Elon Musk to buy Twitter

[EVENKEEL]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nice try at deflection. What has that got to do with the predicament Musk has created for himself in respect to Twitter?

Nothing to deflect from, I just think it's funny with the arm chair quarterbacks on here. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

"Elon Musk May Well Have The Biggest Tax Bill This Year: Over $8 Billion. On Tuesday evening, Elon Musk made a bold claim on Twitter: That he would pay more taxes than any American in history this year. 

Musk might be right. The eccentric billionaire (and the world’s richest person) likely owes the federal government at least $8.3 billion for 2021, Forbes estimates, based on his stock sales of nearly $13 billion through December 13. "

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizahaverstock/2021/12/15/elon-musk-is-likely-paying-more-than-8-billion-in-taxes-this-year/?sh=33bddc204db3

Sure. And what percentage of

 

You didn't note that in the same article it says that while Musk's worth increased by 13.8 billion between 2014 and 2018, he paid ony 455 million in taxes. In 2018 he paid no income tax at all. The article is based on the the reporting of Propublica.

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

"ProPublica has obtained a vast cache of IRS information showing how billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett pay little in income tax compared to their massive wealth — sometimes, even nothing...

According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%."

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

 

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Nothing to deflect from, I just think it's funny with the arm chair quarterbacks on here. 

If it was just the opinion of "armchair quarterbacks here" you might have a point. But you're gonna have to look long and hard to find experts who think that Musk has much of a case. The contract he signed was specifically designed to keep him from being able to back out. It, and others like it, are fashioned this way because of previous unhappy experiences with those who reneged on such deals. The odds are overwhelming that he's not going to wriggle out of this deal without it costing him.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Gee, if the richest man in the world is a "loser," what does a "winner" look like?

 

Cheers!

[SunnyinBangrak]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

Twitter has Musk right where it wants him:

 

Twitter board tells Elon Musk: We will not alter the deal

Board vows to enforce $44 billion agreement despite Musk's waffling and complaints.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/twitter-board-tells-elon-musk-we-will-not-alter-the-deal/

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the crucial point is whether Twitter "knowingly" lied about the number of fake users/bots. IF, it can be proven(and Musk's legal team already demanded the internal emails and messages be preserved) that they did this for the purposes of gaining more revenue from advertizers and thus a higher stock price then it will be clear evidence of fraud and Musk will not be compelled to go through the purchase at the inflated price.

 Agrawals refusal to guarantee the number of bots when directly challenged in a convoluted serial of Tweets which led Musk to post his infamous poop tweet in response does tend to suggest funny business has been happening at Twitter.

 

"Tesla CEO says execs KNOW they have more bots than they are admitting to"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10835231/Twitter-bosses-tell-staff-Musk-takeover-moving-ahead-claimed-app-filled-fake-users.html

[SunnyinBangrak]

57 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

"Panic Mode"?

 

Histrionic much?

 

 

Most of the posts here seem calm, well thought-out, rational.

 

Yours? Reek of PANIC.

 

Just stop digging, and stop relaying the right-wing neo-fascist talking points.

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you go back and read the thread from the beginning. You will find a load of rants about Trump(WHY?????) you will find salacious smears accusing Musk of having drink and drugs issues and also mental health issues(that appalling claim was posted by yourself), and a whole series of insulting posts calling Musk stupid and other baseless negative claims.

 Clearly emotional responses which also reflect the response at Twitter to the takeover news.

 

 

"Monday was an emotional day at Twitter — even for its executives.

Shortly after billionaire Elon Musk bought the powerful social media platform, top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde called a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams she oversees to discuss what the new ownership could mean for them."

Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change, according to three people familiar with the meeting.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff-cries-during-meeting-about-musk-takeover-00027931

 

And this very insulting response by another high ranking Twitter worker - I thought these guys were supposed to be supportive of mental health problems? Seems not when it's Elon Musk buying Twitter.

 

“He has Asperger’s, so he’s special — you’re special needs. You’re literally special needs,” the honcho, identified by Project Veritas as lead client partner Alex Martinez, says in a video that the outlet released Tuesday.

