meaningful chunk of shares to keep voting control — but there’s a liquidity buffer for taxes."
> Solar is also there for the long haul, though its land usage is prohibitive compared to nuclear sources.
Even just the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the US is enough to power the entire country with solar power. [1] In no sense is solar's land footprint "prohibitive", other than maybe for micro-states.
> (Wind power is a waste of money, time, and materials, but that's another topic.)
The World Nuclear Association, a group that promotes nuclear power, admits that wind power is cheaper than nuclear.
"Nuclear energy averaged 0.4 euro ¢/kWh, much the same as hydro; coal was over 4.0 ¢/kWh (4.1-7.3), gas ranged 1.3-2.3 ¢/kWh and only wind showed up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 ¢/kWh average. "[2]
Your current sources of information are lying to you. Drop them.
> The legal requirement is more a fail safe than a mandate, because obviously the company wants to act in the best interest of the company
"The company" is not a living thing. It cannot "want" something.
A company does what its management and board wish for it do to. Ergo its wants are the managements wants. Management is human, and most humans want money.
Paying management with company stock is theoretically meant to align those incentives.
A real estate website tells me the average in that city is $400K. But it does seem pretty dumb to spend that amount of money on improvements when you know damn well your ownership is fraudulent and may come back to bite you.
When a fraudulently obtained house costs $214k you may as well spend the $400k average house price in that city and avoid jail forever. Staying out of jail and continuing to work as a cop is easily worth more than $200k.
$214k is more than I have spent on the home I "own" (have a mortgage on) even adding in my downpayment over the last 7 years. He could have bought a home for what he claims to have spent.
Your original comment to which I was replying when you edited your comment:
> You have to count the total amount you will pay on the mortgage.
Yes. That's what I was counting, I have spent less than $214k on my house, repairs and mortgage.
Your comment after that was edited:
> A house price is a house price, you can't say it's only 20%.
What are you talking about? The question is could he have afforded a house for $214k, and the answer is yes. Houses in that area don't cost a minimum of $1 million, even the house he attempted to steal wasn't worth that much.
But he had liquid 214k to spend on improvements. So how is that different than being able to afford to save up 214k for a down payment?
The only thing I can think of is he is using extremely suspect math and a lot of that 214k comes from "sweat equity" billed at a ridiculous rate. Otherwise he'd easily be able to afford a mortgage in that area with 214k down.
cowlevel is saying that they know what a down payment is but also thinks that you can’t buy a house that costs more than the amount of money you have in the bank
If that's what they believe they're a strange person. Very few people buy houses in the US with cash in the bank equal to the home price. They buy them with mortgages. And someone who can spend $214k on home repair work over 4 years could have afforded a pretty decent house with that same cash and a mortgage.
Yup. Because it had been pronounced that way from the get go. It wasn't a town that the British renamed - they literally built the town. There was no "local" name prior to the British.
reply