This perspecitive is highly US centric. For instance, a lot less people buy new cars in europe, not to mention the developing world.
You're right that my view of this is US-centric, my bad for that.
Value crashing is interesting. Cars have a fairly long lifespan so the transition to ownership of EVs is slow, I would agree with that if that's what you're saying. But the transition to crashing value does not have to be as slow. If the perceived value of an option is 2% better than another option, that does not equate to a 2% price difference. It equates to a much bigger price difference.
Of course a lot of EVs are still crappy and the perceived value of ICE cars is still high due to rampant ignorance about charging options (in the US and Europe) or simple lack of charging options (in the developing world). But that can change very quickly as EVs and the infrastructure get better, and then even though the ownership transition is slow, people will be stuck owning ICE cars when they would prefer to own something 2% better, or 10% better, or 90% better.
But there are far too many needlessly impoverished people in this country to convince me that there's something "efficient" about this.
I'm pretty sure the answer to these questions is No (he would have still done it) and No (a good government can put money to better use for all of society).
Or do you think the single mom with 3 kids working 2 jobs and still can't pay rent and health care cares about electric cars and rockets?
Edit: I still think what he's doing is important and impressive, and it's ok that he is one of the richest people on Earth. However, that doesn't mean the US needs to have a better tax system for the rich and better social pillars.
It's comical, but also tragic, that you also think the government can put his money to better use. The F-35 program alone is $173 billion over budget.
California simply does not have the political, legal, and governmental infrastructure succeed at megaprojects.
Most major cities in the state can't even overcome the legal and policy hurdles for housing development or light rail, and High speed rail is a magnitude more difficult.
Sure, I can accept that the work a single mom is doing is much nobler, much more humane and much more deserving of our collective conscious assistance.
But there’s something to be said of our hypocrisy if we (via govt) tax Elon’s wealth _today_ when those same people are unlikely to have to assisted Tesla during _production hell_ (there was talk of Apple doing some Tesla acquisitions; but can’t remember if the US govt was in talks to help Tesla out there)
Elon’s wealth didn’t come out of nowhere. Many many people consciously invested. The US govt _already_ has access to every single one of those people’s wealth via existing taxes. Despite that, we have a society with non-zero single moms who can’t pay rent & healthcare.
There’s something wrong in our society here, sure. A wealth tax doesn’t seem to address that problem though. Heck, if the US govt could’ve put taxpayer money to ease off on Model 3 production hell then yes taxing Elon’s gains today would be fair. Otherwise, it’s just unfair, inefficient.
Is this a joke?
Yes, I do.
Maybe he would've left the country and tried to build something elsewhere. If he didn't, you also can't proclaim to know that he would've pursued his projects with such vigor in the presence of a wealth tax. The wealth tax idea has been tried before and has failed, so whoever is promoting it at least has to explain why this time is different. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-happened-when-the-we...
> Or do you think the single mom ... cares about electric cars and rockets?
Climate change (EVs) isn't only going to impact the rich. Also, reusable rocket tech is massive value add to our society including to regular people; satellites - which working class people rely on, plus diversifying life in order to reduce existential risk which is something everyone should care about.
The only successful model that is remotely close that has been historically proven is Islam's Zakat, a form of charity tax if you will. It doesn't force you to sell shares of your company, unlike some proposals I saw by dems.
I did not see a single politician refer to Zakat in any of their proposals. Note that they'd have to get rid of income tax as well to make things just.
I think the answer to this is a resounding Yes, he would not have done it. Tesla and Musk is the perfect example of why a wealth tax on capital is insane.
Tesla market cap is 750 Billion, but the profit is 500 million, and the stock owners that haven't sold have realized $0 profit.
A 1% wealth tax on Musk's 200b ($1b) would be 4 times higher that the profit of the entire company.
Under the current system, the moment he cashes out any stock, he will have to pay taxes on his actual profit. The reason we income instead of wealth, is that wealth can go up and down without the owner seeing any benefit.
I don't think a wealth tax is the right solution, a person that holds wealth definitely does derive a benefit from that wealth -> in the form of control (of a company), collateral (borrowing money at sub-inflation rates), and influence.
> Imagine seizing his assets and distributing it to the people via a wealth tax
How would a wealth tax seize his assets?
And having the US Government "seizing the means of production" - and that's how it would be spun - is a great way to turn people against it!
A wealth tax is most likely unconstitutional anyway, the same way income tax was before the Sixteenth Amendment.
Look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for an example of taking more than a sliver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae...
I'm not sure of the difference between a "wealth tax" and a "property tax". Are you saying the sort of property tax homeowners pay in a lot of places would be unconstitutional at a Federal level? Or are you saying it's unconstitutional at any level?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/constitutional-conce...
The federal takeover of a government-created corporation in a financial crisis to prevent it collapsing isn't really a good comparison to an ongoing process of "taking" large chunks of successful companies because their owners are required to pay taxes. And there is criticism of that control now, even if people accepted those actions were required at the time:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/business/dealbook/fannie-...