That’s just a decision we made about what is taxable.
Purely an accounting artifact. We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Net worth is real money, and is usually a very accurate measure of what people can realize. There are a few outliers who own so much that they’d move the market if they sold it all. Selling 2% to cover taxes? Not going to move the market very much.
I do understand how it works, are you saying that the zoning will magically be fixed when the taxes go up or the land becomes more exlusive? because I can tell you which one has precedent and which one is wishful thinking.
The government can do whatever it wants. Laws are written by the government. We have a democracy. If enough votes exist to, say, pass a law banning drug dealing (like meta does), then the company will die.
What happens if there's no agreement, you either walk away or concede to buy at lowest offered price? Seems like the store's AI should stick to its guns every time if you're already in the store.
But Google is a monopoly, so you have little choice in the matter.
Unfortunately these things are never so clean as in the theoretical model. As a monopoly, there are likely many situations where interaction with said monopoly is unavoidable.
I mean it's not like the other players are any more responsible. Everyone is building a black box they don't understand, hoping it'll turn out fine. No theoretical framework, just successive training runs, a blind man in the dark.
Purely an accounting artifact. We can pass a wealth tax tomorrow and it’ll suddenly be taxable.
Net worth is real money, and is usually a very accurate measure of what people can realize. There are a few outliers who own so much that they’d move the market if they sold it all. Selling 2% to cover taxes? Not going to move the market very much.
reply