As Twitchy readers know, Mark Cuban and Ro Khanna have had some 'tiffs' in the past about money, taxes, capitalism, etc.. Basically, the billionaire knows more about capitalism, taxes, and making money than the communist.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Speaking of crazy, this wealth tax in California that Bernie Sanders supports from Khanna is a disaster.<\/p>\n
The California Democratic Party and the California labor movement just stood with\u00a0@BernieSanders and me in supporting 5% wealth tax on 250 California billionaires.California voters want a Democratic Party that will stand up for the working class over the billionaire class. pic.twitter.com\/QrLZUh3bS6<\/p>\n
Ro, I like you. You know that. But you need to read the state of the state.The number of Deca Unicorns in Cali is growing by the day as investors chase amazing startups.A unique feature of these 10b startups is that even if they raise a billion, little, if any of that\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/l1LRaiki16<\/p>\n
… money goes to the founders, who are now worth billions of dollars overnight. \u00a0They are the definition of cash poor, stock rich\u00a0<\/p>\n
How are you going to tax them? Make them borrow money against their shares, if they can? \u00a0They just raised money to grow their company and a bank will come along and loan them money? A company that has been in business maybe less than a year? lol\u00a0<\/p>\n
Will you take their stock if they can\u2019t?\u00a0<\/p>\n
Do you really think each of multiple founders, who started an amazing company in Cali and is now a billionaire, can each \u00a0just pull out $250m per billion of net worth from their raise ? You know they can\u2019t.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If this passes, and it doesn\u2019t directly impact me at all, I won\u2019t be a Cali resident, but you can bet if I\u2019m investing in a multi-billion-dollar startup, I\u2019m asking them to move from California first. \u00a0IMO, if this passes, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali. \u00a0I\u2019ve done it before and will do it again. \u00a0Dallas. \u00a0Pittsburgh. Indiana. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
I will make NOT \u00a0being in California a prerequisite for an investment.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Why not a non recourse loan for pledged stock as collateral for this situation?<\/p>\n
Allow illiquid founders to pledge shares with a loan from the government to pay tax. The loan period is long but not infinite (e.g. 10 years). The loan is non-resource: at the end of the period, the loan is either paid back in cash, or the government assumes the shares.<\/p>\n
Ro, that\u2019s insane.You want the state to loan money to the founder, who will then immediately give it back to the state as a wealth tax ?Meaning the state has not received any incremental receipts? What\u2019s the point of that ?Unless of course you want the gov to own shares\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/wJGaCvVfhE<\/p>\n
… (something I thought you criticized) and possibly have control, of companies who underperformed, (or the funding market changed), and couldn\u2019t pay back their loans over those 10 years ? And I\u2019m sure the investors in those companies will be thrilled about their new partners. \u00a0That will make for interesting board meetings. \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s first topic is trying to figure out how to motivate the founder(s). \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n