BadGuyTy 🅁🅅🄽 (Tyler Hess)

x.com/i/grok/share/4… I think this conversation embodies an economic taxation model that would move us towards a "fair" taxation model without causing an undue burden to the economy. A wealth generation tax as opposed to an income tax. While also incentivizing a SBC model.

@ProudSocialist I don't even believe China can possibly have 800 million people. 450 million 50 years ago with 30-40 years of one child policy. The math ain't mathing

China has lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the last four decades. This achievement represents 75% of the global reduction in poverty and is the largest-scale poverty alleviation effort in human history. China accomplished this feat by investing in its people through education, infrastructure, housing, manufacturing, and healthcare. Americans should take note and understand that while China invests in its people, the United States invests in endless wars, corporations, billionaires, and Israel. The results speak for themselves: China is surging while the United States is in decline.

@Sam_Romain @hashjenni yes the sad thing is the old tech broke catastrophically and now people are scared of the new. It's equivalent of saying a plane crashed 50 years ago and now you won't fly

@badguyty @hashjenni Yes, intil you get to permitting and government approval sadly.

Why aren't data centers Solar powered and air cooled ?????

@Sam_Romain @hashjenni Nuclear doesn't have to be slow. Everything that we have built has been on tech from the 50-60s. China is building them in years and not decades. We can build them as small modular units the size of shipping containers that while only a MW or two can be created quickly

@badguyty @hashjenni There is no single “answer”. Nuclear is too slow to solve the problems of today but it’s certainly the future.

@Sam_Romain @hashjenni That's why the only answer is nuclear reactors. Not uranium but thorium reactors. No waste and can actually use and consume uranium waste. Melt downs are also not a concern as they are self contained as loss of control they just shut down not melt down

Has nothing to do with reliability like others claim as that’s very simply solved with batteries. It’s that data centers require massive amounts of power, a single data center can use as much power as a major city. Solar is great but a big data center would need hundreds of acres of land and the entire rooftop surface area. It usually comes down to available space. Solar is best for normal point of use functions like homes and warehouses where the power demand isn’t astronomical.

I was thinking about this the other day and I have an answer. Property tax would be best if it is a chosen amount by the home owner for the rental value for the year. There would be an assessed value from the city. And that would be the maximum amount you could pay. But if you wanted to pay less you could BUT you have to entertain rental offers for the year above what you paid. So land gets used. It's impossible to lose the asset just use of it for the lease period. That way you pay on what you feel the percentage of the rental value is or what you can afford and others can pay more and then pay you the lease corresponding to the paid value.

You can't tax rich people on unrealized gains from stocks because "it's not real money until it's sold." So explain to me why my property taxes keep going up based on the unrealized value of my house? I didn't sell it. I didn't cash out. I didn't make a profit. But somehow I'm paying taxes on paper gains every single year. Interesting how "unrealized gains" only become a problem when wealthy folks are involved.

