> probably for the rest of his life.
At a net worth of $1 billion and assuming he lives to 100 that is $23 million dollars a year to spend, which reasonably, he could only spend around $5-10 Million if he tried.
He is worth what, $150 Billion? By the fall he probably will be.
He could find a group of 10,000 people of the same age, spit the money evenly and each person would have $340k per year, a large enough sum to reasonably travel all year long around the world for each person never working agin.
Why would you give that money to worse allocators of capital? He's generated 1.3 million jobs. How many jobs would you sacrifice in order to limit Bezos to whatever wealth cap you think is appropriate? By definition you will sacrifice them, so the question is at what cost is it too much and how much money is too much money? Also who decides that, is it you?
How are you measuring "efficient allocation of capital"?
Amazon has been very successful at squeezing "efficiency" out of their employees, where "efficiency" is defined largely as abusive conditions and poor wages. While they may be a large employer in raw numbers, vast numbers of their employees depend on public assistance. UPS, USPS, and FedEx seem to pay consistently higher wages. And on top of that, like most "supermassive" companies, they are very "efficient" at dodging taxes.
Yes, this is "efficiency" in the financial sense, but it is by no means net positive at the societal level.
When you get issued stock options at a company, you immediately become liable for taxes on them, since they are treated as income. This is true even if there is no public market for the shares at that time (something that caused headaches for many early dotcom stock option grantees).
It's is an obvious precedent for taxing somebody who has "received" wealth via the route that Bezos has done.
In the 1990s, I knew dozens of people who faced major financial problems because they immediately owed taxes on options they had just exercised, on shares that were not tradable. These were just regular developers (or in some cases, shipping crew), and they didn't have $50-500k sitting around to cover taxes like that.
Maybe the rules have been changed since then? I do know that by the early 2000's there were financial services companies offering wierd loans to help cover the taxes (obviously using the stocks as collateral).
"they immediately owed taxes on options they had just exercised"
On exercise yes, but not on issue. I think you're mixing up people buying their options (exercise) with issuance of the options.
No taxes are owed at grant or vest on options, whether NSO or ISO.
Upon exercise (buying - regardless of whether there's a sale) of NSO a tax is owed on the spread between the FMV (usually the 409a valuation, if pre-ipo) and the strike price at grant. This can be considerable and I'm sure is the tax event you're thinking of.
Savvy employees with a cooperative employer often exercise at grant time -- before the options vest -- writing a check almost immediately after hire. This is an early exercise. If this takes place before the value changes (before the board updates the 409a valuation) then there is a taxable event but the spread is $0. The employee then follows up with an 83(b) election to notify the IRS that they wished to be taxed now, rather than later at vest, which ensures that income tax on the spread is never paid. It all becomes regular capital gains.
This is the difference between RSUs, NSOs, and ISOs. ISOs don't make you pay taxes until you exercise it (a qualifying event), which means you actually took this piece of paper and converted it into tangible value. I'm not sure how they could have exercised it and not had it turn into cash (perhaps their company got acquired and they got options of another non-IPO'd company?).
Let's put it like this. The year after I exercised my one and only set of amzn stock options, I owed US$43k in taxes based on their nominal value. The stock was not publically traded at the time, and I had to find savings to cover the tax bill. I retained the piece of paper and started selling later that year after the IPO. At least one other early hire at amzn owed a lot more than this.
Yeah - options are taxed on exercise, not on grant (that’s the dispute with your original comment).
Also, you’re taxed on the spread at exercise between the strike price and the fair market value at the time of exercise.
If you’re able to exercise when the shares are granted (which early employees can often do by early exercising unvested shares) then there is no spread and there is no tax (at time of exercise, you still pay tax when you eventually sell the shares). Doing this and filing an 83b election with the IRS is important for people joining a startup where they hold lots of equity that’s valued near zero.