“So I can’t even take what you’re saying seriously,” Martinez added as he moaned about the Tesla CEO’s mission to restore free speech to the social media giant.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/twitter-exec-recorded-mocking-elon-musk-for-aspergers/

[SunnyinBangrak]

52 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nice try at deflection. What has that got to do with the predicament Musk has created for himself in respect to Twitter?

Predicament? The $44 billion takeover ($54.20 a share) if cancelled and Musk is somehow forced to pay $1 billion as a fine would cost Musk $1 billion. Yet the Twitter share price has and will continue to tank if Musk pulls out. Now at $37 a share Musk would make a massive saving if he made a new takeover bid. Hardly a predicament, looks like a sensible way to save his money.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Predicament? The $44 billion takeover ($54.20 a share) if cancelled and Musk is somehow forced to pay $1 billion as a fine would cost Musk $1 billion. Yet the Twitter share price has and will continue to tank if Musk pulls out. Now at $37 a share Musk would make a massive saving if he made a new takeover bid. Hardly a predicament, looks like a sensible way to save his money.

If you had bothered to look at legal opinions about the contract you would have noted that Musk doesn't have the option of just withdrawing and paying 1 billion. This contract was designed to make the commitment to buy legally binding.

In ft.com, there is an exemplary and brief article that clearly explains the dilemma Musk has created for himself. There's a firewall, but it's easy to legitimately circumvent. Just go to incognito mode in chrome, or whatever the equivalent is in whatever browser you use, and use the following search term:

 

Twitter deal leaves Elon Musk with no easy way out ft.com

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by placeholder

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Sure. And what percentage of

 

You didn't note that in the same article it says that while Musk's worth increased by 13.8 billion between 2014 and 2018, he paid ony 455 million in taxes. In 2018 he paid no income tax at all. The article is based on the the reporting of Propublica.

The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

"ProPublica has obtained a vast cache of IRS information showing how billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett pay little in income tax compared to their massive wealth — sometimes, even nothing...

According to Forbes, those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%."

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

 

 

Mark Twain famously talked about, "Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics."

 

Using tax rate as a point of comparison is an excellent example of what he was talking about. 

 

Magically, a person who pays 20% of $100,000 ($20,000) is some kind of hero............. while a person who pays 5% of $1 billion.......... ($50,000,000)..........is some kind of pariah:

 

Oh my god! OMG! Oh my god!

 

20% vs 5%

 

OH MY GOD!

 

And this lets us look passed the very simple reality that one guy paid $50,000,000, while the other paid only $20,000!

 

(Hint: If $10,000 is an "average American"......... the guy who pays $50,000,000........... pays the taxes of 5,000  "average Americans!")

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics!"

 

----------------

 

Personally, I think it's okay that a person who makes more, pays more. I've got no problem with that.

 

But if we're talking about what's "fair"........... I think its reasonable to say that once they've paid a certain amount.........(amount, not percentage!).......... it's okay to say, "Thank you, you've paid enough!" (And isn't that EXACTLY what we already do with Social Security and Medicare contributions, hmmm?)

 

If Musk is paying $1 billion in taxes, he is personally  paying the taxes of 100,000 "average Americans!" (And $8 billion would pay the taxes of 800,000 "average Americans," in this example!)

 

Y'know, if we're really going to talk about "fair" or "fair share"............ there really should be a point where we also say, "Okay, you've paid enough!"

 

Cuz if someone has managed to get beyond THAT point........... what's wrong with just letting them keep it? 

 

---------------

 

The bottom line of comparing rates instead of dollars is simple.......... We don't pay for things with percentages. We pay for things with dollars!

 

So the thing that needs comparing is how many DOLLARS a person pays, NOT what their percentage was! Because comparing percentages is nothing more than........

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and statistics!"

 

-------------------

 

I dunno, when one guy is paying the taxes of 5,000 or 100,000 or 800,000 "average Americans".........and I'm consequently benefiting from that........... I'm inclined to think I should be saying "Thank you!" to him............ not sneering at him and saying "Gimme more, more, more!"

 

But hey, that's just me!

 

Cheers!