So my solution I think would really work and offer a balancing of wealth without wholesale upheaval. Is to Tax wealth generation. Taxing passive income and asset class distributions. They HAVE to be in-kind distributions and the surrendered assets provide no controlling stake or rights. In this way the government would capture the tax rate of the wealth distribution. Lets say 5%. The government keeps issuing debt through loans against these assets. If the government secures 5% of the GDP It can back the loans with 200% value in assets. With a stoploss on the assets at some fixed rate. So if the assets lose enough value they are sold off the government doesn't get to use all the assets for new loans though. The loans also have to start to being used to paying off older unsecured loans with these new asset backed loans. Lets say 20% goes to old loans. Using this mechanism there is no longer a loophole of securing loans against your stock and options. Yes if it is assets that you already own that's excluded but any new distributions as a form of compensation are taxed. If a company pays their CEO $100M in a stock package $5M would go to the government. The fear of taxing these "unrealized gains" of the stock and having it depreciate in value are gone because you were taxed in-kind so you give up a portion. The government has a long time horizon on the return on investment. They don't and wont be able to sell taxed assets directly. They can only loan against their value. This eliminates the "sell pressure" inherent in taxing the value of something. We can't think in monetary value. We have to think in asset value. Now the shares that are taxed with a flat in-kind tax are not going to be subject to capital gains taxes. The government already got their cut. The effective tax rate would also be much lower but would capture all new wealth. This lower tax rate would be available to all employed payments. The logic being if you are handing out portions of the company and thus future profits and dividends that is going to be better for the employees long term as it is distributing wealth and not money. The companies could offer employee stock buyback programs where the employees could sell the stock back for its value trading the future potential for it immediate monetary value. There would probably be a huge section on ways that it would be taxed but at a lower amount than employment taxes are now. This would allow and encourage everyone to take and build wealth. Those that want to can sell that on the open market to get the immediate monetary value. The hope being that everyone would now be participating in the direct wealth distribution from companies and the benefits that can offer long term. These assets that are being paid to the employees could also be pooled and loaned for a fractional value as a loan. This would allow some economic benefit and use without losing the asset and setting up a long term strategy for gains and increase in value which can then be used to pay off their existing loans and re loaned to capture its new economic value. These could be offered as individual micro loans by banks and bundled and sold at a slight markup. This would carry a risk that the loaned stock value drops and your investment is liquidated but that would close the loan out. The loans can use options as a means to insure their liquidation at a price point. In this way the investment would guarantee a minimum payout rate to investors either when the loan is liquidated or paid off. This could lead to a greater profit if the loan expires without being paid off of the extra value in the asset or the asset itself. Assets can be used at a lower value to secure loans or sold directly forfeiting future growth potential and profit sharing. This changes pay for many into a part or whole asset backed compensation. The company goes up everyone becomes wealthy. The company tanks the workers might lose a portion of their potential earnings. These assets can become the base for the employees retirement. When the assets loans are up or at a certain valuation the loans could be rolled from being a loan against the asset to a balanced approach extracting a portion of the capital value and shifting it to gaining value through being loaned. The loaned value would be a consistent growth rate but not have the potential upside of explosive growth.

This question is a trap. Let me explain. We don't have capitalism. We have a welfare state so expensive, that high progressive tax (Communist Manifesto Plank #2) can't pay for it, so we need a central bank (Plank #5). Every productive enterprise is regulated (some actively supervised), most professions are licensed. Govt outright owns roads, airports, harbors, rail, mail, radio spectrum, electrical grids, water, sewer, and schools (Plank #10). The above, including the credit cycle caused by the central bank, is why there's more and more demand for welfare. Both consumer and corporate. Another fallacy is to lump tax breaks and regulatory exemptions with subsidies. They are opposites.

@MichaelGuimarin this is especially true for local elections. But I'd say it applies to all who don't pay property taxes. Why should people not paying for the government and schools get to vote on how your money is spent.

People who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t have suffrage.

@GuntherEagleman @NYCMayor why are electric vehicles getting idling charges for pollution?

Socialist mayor flexes on a company that delivers JOBS, TAXES, and packages to New Yorkers while your failing city hemorrhages businesses, residents, and billions on migrant hotels and crime. Amazon trucks aren’t the problem, YOUR socialist policies are. Sky-high taxes, regulations, and anti-business insanity are why companies and people are fleeing to Texas and red states. No company is above the law? Cool. Start with the ones actually destroying NYC instead of chasing delivery trucks. Keep this up and there won’t be any corporations left to “hold accountable.” Enjoy the collapse, comrade.

Amazon is worth $2 trillion. But it didn't deign to pay the millions of dollars it racked up in unpaid fines as its’ trucks illegally polluted our air and forced New Yorkers to breathe in their exhaust.  
We collected every dollar they owe the people of this city — and will continue to hold them accountable. In New York, corporations are held to the same standard as everyone else.  
No company — no matter how large or powerful — is above the law.

@dannycantalk I don't want to tax the rich but tax their assets they get as that is the loophole used to dodge taxes. Now we don't tax the value we tax the amount in-kind. This will build a wealth fund that we can then borrow against. Literally funding the government with the economy

Q for "tax the rich" people: What is the limiting principle? How rich does someone have to be so it's okay to take their stuff? How much can you take from them before it's no longer okay? It seems like an important question to answer so that the movement doesn't go too far, no?

