kadabra9

I normally wouldn't comment, but expecting someone with that skillset and those kind of opportunities available to them to work for free for 4-6 months with the promise of actual pay "when our seed round closes" was so egregious I couldn't help myself, sorry.

[flagged]

in before this is shadowbanned.

Isn't that the point? Keeping data centers out of neighborhoods that don't want them?

Take a look at his post history, all he does is shill for offshoring so his portfolio companies can save a buck on labor costs.

I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that a Bluesky post would be deliberately misleading to push a narrative that we need more taxes.

Talent diversity willing to work for lower salaries is present elsewhere. That's really what it comes down to.

At least you own it, rather than making up an excuse like "talent shortage" or "pipeline" issue to try to conceal the fact that at the end of the day you're just trying to save a buck.

There are plenty of domestic candidates that have those skills and backgrounds.

You would just rather find offshore candidates and pay them less, rather than paying domestic salaries.

Which, ok, fair enough, but at least own it instead of fabricating some "pipeline shortage" to justify trying to save a buck on labor costs.

Yeah, we know.

I wish guys like you could just be honest and admit its really just about trying to save on labor costs rather than trying to frame this issue like there's some massive lack of skilled domestic engineering talent here.

I love how this is always framed as a "pipeline and talent" problem issue (its not), when it's really a "pipeline and talent at salaries I want to pay" issue.

isn't one meal a day another form of calorie restriction though?

It's very difficult to not be in a calorie deficit when you only eat once a day and are consistently active.

It's already 37% (for Federal). Add in another 14% for California and its over 50%.

But even for simplicity sake, going to 40% would be far better and more practical than confiscating 5% of total assets and net worth.

I literally said there should be some sort of final penalty or taxable event associated with borrowing against illiquid assets and unrealized gains for very HNW individuals.

> America was already taxing wealthy through the teeth years ago

Except they weren’t. Those lovely 90% tax rates from the 1950s everyone on Reddit loves to bring up weren’t really paid by anyone. The effective tax rate paid after the loopholes and deductions was much lower, closer to 40%

If they leave (and some already have) they take their tax base with them. Not just for this one time levy, but for future tax years too.

Then where will the state go to make up the revenue shortfall? Either raising taxes on other groups or cutting services.

I’m finished discussing this matter, let’s revisit this if and when this actually gets passed so we can see how much revenue was actually generated (or if it even survived legal challenges)

I didn’t say the tax gap caused the drop in GDP. I did say the capital flight caused the tax to wildly underperform revenue estimates, which is objectively true.

I love how this goes from “there’s no evidence wealthy move” to, when presented with evidence wealthy move, “well, ok, I’m not convinced this is a net loss for society”

Keep moving those goalposts

In 2022 Norway increased wealth tax to 1.1%, expected to bring in an additional $146M tax revenue.

Individuals with a net worth of $54B left the country, led to a $594M loss in tax revenue.

https://citizenx.com/insights/norway-wealth-exodus/

The US debt is nearly 39 trillion dollars.

Confiscating all of the assets of the nation’s billionaires wealth would yield 6-8T, depending on what kind creative accounting is done in anticipation of a wealth tax.

So yeah it would help reduce the debt slightly but doesn’t address the bigger culprit - spending and government inefficiency and bloat

You’re discussing raising corporate or individual income tax rates.

I’m discussing a proposed broad wealth tax on unrealized gains and assets.

The tax rates of the 50s were high, but were filled with loopholes and deductions in that the effective tax rate that was actually paid was much lower.

There are arguments to be made how much those policies contributed to the boom of that decade, but those are separate to arguments about the practical, legal, or efficiency concerns with just imposing a 5% levy across all assets and net worth

I mean when you just make up a number, you should expect to be called out for it, lol.

And I did engage with the real point. Even if it WAS 14 trillion dollars, that wouldn't fund the government for 2 years. And then what? Why is the solution for government bloat and inefficiency always just taking more?

I support some sort of disincentive to prevent HNW individuals from borrowing against assets for income.

I do not support wealth taxes or taxing unrealized gains (unless you get rebates for unrealized losses lol)

There SHOULD be some mechanism (idk what) to close the loophole of HNW individuals borrowing against an asset you have not sold to minimize actual income, but that doesn't mean its right, effective, or even legal to just mass tax all unrealized gains, just because this specific loophole exists currently.

So yeah, it is a separate discussion.

Of course its easy for you to say - its simple to just point the finger and claim you're entitled to your "fair share" of someone else's property simply because they have more than you. And my main point isn't even that "its hard" (which it is), its that governments cannot simply just tax and confiscate their way to a utopia.

Fortunately for sanity and common sense, this proposal, if it even passes, will surely be challenged on Federal and State constitutional grounds.

That’s a separate discussion.

I think there should be some sort of tax penalty to borrowing against assets as a sort of infinite money glitch.

The government is taking 22% of your INCOME. Not your entire net worth. This is vastly different.

HNW don’t have their net worth sitting in a pool of cash like Donald Duck as much as Reddit would like to believe. Its property, company stock, any unrealized gains in different equities, etc.

to have to go through the administrative burden of valuing all that, and then attempting to liquidate at some reasonable market value just to pay one time levy (allegedly lol) is insane, and will rightfully be challenged in court

Except is not 14 trillion (in the US) It is closer to 8 trillion.

Even if it WAS 14 trillion, the fact that such an insane measure wouldn’t even fully fund the entire government for two years shows you can’t just confiscate your way out of things. It is spending.

And where will we get the money to fund this fantasy land in 8 months after the government runs out of money and we’ve already stolen all the billionaires assets?

Should we move on to anyone with a net worth over $1M and start stealing their assets too?

You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire in this country and it wouldn’t fund the government for an entire year. It is and always will be a government spending issue, the government can’t help itself but to just steal more from the taxpayers to support their bloat.

This tax would do effectively nothing to address growing inequality between billionaires and everyone else.

Everyone loves deciding what their "fair share" of other people's net worth (not even income!) is.

Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.

It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.