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[mtls2005]

Goes to character your honor

 

 

SpaceX Reportedly Paid $250,000 To Settle Sexual Harassment Accusation Against Elon Musk

 

Musk allegedly “exposed his genitals” to the attendant, touched her thigh and said he would buy her a horse if she gave him an “erotic massage,” according to Insider, which interviewed the friend and reviewed the friend’s declaration (Insider said the flight attendant declined to comment).

 

The attendant told her friend that, after she refused Musk’s alleged advances, her work shifts were reduced, giving her the impression that she was being punished, Insider reported.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/19/spacex-reportedly-paid-250000-to-settle-sexual-harassment-accusation-against-elon-musk/?sh=48a1416476e2

 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Gee, if the richest man in the world is a "loser," what does a "winner" look like?

 

Cheers!

Rudy Guiliani.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Rudy Guiliani.

Lol

 

Oh my...... 

[LarrySR]

Twitter banned him again. 
 

Twitter has shut down a new account parroting posts from Truth Social.
Truth Social is a lame copycat of the Twitter format. 

Copies of posts that violates Twitter terms of service were from the twice impeached, insurrectionist, failed, former US President. 

 

The company has a policy barring banned users from dodging restrictions by ducking to other accounts.

[Chomper Higgot]

13 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Any reason as to why you cannot make a rocket yourself, like he does ?

He doesn’t make a rocket himself.

 

He employs some very talented people who do it for him.

 

He’s a modern day ‘Edison’.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Predicament? The $44 billion takeover ($54.20 a share) if cancelled and Musk is somehow forced to pay $1 billion as a fine would cost Musk $1 billion. Yet the Twitter share price has and will continue to tank if Musk pulls out. Now at $37 a share Musk would make a massive saving if he made a new takeover bid. Hardly a predicament, looks like a sensible way to save his money.

Your prediction of where The Twitter share price is going is interesting, do you have crystal ball, I feel you could make an investment killing.

[GrandPapillon]

Twitter case could become very interesting if they misled Elon Musk with the fake accounts,

 

he might be forced to buy the company, but then he will need to sue back previous investors and the board for concealing such deception. Twitter is a regulatory time bomb IMO.

 

I am sure the SEC is also on the case, because lying to investors in your 10Q and 10K about the size of your future business and the state of your user counts to "validate" that future business is a clear case of investor deception, and that could be criminally charged.

 

Remember that Liz Holmes misleading investors with a simple PowerPoint and then proceeding with fake "LoI" from big pharma, pure investor deception and the SEC is now watching Silicon Valley practice of "overstated" numbers to lure new investors. The SEC is not amused by Silicon Valley creative practice.

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Mark Twain famously talked about, "Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics."

 

Using tax rate as a point of comparison is an excellent example of what he was talking about. 

 

Magically, a person who pays 20% of $100,000 ($20,000) is some kind of hero............. while a person who pays 5% of $1 billion.......... ($50,000,000)..........is some kind of pariah:

 

Oh my god! OMG! Oh my god!

 

20% vs 5%

 

OH MY GOD!

 

And this lets us look passed the very simple reality that one guy paid $50,000,000, while the other paid only $20,000!

 

(Hint: If $10,000 is an "average American"......... the guy who pays $50,000,000........... pays the taxes of 5,000  "average Americans!")

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics!"

 

----------------

 

Personally, I think it's okay that a person who makes more, pays more. I've got no problem with that.

 

But if we're talking about what's "fair"........... I think its reasonable to say that once they've paid a certain amount.........(amount, not percentage!).......... it's okay to say, "Thank you, you've paid enough!" (And isn't that EXACTLY what we already do with Social Security and Medicare contributions, hmmm?)

 

If Musk is paying $1 billion in taxes, he is personally  paying the taxes of 100,000 "average Americans!" (And $8 billion would pay the taxes of 800,000 "average Americans," in this example!)

 

Y'know, if we're really going to talk about "fair" or "fair share"............ there really should be a point where we also say, "Okay, you've paid enough!"

 

Cuz if someone has managed to get beyond THAT point........... what's wrong with just letting them keep it? 