Or incentivizing the wrong kind of food. Maybe they are fat and unhealthy because they are poor and can't afford good food? I'm not saying we need a drastic redistribution of wealth. I'm saying that we incentivize wealth sharing as a way to trickle down wealth assets. If you got an effectively lower tax rate for giving employees part of the company and its profits people would jump all over it. The poor would dump their share of the assets for money now. The wealthy would use theirs to leverage further growth in their assets. Where income used to be paid as a function of company profits now it is dividends. We need to give the workers the opportunity to capture those dividends and incentives to do so would give everyone a chance. Yes most would squander it but the chance would be there.

@badguyty @EarthFirstVoter @JeffBezos Classic communist comprehension of how the world works. While people pay less taxes now the living standards are significantly better than they were at any other time in history. When the poorest people are the fattest people, you’re giving them too much money.

Yes, the United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes. We can make it even more progressive by zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. It’s a small amount of the total tax revenue but very meaningful to people in this group.

We don't need to tax the rich more. We need to tax wealth generation and incentivise usage of assets as compensation. The government could collect a small percentage of that wealth and use it like they're wealthy. Secure loans with it as collateral. The poor worry about money the wealthy accumulate assets.

We do “tax the rich” - in the CNBC interview, Bezos cited the well-known statistic that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The correct policy debate is whether we want to “tax the rich more” That’s a fair question. But it’s not the one pushed by politicians who are waging class warfare as a simplistic fix to America’s many problems. Without putting some common sense limits on spending, much of any extra money raised will likely disappear into pet projects and government waste and inefficiency. No one would give an alcoholic more to drink.

@RockChartrand The government is thinking like the poor and trying to get money. They need to start thinking rich and tax wealth generation. In-kind asset tax when given as compensation. build the wealth and use it to secure loans like the wealthy do.

“Trickle down economics” is mocked as if wealth just magically falls from the rich to everyone else. But what actually flows downward is investment, production, innovation, cheaper goods, jobs, and technology. The real “trickle down” people take for granted is smartphones, air conditioning, mass produced food, instant delivery, streaming, modern medicine, and luxuries ordinary people now have that kings once didn’t. That didn’t come from redistribution. It came from production making luxuries affordable over time.

@ian_heyting @dannycantalk Yes. And I am saying the government has been acting poor and trying to get money. They need to think about accumulating assets and wealth instead. Then using that wealth to build the society.

@badguyty @dannycantalk Poor think about how to get a bigger share of someone else's money. Wealthy think about how to generate more wealth.

So, this is extremely false. First, just in numerical terms his numbers are pulled out of thin air. Income tax revenue in the US is about $2.6 trillion per year. Elon's entire 839B net worth is less than 4 months of income tax revenue. Also, Elon's wealth is almost entirely in Tesla and SpaceX stock. To take it, you'd need to liquidate all of his shares, which would take away his control of the companies and tank the stock price. You'd only get a fraction of the current $839 billion valuation. In doing so, you'd obviously wreak havoc on the economy. With the collapsing stock price of two of the most successful companies in the world, you'd crush their ability to acquire needed capital. Millions of people would lose their jobs. SpaceX and Tesla suppliers would go under. Retirement accounts would be emptied. Commercial customers that depend on Tesla & SpaceX services would be unable to operate. Maybe Nick is ignorant of those economic effects. But where did he get the 10 years number? Even with the naive belief that Elon's net worth is just money sitting idly, doing nothing, that number doesn't begin to make sense. It seems pretty clear that he just doesn't care if it's true. It might be engagement bait. It might be political animus that doesn't value accuracy at all. But whatever his reason for posting this, the problem is that this kind of nonsense gets spread across X long before the community note is approved. There will be a lot of people who have just internalized his nonsense statement as true. I don't know what has to be done about it, but it's a problem.

Your not taxing the options value. You are taxing by taking the options yourself. Then there is no "the government didn't get its share." The thing is it wouldn't be incentivized for one or two companies. All the companies would get taxed or the option to get taxed on assets as compensation. And you wouldn't get the voting rights as the government. Then use that wealth of assets to secure loans. Elon doesn't have billions of dollars just sitting around. he has taken a share of his wealth and used it to secure loans. The government will literally be backed by the value of the economy. And that value is backed by the literal economy. You can also use it as an incentive to redistribute wealth buy not charging payroll taxes on asset based compensation. The workers are happy as they got paid in wealth at a much lower tax rate than their income. Poor think about moneys value. Wealthy think about assets value.

