[jmoak]

I usually don't comment but I felt the urge to here.

It's disheartening to see the replies to your comment on this forum that these companies are doing something evil, and that these comments are arguing in favor of higher taxation to "fix" some sense of "fairness".

I personally don't think that governments use collected money generally more wisely than private hands - if they did, it would stand to reason that they should collect even more in order to continue allocating it so effectively, no? The whole private marketplace would be considered inefficient, correct? I hope we can agree (as users of a startup focused forum after all) this is not the case outside of a few tightly defined functions.

They want to make these companies pay a "fair" share, but none can define it. It appears to be "more" until no injustice for others exists along axes such as "healthcare outcomes", "housing outcomes", etc, regardless of people's choices. For example, one commenter gave the juxtaposition of Jeff Bezos throwing a Venetian wedding while people in the world lack health insurance as a case study for unfairness. What volume and kind of healthcare services are these people owed specifically? In the extreme, are experimentally surgeries that can only be provided by one living human counted as necessary? How much would it cost to pay him to provide it constantly, and what happens when he physically can't provide his service to everyone?

Where is the line drawn - because it absolutely matters. Would taxing Jeff more allow you to provide the services you envision? Where is the math showing which services could be provided, for how long, at what taxation rate, and for how many lives saved so we can actually make informed decisions? Until we have this data, it sounds more like this line of thinking comes from a hate for him rather than a desire to help people.

I live in a more remote part of the united states than probably 90% of this forum does: along the axes of "distance to a downtown", "health outcomes", "dental outcomes", "pollution exposure", "likelihood of getting into a car accident", and even "life expectancy" my result will likely be worse than someone in Brooklyn.

While I will be "poorer" on many metrics than someone who made the choice to move to Brooklyn, I would personally consider myself "richer" on the axes that matter to me.

No amount of taxing Meta will plug every gap between individual's outcomes nor bring general prosperity to a given nation, Meta paying even 100% of its income to my particular state will not help convince more truly-competent doctors to live near me nor inspire the ambitious people found in Brooklyn to come here to provide their quality services to me instead in order for me to have the same "quality of life". My outcome will always remain different than others'.

Personally, I think we should minimize taxes as much as possible to reduce the less-efficiently-allocated capital deployed by the government, and have clear goals on missions for equitable outcomes and clear plans for their costs.

To me, a sales tax on free signups really does seem as you say - a shakedown by a sclerotic leadership who want to feed their own operations with no clear plan to use the money well. Somehow they are empowered by supportive people who truly will not see an effective benefit from this extortion.