 

---------------

 

The bottom line of comparing rates instead of dollars is simple.......... We don't pay for things with percentages. We pay for things with dollars!

 

So the thing that needs comparing is how many DOLLARS a person pays, NOT what their percentage was! Because comparing percentages is nothing more than........

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and statistics!"

 

-------------------

 

I dunno, when one guy is paying the taxes of 5,000 or 100,000 or 800,000 "average Americans".........and I'm consequently benefiting from that........... I'm inclined to think I should be saying "Thank you!" to him............ not sneering at him and saying "Gimme more, more, more!"

 

But hey, that's just me!

 

Cheers!

 

 

There’s nothing wrong with everyone paying taxes on the same percentage basis. Just like the vast majority of working people do.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Mark Twain famously talked about, "Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics."

 

Using tax rate as a point of comparison is an excellent example of what he was talking about. 

 

Magically, a person who pays 20% of $100,000 ($20,000) is some kind of hero............. while a person who pays 5% of $1 billion.......... ($50,000,000)..........is some kind of pariah:

 

Oh my god! OMG! Oh my god!

 

20% vs 5%

 

OH MY GOD!

 

And this lets us look passed the very simple reality that one guy paid $50,000,000, while the other paid only $20,000!

 

(Hint: If $10,000 is an "average American"......... the guy who pays $50,000,000........... pays the taxes of 5,000  "average Americans!")

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and Statistics!"

 

----------------

 

Personally, I think it's okay that a person who makes more, pays more. I've got no problem with that.

 

But if we're talking about what's "fair"........... I think its reasonable to say that once they've paid a certain amount.........(amount, not percentage!).......... it's okay to say, "Thank you, you've paid enough!" (And isn't that EXACTLY what we already do with Social Security and Medicare contributions, hmmm?)

 

If Musk is paying $1 billion in taxes, he is personally  paying the taxes of 100,000 "average Americans!" (And $8 billion would pay the taxes of 800,000 "average Americans," in this example!)

 

Y'know, if we're really going to talk about "fair" or "fair share"............ there really should be a point where we also say, "Okay, you've paid enough!"

 

Cuz if someone has managed to get beyond THAT point........... what's wrong with just letting them keep it? 

 

---------------

 

The bottom line of comparing rates instead of dollars is simple.......... We don't pay for things with percentages. We pay for things with dollars!

 

So the thing that needs comparing is how many DOLLARS a person pays, NOT what their percentage was! Because comparing percentages is nothing more than........

 

"Lies, D-mn Lies, and statistics!"

 

-------------------

 

I dunno, when one guy is paying the taxes of 5,000 or 100,000 or 800,000 "average Americans".........and I'm consequently benefiting from that........... I'm inclined to think I should be saying "Thank you!" to him............ not sneering at him and saying "Gimme more, more, more!"

 

But hey, that's just me!

 

Cheers!

 

 

On the other hand....

 

Elon Musk made his fortune via the internet (the result of a taxpayer funded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project), electric cars built using computer and batter technology funded by taxpayers, and aerospace technology also funded by taxpayers. 

 

All of Elon Musk's wealth has come using technology funded by taxpayers, and he's only paying a small fraction of his wealth in taxes.  Understandably, some people have a problem with that.

[SunnyinBangrak]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your prediction of where The Twitter share price is going is interesting, do you have crystal ball, I feel you could make an investment killing.

No I do not. But I do have Yahoo, the 6 month chart shows a collapsing share price only jumping when Musk announced his bid. Bearing in mind the terrible downturn in tech stocks valuations since the bid was announced, Twitter staff admitting Twitter is run for ideological purposes not for profit(against the boards fiduciary resonsibility btw), and bearing in mind that the share price has come off a high of over $50 to the current mid $30s my observation is valid.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR?p=TWTR&.tsrc=fin-srch

 

edit to add proof Twitter is not being run for profit as I assert above

 

"Murugesan said the company's operating procedures were extremely lax.

'Essentially like everyone gets to do whatever they want, no one really cares about like [operating expenses], like capitalists, they care about numbers or care about how to make the business more efficient,' he said. 

