Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
Well there is, only for new buyers of the c class shares. Idk why people are downvoting you. You're right.
Everyone keeps the A class shares, and A class share count doesn't change therefore voting power per shareholder doesn't change.
But, what zuck is still doing, is trying to make sure nobody gets more voting power when buying his new shares.
He's trying to make sure he doesnt lose control of his company to pay a forced tax bill on unrealized gains. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me even if others dont like it.
If this passes it probably won't be the last either which would have further jeopardized things. Now he has money for future things too.
Edit: Zuck has 60% of the company. Do this a couple times and he loses his company. I get wanting to tax him, but taxing him and taking his company are two different things.
I'll be willing to accept that they are unrealized gains once they can no longer used as collateral to secure loans or used to calculate wealth. Until then they have value and should be taxed either when given (which is different than bought) or as an annual wealth tax.
He’d have to sell shares which would be realized gains at that point.
Seems like that wasn't argued, just a maneuver to preserve the control facet of the shares even while surrendering some of the financial value could be seen as acceptable...
Wealth tax is a property tax, and just like I am forced to pay tax based on a presumed amount I could sell my house for, it can absolutely make sense to do the same for stocks. But I can totally accept that whatever that is, it shouldn't mean someone must cede control of a company based merely on a tax burden.
Of course, that said, these 'too big' companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that's a separate discussion than the taxation part.
I agree, thats a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with a tax or this citizen ballot measure.
I'd be fine if they took him below 50% control. Companies that large should be required to be owned by many multiples of the number of people who currently own them and anyone seeking to remain on top of such a thing should be dancing for their many masters daily.
The ballot measure isn't should large companies be allowed a majority shareholder. Thats a very different issue than wanting them to pay taxes.
In my understanding he‘s not losing his company. He only will sell the shares that do not include parts of the company
If they hadn't done this he would have been at risk. Hes no longer because of this.
Voting shares are not being diluted.
If he hadn't done this.
Ah, ok. That condition wasn't clear.