patrick.net

Suppose that instead of paying income taxes each year, corporations were required to turn over a portion of their stock to the government, let's say 25 percent, in the form of non-voting shares.

That's fucked up, even if it's only a one time thing.

That is a very interesting idea.

anon_8f378 says

That is a very interesting idea.

Interesting, yet fucked up. Some pros maybe but unknown and yuge cons.

anon_13ce6 says

Interesting, yet fucked up. Some pros maybe but unknown and yuge cons.

What are the cons in your opinion?

Any Republican that supports any tax is a redistribution socialist.
They have no counter argument.

anon_8f378 says

anon_13ce6 says

Interesting, yet fucked up. Some pros maybe but unknown and yuge cons.

What are the cons in your opinion?

1) 25% of stock is a huge leverage, even if the shares are non-voting. The simple threat of suddenly dumping all (or part of it) on the market can be used to sway the management whichever way necessary.

2) If stock doesn't pay dividends, how will the goverment get its "taxes"? By selling part of the holdings? But this would lead to diminishing (and eventually disappearing) govt's stake. Wouldn't that mean that all the companies will eventually become "tax-free"? Wouldn't this tilt the markets in favor of old companies at the expense of new ones?

gf