'But in Twitter, it's like mental health is everything, like if you are not feeling it, you can take a few days off. People have taken months off, they will come back. 

'But you always like, like do your best at any time. And that's the culture and you know we'll run the business as much as possible. But at the same time, you know, like the profits weren't a lot.'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10823295/Twitter-does-not-believe-free-speech-Twitter-engineer-recorded-saying-censor-right.html

 

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Twitter case could become very interesting if they misled Elon Musk with the fake accounts,

 

he might be forced to buy the company, but then he will need to sue back previous investors and the board for concealing such deception. Twitter is a regulatory time bomb IMO.

 

I am sure the SEC is also on the case, because lying to investors in your 10Q and 10K about the size of your future business and the state of your user counts to "validate" that future business is a clear case of investor deception, and that could be criminally charged.

 

Remember that Liz Holmes misleading investors with a simple PowerPoint and then proceeding with fake "LoI" from big pharma, pure investor deception and the SEC is now watching Silicon Valley practice of "overstated" numbers to lure new investors. The SEC is not amused by Silicon Valley creative practice.

Twitter has made the necessary caveats about its membership numbers to comply with SEC rules. It has admitted that it did sightly overestimated its numbers but not enough to constitue a Material Adverse Effect.. What's more Musk explicitly waived his right to exercise due diligence.  Only if the numbers were hugely off would Musk have a case.

 

" That is an incredibly high standard: Delaware courts have almost never found an MAE. An MAE has to be something that would “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner,” the courts have said; there is a rule of thumb that an MAE requires a 40% decrease in long-term profitability. If it turned out that 6% or 20% or 50% of Twitter accounts are bots, that will be embarrassing and might even reduce Twitter’s future advertising revenue, but will it be an MAE? "

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-13/elon-musk-trolls-twitter

The answer to that final rhetorical question was negative.

.

Edited May 20, 2022 by placeholder

[placeholder]

50 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

No I do not. But I do have Yahoo, the 6 month chart shows a collapsing share price only jumping when Musk announced his bid. Bearing in mind the terrible downturn in tech stocks valuations since the bid was announced, Twitter staff admitting Twitter is run for ideological purposes not for profit(against the boards fiduciary resonsibility btw), and bearing in mind that the share price has come off a high of over $50 to the current mid $30s my observation is valid.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR?p=TWTR&.tsrc=fin-srch

 

edit to add proof Twitter is not being run for profit as I assert above

 

"Murugesan said the company's operating procedures were extremely lax.

'Essentially like everyone gets to do whatever they want, no one really cares about like [operating expenses], like capitalists, they care about numbers or care about how to make the business more efficient,' he said. 

'But in Twitter, it's like mental health is everything, like if you are not feeling it, you can take a few days off. People have taken months off, they will come back. 

'But you always like, like do your best at any time. And that's the culture and you know we'll run the business as much as possible. But at the same time, you know, like the profits weren't a lot.'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10823295/Twitter-does-not-believe-free-speech-Twitter-engineer-recorded-saying-censor-right.html

 

"Twitter staff admitting Twitter is run for ideological purposes not for profit.."

 

You really want to use that as evidence? This guy is a senior engineer. He's on the technical side of things. He's not an executive or involved in financial management.. What's more he's one person.  Yet you characterize him as "staff".  You think that one person speaks for all the staff? Who knows how many people Project Veritas secretly recorded before they found some Twitter employee who apparently said what they wanted to hear?  What's more, as usual, Project Veritas only released clips. And they have a long history of releasing misleadingly edited videos. So, who knows what the genuine gist was of the remarks offered by this senior engineer?

 

Apart from these objections, you made some really great points.

Edited May 20, 2022 by placeholder

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Only if the numbers were hugely off would Musk have a case.

and that's what he is trying to do. How cooperative the "Indian born" CEO will be to "reveal" the true nature of the fake accounts is the real question. And if it turns out they knew the numbers were vastly under-estimated and significant, then they were clearly misleading their investors since usage and number of users, not profit, is the main benchmark of those investors. And the SEC will join the fray. Mark my word.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-13/elon-musk-trolls-twitter

The answer to that final rhetorical question was negative.

it's only an opinion, not a court result. In a court, anything is possible with the right arguments.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

and that's what he is trying to do. How cooperative the "Indian born" CEO will be to "reveal" the true nature of the fake accounts is the real question. And if it turns out they knew the numbers were vastly under-estimated and significant, then they were clearly misleading their investors since usage and number of users, not profit, is the main benchmark of those investors. And the SEC will join the fray. Mark my word.

