@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder Oh yeah, I intend the same. For *wealth*, all will be considered.
For income, it's also *all* compensation of any kind.
You can still live a life of luxury while everybody gets fed. You just can't be a trillionaire.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
Setting it too low would essentially preclude anyone from being a sole owner of a successful business.
And, yeah, it would be all income, including appreciation of valuable property. If you're already at or above the cap and your house gets reassessed at $20,000 more than it had been, well, then you owe $20,000 in taxes. Bought a $1million painting and a year later similar paintings are being sold for $1.2 million? You now owe $200,000 in taxes.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder I'm convinced that's the argument they'll use to defend SpaceX against it but I'm not convinced it's an actual problem.
The rebalancing period might get rough but once established, I'd anticipate more stability as a broader swath of the population will be able to participate in moderating the market even if only by sheer inertia.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
SpaceX isn't a sole ownership, but if it was, it certainly couldn't be with the new system. I'm giving room for smaller organizations, though. Someone who owns a large construction company, for example, with several dump trucks, earth movers, large amounts of equipment, etc. might eventually find themselves pushing up against the cap, but at that point, they're probably big enough to bring in partners or spin off companies to be sold to someone else.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder I know it's a disingenuous argument when SoaceX uses it, but we've collectively had these conversations before.
The idle investor class makes that argument to voters and enough of them misunderstand and accept it that nothing comes of it.
@gooba42 @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
It forces enormous, powerful corporations to not be controlled by an individual who retains controlling interest in it. Or, at least, *strongly* disincentivizes them from retaining that control. The cap as I've described it wouldn't preclude someone from owning over half of, say, Apple as long as they bought it before it was worth $250 mil, but since *all* income would be taxed, they'd run out of money. They'd control Apple, but would live as a pauper
Oct 14, 2026, 4:41 PM@gooba42 you start with a minimum income tax floor set to 4% of wealth. That forces taxation of wealth growth, realized or unrealized. Then Increase that percentage for larger fortunes you want to draw down.
Forces the sale of shares to cover, moving the means of production to a wider base but over a long enough period to be somewhat uniform.
The transition gets to be a lot less painful and you get to use an existing instrument (income tax) to do it.
@StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder
@gooba42 @StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder There are no 'Trillionaires' and will not be in the near future; a Trillion is a specific number of monetary units and the fact that financiers can't count logically means we - the public (A.K.A 'Unwashed Masses') - give scary labels to quantities of cash in order to inflate them, even though they are lesser values than we are led to believe...
@sjcooke66 @StarkRG @donhawkins @thejessiekirk @Binder That's kind of beside the point, isn't it?
Nobody is entitled to more than "comfortably retiring" over the course of their working life. Deflate all the numbers until the top tier is making $1000/hr while everybody else gets a penny a day, the principle remains true.