It’s even a little more complicated than that if you get ISOs since you can exercise some of them tax free until you hit AMT (but AMT has not increased over time so this is less useful than it used to be). NSOs don’t have this ability.
RSUs are different and you do get taxed on grant and some are withheld to cover (FB started this and they’re colloquially called FB-style RSUs). This is a relatively recent invention that started because private companies with high valuations had options with strikes too expensive for normal employees to exercise prior to the mandatory ten year expiration. Also old employees who held the option contracts wouldn’t be able to pay the exercise tax on the spread you mention and would hit the 10yr expiration (at which point they need to make a loan shark deal or risk floating a lot of cash). This used to not be an issue because companies didn't stay private this long. With RSUs employees don’t have to worry about any of this, but they lose more on grant to income tax than they could by exercising and holding options optimally.
RSUs aren’t strictly better though because if you can exercise options you can hold the stock for 1yr and get long term cap gains which is 15% up to 400k and 20% after. This is a lot more potential upside than just getting hit with income tax. Though in CA you still get hit with a large percentage state income tax on it anyway. (13% after 1M I think).
All of the above commentary is unrelated to a wealth tax (or capping net worth) which I think is dumb policy.
This grew into a kind of long comment, but if you’re dealing with equity it’s worth learning this stuff for yourself since leveraging equity effectively is probably the best way to actually get wealth in a timeframe shorter than a lifetime of index funds investing.
The question is how to determine the value of non liquid assets in order to implement a maximum wealth tax.
Suppose I own land or a private company or a collection of copyrights that become very valuable. Who and how determines when it crosses the $1B threshold, and how am I brought under said threshold. What if the asset is not easily divisible?
These are legitimate questions. In some ways they have analogs that have already been "solved" (perhaps not satisfactorily). Who and how determines the property tax you owe on a building or land? But I agree that these are not trivial to answer in satisfactory ways. Societies frequently have to come up with imperfect answers.
I know we can’t expect perfect solutions, but arbitrary blanket statement such as capping wealth at $1B make no sense to me.
Wealth (or money) is a proxy for power, and if the goal is to limit one’s power, I don’t see the purpose of an arbitrary dollar amount maximum that is extremely hard and probably litigious enforce to enforce.
It would be better to suggest capping the number of companies’ boards one can sit on, or limit the number of non broad market index fund investments one can have, or some other solution that directly attacks the problem of concentration of power.
And disincentivize people from working? That's not a sustainable economic system. For a properly sustainable system, consider how Islam solved this problem over 1400 years ago. Zakat is the only form of "tax" if you will that is mandated. Interest and other predatory practices are prohibited (e.g. shorting). Once the fundamentals are correct, everything else naturally falls into place. It has been reported that during the rule of Umar II, there were no poor people left in Iraq to accept Zakat (charity) since everyone paid their share. It would be nice to see that happen again, but the modern financial system won't let it happen.
One might argue that having $1B of assets (certainly liquid assets) is a fairly major disincentive to working.
High marginal tax rates on super-high levels of income and/or wealth doesn't discourage working. It just makes doing something to add another chunk to your income/wealth require something other than financial renumeration. There's plenty of evidence that humans do their best work when they have intrinsic and not extrinsic motivation.
Bezos is a case in point. I believe him to have an almost absurdly high level of intrinsic motivation (I worked with him for 15 months). He might like the wealth he has, but the things he will continue to do with his life, just like Amazon itself, get done for reasons beyond money.
> High marginal tax rates on super-high levels of income and/or wealth doesn't discourage working.
Do we have precedence for this? From what I'm aware, even when the US had high marginal tax rates which some dems seem to be calling to bring back, no one ever paid those rates because there are always ways for the very rich to reduce their income on paper, while still increasing their wealth.
I do agree with you that it takes a very special kind of person to have the wealth of Elon or Bezos and still continue to want to work, it's obviously more than money at that point. But those people are outliers. I know I wouldn't be motivated to spend more effort if it meant a proportional decrease in the total amount of money I would end up pocketing due to increased taxes.