 

it's only an opinion, not a court result. In a court, anything is possible with the right arguments.

Out of curiosity and since you took the trouble to mention it, what has the birthplace of the CEO got to do with anything at all in this thread?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

and that's what he is trying to do. How cooperative the "Indian born" CEO will be to "reveal" the true nature of the fake accounts is the real question. And if it turns out they knew the numbers were vastly under-estimated and significant, then they were clearly misleading their investors since usage and number of users, not profit, is the main benchmark of those investors. And the SEC will join the fray. Mark my word.

 

it's only an opinion, not a court result. In a court, anything is possible with the right arguments.

As was pointed out in the article, the numbers would have to be hugely off to qualify to be an MAE.  So that's a really big and unlikely "if". And the SEC is not going to "join the fray" just on the say so of Elon Musk.  And your point about the CEO revealing "the true nature of the fake accounts" assumes that he would be hiding something. Ya got any evidence for that?

 

 As for "it's only an opinion" It's an opinion that is widely shared by legal experts based on overwhelming legal precedent. You'll be hard put to find any experts that say differently. So, sure, anything is possible with the right arguments if there are right arguments to be found. But this isn't magic. There isn't some magical "abracadabra" that will melt the heart of a judge or jury. If it goes to court, the trial will take place in the State of Delaware under Delaware state law. There are reasons that corporations choose to base themselves in the tiny state of Delaware.  And none of them are about making it more difficult for them to win court cases. "Anything is possible" is the epitome of a Hail Mary argument. Impossible to refute, but no reason to be taken seriously.

.

Edited May 20, 2022 by placeholder

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

On the other hand....

 

Elon Musk made his fortune via the internet (the result of a taxpayer funded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project), electric cars built using computer and batter technology funded by taxpayers, and aerospace technology also funded by taxpayers. 

 

All of Elon Musk's wealth has come using technology funded by taxpayers, and he's only paying a small fraction of his wealth in taxes.  Understandably, some people have a problem with that.

Y'know, when a municipality lays down waterpipes across the breadth of the city, some of that water will get used to make coffee in coffee houses, bread in bakeries, fill fish tanks in pet stores, and water plants in garden nurseries. 

 

But that doesn't mean the municipality deserves to be treated as a partner........... when they didn't build the building or the coffee house business; never roasted or ground any coffee; never waited on customers, stocked the shelves, cleaned the equipment and dishes; never created and paid for advertising; never put forward any investment for equipment and fixtures. 

 

Yes, the municipality deserves a tiny, tiny bit of credit for bringing water and sewers to that block. But it was tons and tons and TONS of work and imagination and ingenuity and time and money and effort....... by people who have nothing to do with the municipality......... that turned that coffee house into a thriving business. 

 

So too the contribution of DARPA to the internet, relatively speaking.

 

There are literally tens of thousands of successful businesses on the internet......... maybe hundreds of thousands......... that created 99.999% of their success all on their own......... with DARPA perhaps deserving the remaining 0.001% of the credit. 

 

Yes it's reasonable and appropriate that Musk and his companies pay taxes relative to their consumption of things provided by local, state and federal governments......... if there was a way to accurately calculate such a number. But that becomes problematic when you start factoring in things like:

 

How long roads......... for example........ actually last......... and how little (proportionately) any one company's cars and trucks will actually spend on them. 

 

And if you wanted to do the same for that "taxpayer-funded" DARPA invention?

 

Musk and all his companies combined........... might owe maybe 15 cents a year, based on their proportional use of that invention/asset! 

 

---------------

 

Personally, I think the fact that Elon Musk was able to find a way to be much more successful utilizing tools and technologies that nearly everyone had access to, just like he did............. is NOT a reason to punish and penalize him with exorbitant taxes! 

