If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry.
The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value.
That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival.
They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out.
If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash.
Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you’ve read the article at all.
we both know that’s not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn’t even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out.
but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it’s taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to “protect the economy”.
The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk…?
Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares.
The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk.
It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank.
You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one.
Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn’t come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they’re talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you’re ahead and stay in school.
50% of a failing industry is a liability, not an investment.
It’s not a liability if it’s given to you.
here’s how that will work.
US taxpayers own 50% of the industry. it fails. now taxpayers are responsible for bailing out the industry.
If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry.
The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value.
That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival.
tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company?
They get voting power and upside.
They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out.
If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash.
Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you’ve read the article at all.
we both know that’s not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn’t even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out.
but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it’s taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to “protect the economy”.
This is not making you sound smarter, my guy…
The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk…?
Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares.
The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk.
It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank.
You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one.
Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn’t come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they’re talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you’re ahead and stay in school.