Umar II is the one Umayyad caliph whose tomb wasn't sacked by the Abbasids when they took power. Would you care to enlighten us as to how this system went so wrong (Hint: it was Arab Muslims accumulating property and wealth over non-Arab Muslims, let alone non-Muslims)
Worse than disincentivizing people from working, it disincentivizes people from risking money on growth (building companies, doing startups, angel investing).
Interest isn’t predatory, it encourages growth and investment in building businesses. Look at the enormous wealth created by capitalism. Economic growth helps the most people the fastest, this model works.
That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be protections on the lower bound and human rights, there should be. It also doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be environmental protections or regulations to effectively coordinate and prevent tragedy of the commons style failures. We should also prevent wealth being able to leverage political power (which isn’t easy).
It is by the very fact that the lender is owed money in the contract by doing basically nothing. Proper investment balances the risk between parties, so that one party does not have an inherent advantage over the other. This is part of running a moral and just society.
> Look at the enormous wealth created by capitalism
Red herring. The system is fundamentally unstable, by the very fact that people are on the lookout for the next economic crash because it's built into the system. When that happens, people with money are able to acquire even more assets, increasing the divide.
I'm all for people making money, as long as they do it the moral way. Interest is immoral and predatory.
The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior.
Without interest, it would be harder for people to get loans. Lots of financial services wouldn’t exist (or would demand some other form of payment). This would keep people who aren’t already rich unable to access capital.
People react to incentives, good incentives lead to beneficial behavior. Interest is extremely net positive, both for lenders and for borrowers (and society). Everyone wins.
Crashes aren’t really built into the system or a fault of capitalism, they happen because problems are hard to predict and the environment changes. The wealth created isn’t only for the rich: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments everyone benefits from economic growth.
I think Islamic law (or really any religious framework) has very little of value to say on the topic of morality or running a productive society.
> The lender is paid for the service of lending money out (which incurs risk). You want to incentivize this behavior.
Not all forms of payment are ethical or moral (e.g. prostitution). This is an exploitative practice, and should definitely not be incentivized as we've seen time and time again the destructive effect it has on society and the economic system.
> This would keep people who aren’t already rich unable to access capital.
This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty. We keep seeing the dems trying to solve the problem by increasing taxation, but to no avail. Islam solved the problem over 1400 years ago.
> I think Islamic law (or really any religious framework) has very little of value to say on the topic of morality or running a productive society.
Morality does not exist without religion. Secondly, Islam has proven to have run one of the most successful societies of all time, and definitely the most moral since Islam came. We still benefit of the discoveries made during the Islamic Golden Age.
> "This is why Islam has Zakat laws to ensure the poor are lifted out of poverty."
Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves.
We're not going to agree on this so can probably leave it here.
I will say I think morality exists in spite of religion.
It's not hard to pick out examples where Islam fails on the morality issue, see: women's rights and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders, both driven by ideology.
As I originally pointed out, interest is prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (at least) for a good reason. It's not ethical nor moral, in fact, it's destructive and parasitic.
> Charity isn't as good as letting people get access to capital that they can leverage for themselves.
It lifts people out of poverty to get them on their feet. There are many funds that provide people with access to capital (e.g. accelerators). Capital is not limited to interest bearing loans. The simplest example is pitching an idea to investors who in return own a portion of a potential company. If it works out, both parties benefit, otherwise, both parties equally took on the risk.
> women's rights
Those are cherry picked by anti-Islamic rhetoric drivers who have shown their ignorance and lies time and time again, and whose arguments fall apart the moment they're critically discussed. It's really meaningless talk that gets thrown around.
> and the recent Charlie Hebdo murders,
Easy refutation: you're going to have to show that Islam itself condones or required such murders to take place.
