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.
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.