[fhdkweig]

You can tax something without owning it. It is the owning part that bothers me. It implies that the government is going to shovel ridiculous amounts of money into these things and when the bubble finally pops We The People get nothing out of it.

[triceratops]

I think you've misunderstood the proposal. The government levies a tax in the form of shares, not cash. It doesn't pay for the shares.

FTA: "It would create a sovereign wealth fund through a one-time 50 percent tax — not on the profits of OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and other companies, but paid with something far more valuable than that: the stock."

[AnthonyMouse]

That seems like it would be pushing pretty hard against the Takings clause. Federal wealth taxes in general are rather precarious in the US because the 16th amendment allows taxing income, not assets.

[jcranmer]

Strictly speaking, that's not accurate.

Article 1, Section 8 has the general taxation clause:

> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

but Section 9 has the apportionment clause:

> No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The term "direct tax" isn't fully explained, but it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax. Congress imposed an income tax, but SCOTUS said in Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co that a tax on rental income is effectively a property tax, and so must be apportioned.

The 16th Amendment was enacted specifically to overrule the Pollock decision, and allowed for income taxes to not have to be apportioned. In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.

[AnthonyMouse]

I'm not sure which part you're calling inaccurate. The 16th amendment:

> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Allows taxes on incomes (but not wealth) without apportionment.

According to your own post:

> it's generally been held that taxes on property (including wealth) would classify as a direct tax.

Implying that unlike income under the 16th amendment, a federal tax on wealth would have to be apportioned. But apportionment isn't something people are likely to accept in that context because then you can't put the screws to people in New York or Texas without extracting the same amount per capita from the people in New Mexico or Arkansas.

> In many respects, it's probably unnecessary because even without it, it's probably fairly likely that Pollock would have been overruled as just being bonkers reasoning anyways.

Unclear how that reasoning could be bonkers without Wickard v. Filburn being even worse, since the logic is pretty similar. The 16th amendment itself had exactly the result apportionment was intended to prevent, i.e. states with structural political advantages (swing states, lower population states with more US Senators per capita) quickly set up massive federal transfers to themselves at the expense of other states.

[triceratops]

How are property taxes legal?

[AnthonyMouse]

There is no federal property tax, and even state property taxes are collected in dollars rather than shares of ownership and as a small recurring percentage rather than a one-time taking of what amounts to a controlling interest.

[triceratops]

Thanks for the clarification.

[dylan604]

That sounds like a brilliant idea if you're a board member of one of these companies.

[vrganj]

Who said anything about the government shoveling in money?

[fhdkweig]

Usually to "own" something requires to spend money to get it.

[triceratops]

The government gets half my paycheck without buying it from me.

[grim_io]

Really? Poor Elon must be going bankrupt any time now, seeing how much of Tesla and SpaceX he owns.

[vrganj]

... or force.

[exe34]

Wait, is the idea to buy that 50%?

[fhdkweig]

I don't know what their plan is, but that is one way to "own half". I'm really hoping that isn't their plan, but this administration seems to love shoveling tax money to people who don't deserve it.

[wasabi991011]

> I don't know what their plan

The plan Bernie Sanders is proposing is clearly stated in TFA, which is to take 50% of shares as a one-time tax, not as a purchase.

[wasabi991011]

No, it isn't, it's to take 50% as a tax, as stated in TFA.

[exe34]

Yeah that's more sensible.

[fny]

Taxing X% ownership means you get X%. You don't pay for it. So if the bubble pops, you still get X% ownership. To your point, it may be smarter to tax the IPO valuation and buy more later.

[fhdkweig]

I'm mostly commenting on the story a few days ago regarding having index funds change their rules to automatically purchase shares in the impending IPOs so that passive investors would end up buying shares without their direct knowledge. It struck me as a way for executives to cash out of what they know is a bubble. A lot of people in that thread didn't seem to have any issue with that.