You just state it’s destructive for ideological reasons because of religious law, that’s not a good argument and it ignores contrary evidence. Why is taking a percentage of someone’s company better? If anything that’s more exploitive.
You’re the one cherry picking here and rationalizing anything that doesn’t fit into a narrative you’ve already decided is true. There won’t be any ability for us to agree, because you can’t update based on new evidence.
You can pretend Charlie Hebdo and any other negative action that’s clearly driven by ideologically motivated Islam is not “true Islam”, but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff.
I’m not trying to get into a fight. It’s rare for religious people to break free from their religion, but it’s possible. I succeeded when I was young and seeing counter arguments is part of it.
Yep, the one that guarantees women the rights to inheritance, not to mention that many other texts in Islam that order men to be lean and kind to women and not to exploit them (compare to what we see in the West today where women are sold as a commodity).
> but then you’re just creating some special reference class that ignores the bad stuff.
I'm not, because for any action that someone who ascribes to the religion does, we're able to go back to the texts and decide whether or not that was truly Islamic. There is no cherry picking or filtering. It's quite simple really. This isn't a "no true Scottsman" fallacy, it's going back to the Law books (Quran, Hadith, etc.) and checking whether what was done was legal or not.
> You mentioned accelerators - usually they operate by investing for a percentage of the company.
Yes. The trade off is that if the company fails, the accelerator loses the money they put into it, and the founder loses the time and effort. It's proper risk sharing. Now compare to a loan, where the founder not only owes the loan, but also the interest on top.
> you fear rebellion
The Arabic word is "nushooz". Look up what it means. Also, look up what "beating" means.
If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing. If someone takes a loan and builds a successful business, the bank only gets the small agreed to percent return.
What you consider 'proper' is arbitrary and entirely determined by religious law.
> "Also, look up what "beating" means."
I know what beating means, this kind of denial of obviously bad stuff is one reason among many of why I find religion so distasteful. That entire section is written about how women are supposed to be obedient to men, the entire context is sexist.
With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer. Outside of religion you start with evidence and struggle towards the truth.
> If someone defaults on their loan the bank gets nothing
Not before the bank coming after the assets of said person to try to grab as much as it can, destroying them in the process. Secondly, usurious money lending is obviously a very lucrative business by the fact that banks make billions in revenue. However, it is also extremely destructive purely by the fact that there exists trillions of dollars of debt (mortgages, auto, student, etc.), not to mention that the government itself is in debt and has to print money, devaluing the hard work of its citizens who worked and saved money, only to have it be worth less. Yet we cry because "the rich get richer", I wonder why?
We've already seen the effects on governments time and time again, most recently Greece and Lebanon. There is really no other way but to admit that it is a dangerous and predatory practice that benefits a relative few at the top of the economic ladder, at the expense of everyone else.
> this kind of denial
It's not denial because it is explicitly mentioned in Hadiths. We say things outright, and don't dance around the issue. Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Sermon
> You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely
You can see how it refers to infidelity.
Both the husband and wife have rights from each other, and for each other. "Sexism" is quite meaningless in this context. We're not leftists/feminists/latest fad of the day, and we're proud of it. Each sex has their rights and duties, and claiming "sexism" shows weakness in argument. You can read about many important women in Islamic history who rightfully left their mark.
> With religion you start with an answer and make up reasons to get to your pre-determined answer.
Depends on the religion. It's a blatant fallacy to group all religions together, very unintellectual to say the least.
Depends on the country/jurisdiction. In some places it is upon issue, in some places it is upon exercise or a mix thereof.
Sadly over here in Belgium a non trivial tax (18%, but it varies according to some parameters such as runlenght) is due upon issue, turning stock options into a potential substantial risk.
He is worth what, $150 Billion? By the fall he probably will be.
He could find a group of 10,000 people of the same age, spit the money evenly and each person would have $340k per year, a large enough sum to reasonably travel all year long around the world for each person never working agin.
Nobody should ever have a $1B worth.