[deaux]

By taking the excess yearly, and that's very doable.

When Bezos divorced, Mackenzie Bezos was awarded 25% of their Amazon shares valued at over 38 billion dollars.

Just by the above being possible, that means there's no reason why such a "divorce" couldn't happen once per year, and there's also no reason why it has to be 25% rather than "everything above 100M". It means that the tools for this exist. The government takes the place of Mackenzie Bezos. During the divorce, not a single mention of "oh it's just _impossible_ to take 25% of Jeff Bezos' Amazon shares, it will cause collapse". Just all of a sudden if you replace MacKenzie Bezos with "the government" or "the pension fund", suddenly there's all kinds of supposed reasons why it can't happen - even though there's zero reason why it couldn't.

No "but technically they will temporarily have over 100M in the intermediary period" please.

[skeptic_ai]

I’msure they will just ensure they will never reach 100m and stash their cash somewhere hidden. So won’t work that well. But might work for a one off cut. Which is good.

[deaux]

Why didn't Bezos just stash his assets somewhere hidden so that he wouldn't have to give $38 billion of it to his ex?

Because it doesn't work that way at that level of wealth, especially for tech CEOs. You can't just hide billions worth of shares in a company.

[nfw2]

The amazon shares weren't liquidated in the divorce. Are you saying the government will receive shares instead of cash?

[deaux]

Yes.

[butlike]

So then the government becomes a stakeholder with vested interest in certain companies and not others?

[deaux]

You can simply mandate by law that these sells must be sold to the market at, say, 2% per month, and that the government will not make use of voting rights during that period.

There's so many possible options.