So you're going to tax the options... At what price? Strike price? Value of the options when they receive it? What is the value of the stock continues to appreciate? Will you tax it again? Or just once? And government having an incentive for these companies to grow isn't a good thing. They shouldn't have a favorite horse. You think the system has inequality now, wait until governments are shareholders.

I'm not saying you are wrong but I think you are addressing the stated issue and not the intended issue. The issue every one is upset at is wealth distribution. We can solve this by taxing the wealth generation in-kind. So the government gets that stock or options instead. Then use that wealth fund to secure loans for operation. We would move to a government backed by it's economy literally

@MomAngtrades Wrong argument. These assholes collect $5T in taxes and then print another $2T. They just aren't smart or effective enough with what they already have. A good start would be to quit sending our taxes all over the world.

Tax the rich is such a dumb argument. The argument is fix the tax loopholes. Stop vilifying the man who allows me to get my toilet paper delivered to my house.

@MomAngtrades My solution is to use the loophole ourselves. When compensation occurs either stock issuance or grant of options tax that in kind. Then you use that wealth the way the wealthy do and use it to secure loans against it.

Yeah I don't think you get that its not removing or devaluing the wealth its not stopping or even retarding its growth. Its assigning the ownership at the time of compensation. If they are given options as an incentive or part of wages That is when it is taxed. Not sold not value extracted. It's not removing any capital that wouldn't be removed by the owners. Its not forcing dividends, taking profits or revenue. Its just get a small portion like 5% when they are given the rights to it whether that is when its at $0.04 or $4000 a share. Its not going to devalue the company it wont be sold. The government would have every incentive to make that company worth more as they can get bigger and bigger loans against it. The point here isn't to take out value but share in the companies growth and wealth generation while not removing the resources available to the company. The company could still sell shares which they would be compensating the company coffers for so would get taxed on that. They could still get and use their assets but as soon as they are used for compensation they have to share.

Again, you're trying to tax wealth they don't actually have yet... Why? It would be interrupting the process which is generating the wealth in the first place. For now, we get corporate taxes, we get income taxes from the jobs created, any consumption or VATs in the goods and services provided and consumed, and the lion's share of the assets stay in the company giving them access to capital to fuel growth. Just WAIT until the owners/shareholders have actually earned and taken possession of the money before we take it. If they borrow against the asset, they're paying interest on the debt. A bank is earning income as the lender, so we collect taxes on that activity too.

Ok it has worked and I'm not upset about it. But you can't tax wealth effectively but you can tax compensation equally. If you get 100000000 in stock options as a bonus and want to sell that you are extracting wealth and pushing it down for everyone. But using that same asset as collateral you get to use a fractional value of it but if it goes up you still get the upside. Take out another loan using the same and now more expensive asset and pay off the first loan. Bank is happy they made interest. You're happy you got spending cash. Market is happy because you are saying I believe it is going up. So the government does the same thing with the same assets and worse case they lose the assets. Best case they keep them get dividends from them and renegotiate the loans to keep extracting value. Or just pay off the loan and sit on the dividend income. Which is also taxed.

@badguyty @dannycantalk I guess I'm having trouble seeing how it "failed us". It's generated unprecedented wealth across all demographics. Your upset because we have to wait to take their money until they've actually received it?

@megaphire @BernieSanders No the IRS would get the stock. It wouldn't be yours to gain or lose against. Then they would secure loans against the assets gained. So they realize a value like the wealthy do now.

@badguyty @BernieSanders If we tax on stocks as far as unrealized gains, does the IRS then refund money based on losses? Or is it just one sided?

Mr. Bezos: Let's have that debate. Under my 5% billionaires wealth tax, we'd: -Give $12K to a working family of 4 -Expand Medicare for dental, vision, hearing -Guarantee universal childcare -Raise starting teacher pay to $60K And you'd still be worth $269 billion after taxes.

@BernieSanders with*

@BernieSanders Don't tax the wealth @BernieSanders tax the wealth generation. So stock options, dividends, stock grants with an in-kind tax. Then secure loans against the assets not sell them. Work like the wealthy to generate wealth. Back the economy wish assets not hopes and dreams.