Small reminder that Elon Musk doesn’t have that money in his bank account.
The only reason why his net worth is that high is because he has stock in the stupidly overinflated (and now quickly deflating) Tesla.
He had to pull loads of stock from tesla to buy twitter (after he was forced to do so by courts because he said he would) and still had to borrow money because he simply doesn’t have 44 billion. Quick side note: payments with interest for those loans are due, good luck paying those billions from a company that lost.over half its value, asshole!
If he pulls all his tesla stock then telsa would completely crash, he’ll never get access to anything near 166 billion.
I’m sure he has a few millions in liquid assets, but he is VERY far from making millions per day. The way he’s going right now, his ex wife better hurry because he’ll be bankrupt within a few years.
His Money in the Bank Account and his Net Worth are 2 different Pairs of Shoe but Elon takes a Credit for Multiple Millions (cheaper than having a Wage) and then giving them Stocks as Security.
He totally can afford to have his Child getting more than 33k in a Year.
An expensive coffee costs $5. For a person that makes $100,000 that’s 0.005% of annual income.
Musk’s annual cost would be $33,120 for all three kids. I don’t know his annual income and because a lot of his worth is in stocks it’s probably hard to figure out and highly variable. I’ll do some pretty stupid math and say he’s worth 185 billion and he’s 52, so he’s made 3.5 billion a year.
Musk is fighting to pay an annual cost for all three of his three kids of 0.0009% of his annual income, a amount proportionally less than what many spend one day on coffee.
Again, no. Musks networth was somewhere around 160 billion because of stocks in the stupidly overinflated tesla. The tesla bubble is already inflating like hell and with that I’m sure he’s losing networth like hell. If he continues current course he’ll be bankrupt withing a few years.
Either way, the money he has in his bank accounts is NOT the same and probably in the tens of millions tops.
I love how all we need to do to find loop holes in the system is try to apply a law to the rich and see how they try to wiggle out of it. Then we close that loop hole. Seems like a pretty good system to me!
What’s the loop hole ? It’s over 32,000 a year for the child. A child doesn’t require 32,000 a year. The mother wants to move the case and get more child support so she can use it on her self and her life style.
I’d argue that Musk needs that $32,000 even less. It’s a rounding error to him. This is Smaug, fighting over a rounding error. Stop begging to gobble his knob.
I agree, downvote and move on. First I would like to state, People need to realize the only thing a billionaire wants that they can’t buy is celebrity. He obviously wants to be front and center, don’t give him the attention .
I’m sorry, but this simply is not true. You can absolutely, 100%, easily buy fame in America.
Elon Musk is actually a perfect example of this. Remember when he bought Dave Chapelle and made him introduce him at the end of his set? Sure, he got booed, but he also made the news and nothing was ever going to stop that.
You can also literally buy media companies, or spots in the media, and simply put yourself in the news.
@return2ozma If the shitstain did not buy twitter he literally could have handed each of his children a billion dollars and still be richer than if he had not bought twitter. He does not appear to be very bright.
I’m no Muskcuck, but I am in favor of capping the generational transfer of wealth. Let these big inequalities die with this generation and set up a (more) even playing field for the next. If the rich want enhanced educational outcomes for their kids they have to fund public institutions.
Because it’s truly insane and will never get any support in real life.
Absolutely no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die. Tankie shit isn’t popular outside of a handful of message boards.
The key word here is “capping”. People are assuming for some reason that an estate tax means the repo man comes and takes all your earthly possessions after you die or something, but no one’s suggesting that. They’re suggesting putting a cap on how much you can pass down in an inheritance, as a way to prevent the hoarding of wealth by a single person/family.
If necessary for the inheritor to meet their tax obligations, sure. I’m sure there’s a dozen different estate tax systems in place that tax professionals would know more about, but yes, liquidating assets would be one way for an interior to meet their tax obligations.
You would be charged a tax proportional to the value of that business. How you pay it is up to you. This is how estate tax is currently done in the US at the Federal level. Again, I’m not a tax professional, so if you want to know more I’d suggest looking into it yourself.
That would essentially mean family businesses, at least past a certain size, would be impossible. Or more realistically, they would just obfuscate the ownership structure.
Capping the amount of wealth anyone can inherit seems sane to me. In fact it seems healthy for the whole economy, so not just sane but prudent. If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless. Preventing that is entirely sane.
I’m against preventing the transfer all all property. That seems like a recipe for corruption but I’d vote for limiting it to a trust of like $50-$100 million maximum plus an occupied home, a vacation home, and some reasonable amount of small property like boats and cars. Honestly that amount seems excessive to me but I think the majority would be in favor of such a law.
An economy only works when a majority participates. An ideal economy has everyone participating.
You can do a basic thought experiment to figure this out. Imagine 10 people control $100 trillion. Everyone else controls $0. What do you think you’ll be able to get for $1?
You might then say, “money isn’t wealth.” True. But if 10 people control all the wealth and everyone else has starved to death that’s even worse.
Because it’s truly insane and will never get any support in real life.
It’s got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of ‘never get support in real life’ is specious and incorrect.
Absolutely no one
bzzzt wrong again, I’d vote for estate tax reform in a heartbeat.
no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die.
if this is what you think the estate tax is you’re incredibly stupid. yet another misrepresentation of reality to fit into your premise, but it’s so fucking dumb from the outset it doesn’t even warrant a reply. Yet here we are.
Tankie shit isn’t popular outside of a handful of message boards.
Taxing the ultra wealthy isn’t ‘tankie shit’ you fucking dirtbag. Cute attempt to associate ‘people who don’t think a few should horde all the wealth’ with ‘tankies’.
Your entire argument is lies and garbage. Please, just stop whatever weird piece of performance art this utter shitshow is.
Estate tax is a tax, not a confiscation. If the tax were two high it would require manu inheritors to sell shares to shares to pay it, which would dump the share price of a company.
It’s fairly enough to raise one child. I don’t see where should be the controversy here, the kid can still have access to his dad’s wealth when he turns 18.
I don’t see things in black and white. I find them to be both morons, but I am not blinded by my political leaning to the point of seeing everything with Manichean reductionist lenses. by the way I have no shtick in US politics
Add comment