So your plan is to destroy anything of worth? My awesome eye doc has 4 offices, no doubt his practice is worth more than $10M, to jail he goes and fuck all his employees. Also, you’re going to destroy a huge number of family farms. An individual might score a storefront or three in the worst parts of Manhattan for less than $10M, but fuck 'em if the value goes up. And so on.
If you think $10M is a lot of money, you shouldn’t be talking economic law.
Destroy? No – it just needs to be owned more collectively.
Your awesome eye doc can give employees part ownership in the business to reduce his total personal assets below $10M.
Also, you’re going to destroy a huge number of family farms.
No single person is operating a $10M farm all by himself with no family and no employees. If it really is a ‘family farm’ – unlikely at that price – then its assets can be divided up between the family members so that no individual person owns more than $10M. Or better yet, you could again give part ownership to the laborers actually working on the farm.
An individual might score a storefront or three in the worst parts of Manhattan for less than $10M, but fuck 'em if the value goes up.
So Manhattan storefronts won’t be easy to individually own. You’ll need to figure out some sort of group or collective ownership.
If you think $10M is a lot of money, you shouldn’t be talking economic law.
It is a lot of money for one single person.
The whole idea here is to spread the wealth. To tackle wealth inequality – quite possibly the worst economic problem today, and still growing fast.
We’re all agreed that the wealth gap is of paramount importance, but $10M just ain’t that much for an individual business owner. For example, they may have to dip into personal finances to bail their company out at some point or react to a new competitor.
Where we kinda disagree is on collective ownership. In my eye doctor example, what if one office was losing money hand over fist and needed closed? Think the employees would vote themselves and their fellows out of a job?
A great example of this kinda idea is QuikTrip. Employees don’t have part ownership, they get monster monthly bonuses depending on store profits, often more than their regular paycheck. You get a promotion by moving to a better performing store, or the holy grail, an interstate truck stop. These people work at a gas station and you’ll see 10, 20, 40 year pins on their shirts. Benefits are, or course, excellent. I contracted doing Y2K upgrades in '98 and was stunned at how well those places operate. 6-weeks of training before you’re allowed behind the register kinda operation. I’m down for that!
There’s another company that’s similar, but the name escapes me. It’s stunning and frustrating that these assholes can’t look at a corporation like QT and say, “They’re expanding and making money hand over fist! We could do that!”
For example, they may have to dip into personal finances to bail their company out at some point
Just take out a loan instead. Best part is that won’t even count toward the wealth cap, since the loan money is offset by the negative balance owed on the loan.
Illegal to privately own any combination of assets worth more than $10 million.
So your plan is to destroy anything of worth? My awesome eye doc has 4 offices, no doubt his practice is worth more than $10M, to jail he goes and fuck all his employees. Also, you’re going to destroy a huge number of family farms. An individual might score a storefront or three in the worst parts of Manhattan for less than $10M, but fuck 'em if the value goes up. And so on.
If you think $10M is a lot of money, you shouldn’t be talking economic law.
Destroy? No – it just needs to be owned more collectively.
Your awesome eye doc can give employees part ownership in the business to reduce his total personal assets below $10M.
No single person is operating a $10M farm all by himself with no family and no employees. If it really is a ‘family farm’ – unlikely at that price – then its assets can be divided up between the family members so that no individual person owns more than $10M. Or better yet, you could again give part ownership to the laborers actually working on the farm.
So Manhattan storefronts won’t be easy to individually own. You’ll need to figure out some sort of group or collective ownership.
It is a lot of money for one single person.
The whole idea here is to spread the wealth. To tackle wealth inequality – quite possibly the worst economic problem today, and still growing fast.
We’re all agreed that the wealth gap is of paramount importance, but $10M just ain’t that much for an individual business owner. For example, they may have to dip into personal finances to bail their company out at some point or react to a new competitor.
Where we kinda disagree is on collective ownership. In my eye doctor example, what if one office was losing money hand over fist and needed closed? Think the employees would vote themselves and their fellows out of a job?
A great example of this kinda idea is QuikTrip. Employees don’t have part ownership, they get monster monthly bonuses depending on store profits, often more than their regular paycheck. You get a promotion by moving to a better performing store, or the holy grail, an interstate truck stop. These people work at a gas station and you’ll see 10, 20, 40 year pins on their shirts. Benefits are, or course, excellent. I contracted doing Y2K upgrades in '98 and was stunned at how well those places operate. 6-weeks of training before you’re allowed behind the register kinda operation. I’m down for that!
There’s another company that’s similar, but the name escapes me. It’s stunning and frustrating that these assholes can’t look at a corporation like QT and say, “They’re expanding and making money hand over fist! We could do that!”
Just take out a loan instead. Best part is that won’t even count toward the wealth cap, since the loan money is offset by the negative balance owed on the loan.