So you were just spitballing things you dont even think will work? Neither of them seem even remotely close to sufficient, either alone or in combination in preventing another Musk. 2% seems irrelevant and he would probably be even richer if prevented from buying twitter due to the ban on collateralized lending.
If we are just spitballing, I think we should charge Billionaires a nickel every time they tie their shoes, and a dime on Sunday.
One option that might actually work is following a more feudal model, where the POTUS/Trump executes or disappears any oligarch that accumulates more than X amount, as assessed by the executive.
My actually preferred option is to simply get the money out of politics.
50% per year might do it, but I think that is well into market distortion territory where there will be consequences. Also remember that at this scale it isn't taking money, it is seizing control of companies.
But yes, we can both agree to defer to the experts and not bother trying to understand or think through the consequences of our policy beliefs.
> Also remember that at this scale it isn't taking money, it is seizing control of companies.
Nah. Zuck has "founder's stock" that gets 10x the voting power. He owns something like 13% of FB but >50% of the voting power.
> But yes, we can both agree to defer to the experts and not bother trying to understand or think through the consequences of our policy beliefs.
"We should have a wealth tax" and "the wealth tax should be set to exactly 3.28%" are very different things. I believe a wealth tax would be beneficial; I also believe that setting the amount of said tax requires some domain experts.
