← Back to context

Comment by minraws

2 days ago

Absolutely ridiculous statement, it's not an accurate measure but it's definitely a good measure of money.

If you have 100B to your name even if it's post IPO stock in a possibly ponzi company that's your current wealth and you can easily convert a staggering portion of it into material realized wealth depending on several factors.

If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?

The value may not be exactly convertible agreed so let's just force everyone to book all gains every year, and force sell a net percent of your share.

Not 100B$ of share, but 2% of 100 Million units of stock that you own. Why does this not work?

If I take 2% of your shares why can't it work the same way? I can then pick and sell it over the next year or two however I see fit, in case of govt they can slowly sell back this share to not affect the prices too much.

I am baffled by the fact that we have a tractible quantity and people call it hard to use to measure money.

Paintings, Jewels, etc. are what's truly the hard part of the wealth equation not the stocks, which is over 99% of what a wealthy billionaire owns.

I am not even considering pro or against taxes on billions people make but it's ridiculous to say stocks aren't money? Then what is money really... Currency is also traded, it's value can also go up or down....

> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?

Who says that the price you paid per share was the actual market value of the shares? For example, let's say that you inherited 10 million options to purchase Microsoft stock at $1/share, and in so exercising the options (by writing a check for, say, $10 million to Microsoft), you then end up with 10 million shares, which on paper, with the current stock price close to $500/share, would be worth close to $5 billion. But could you actually get that much money from selling 10 million shares? Definitely not overnight - so many shares getting dumped on the market at once would materially affect the stock price. The $5 billion number is a hypothetical that depends on other people backing up the hypothetical numbers with their own money (i.e. buying at the hypothetical price) - it is not the same as "I have $5 billion in a bank account and could use that to go buy a yacht and buy political ads etc. with it"

  • But you don't need to be taxed in actual dollar value you can be taxed in percentage of your share ownership. It might not work with real estate but with stock this is trivial

    • > with stock this is trivial

      On the contrary - it's trivial for controlling shareholders to direct the company to issue more stock to them and thus dilute the shares that were taxed. What do you propose, that companies can no longer issue stock after some of the stock has been taxed?

      And what about non-divisible assets like real estate? There's nothing that prevents the government from forcing real estate to be held by LLCs instead of individuals, then shares in the LLC could slowly be taxed by the government. So what happens in 20 years when the government owns 50.1% of all the LLC shares that comprise the ownership of the $100 million Hollywood mansion? You're going to let a bureaucrat kick out the A-lister who lives there and put it up for auction? Attempt to sell it to someone who knows full well the same would happen to him?

      It's very, very hard to design a wealth tax that doesn't end up being an assault on private ownership in all forms.

even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.

if the owner thinks its worth more than what the government proposes, they can pay tax on the higher amount.

its still not that hard

  • > even still, the government can propose a value, and if the owner thinks its worth less than that, the government can immediately confiscate the asset and pay that price as compensation.

    This is utter madness. What will happen is businesses will move en masse to places with economic systems not overrun by those driven clinically insane by years of listening to their favourite pundit blame billionaires for everything.

> If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?

No. It will be higher. Say you spend your money on shares advertised at different prices, buying the cheapest first, like this:

  800000 shares at $500        $400,000,000
  300000 shares at $750        $225,000,000
  200000 shares at $1000       $200,000,000
  100000 shares at $1250       $125,000,000
  33333 shares at $1500        $ 50,000,000

  Total number of shares:      1433333

  Net worth (1433333 * $1500): $2,149,999,500

Your "net worth" is over double the money you just spent.

That's why net worth is stupid.