 

If Elon Musk had had exclusive access to these "taxpayer-funded" technologies, that would be one thing. That would be different. 

 

But he didn't. 

 

He just used imagination and ingenuity......... and no small amount of time, energy, effort and money.......... to find ways to use them BETTER! 

 

---------------

 

"Could Musk have done it without DARPA preceding him?" is a fair question.

 

A far better question think, though, is: 

 

Could DARPA have ever accomplished what Elon Musk has accomplished? 

 

My guess is............ not in a million years! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

[GrandPapillon]

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There isn't some magical "abracadabra" that will melt the heart of a judge or jury. If it goes to court, the trial will take place in the State of Delaware under Delaware state law.

indeed, there is not, but Delaware is not a "free for all" state either. You will find a lot of legal experts discussing details, but at the end, it's a court to decide, and despite legal opinions being strong, the court can choose otherwise, a Delaware court will not be different, in particular for protecting investors, and Elon is an investor in case you forgot.

Edited May 20, 2022 by GrandPapillon

[mikebike]

49 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

But that doesn't mean the municipality deserves to be treated as a partner

Of course it does. Only a OTT narcissist would not acknowledge the monetary and human resources used in building a successful business.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s nothing wrong with everyone paying taxes on the same percentage basis. Just like the vast majority of working people do.

Sure there is. 

 

When one person is effectively paying taxes equivalent to 100,000 people......... that's a problem. 

 

If the government paid its bills with percentags and not dollars, then everyone paying the same percentage might be okay. 

 

But the government DOESN'T pay its bills with percentages. It pays its bills with DOLLARS. And if one person is having to provide a hugely disproportionate quantity of those DOLLARS......... that's a problem.

 

But that's what happens when everyone pays the same percentage.

 

---------------

 

As far as I've ever been able to determine, there are only TWO WAYS in which Americans' tax burden can be divvied up FAIRLY............ neither of which are practical; neither of which can work! ????????????

 

The first is......... 

 

* Take the amount of money the government spends each year......… and divide it by the population (334 million, approxately). Every person benefits in some ways from what the government provides, therefore, everyone pays EQUALLY. 

 

According to USAfacts.Org, that was $20,634 per person, for FY2021. That's your share! 

 

If you're paying less than that, someone else is paying part of YOUR share! 

 

(of course, this can never happen. It would simply be financially untenable for MOST Americans! But what could be more FAIR than everyone paying the same price to ride on the same train?) 

 

The second is......... 

 

Figure out what each and every person's actual consumption of government goods and services is........... and require them to pay THAT! 

 

Thus, a homebody who seldom leaves the house except to go to work and some minimal necessary shopping.......... is going to use a whole lot less of the things the goverent spends money on......... than the playboy billionaire with his multiple homes, cars, jets, and, perhaps, required police services. 

 

Tally up exactly what each individual's burden on the government actually is......... and make them pay THAT! 

 

After all, what could be more FAIR than to pay for what you use? 

 

If your mansions are in places where an enemy is more likely to strike........... New York City or Washington DC, for example........... then proportionately more military money must be used to keep your mansions safe! Pay up!

 

Of course, the guy in Winnemucca, NV, is still benefiting from America's military security, so he's still going to have to pay SOMETHING. But, because he consumes so much less, it won't be nearly as onerous as the playboy's! 

 

(Of course, it should be pretty obvious why THIS can't work, either. We simply have no way to accurately and fairly calculate these things!) 

 

But that's it! 

 

I've never been able to come up with any other method that DESERVES to be called "fair!" 

 

Just taking more of someone's money simply because they HAVE more? ......... Well, that certainly ain't it! Indeed, I can't think of any other situation in America where people would think that's okay.......... except in discussions on TAXES! 

 

" Sorry sir, you'll have to pay $2 more for your milk because you've got $50 more in your wallet than this fella!"

 

????????????

 

------------------

 

Two ways, that's it! 

 

* Everyone pays their own 1/334,000,000th share, or...... 

 

* Everyone pays according to their own actual consumption. 

 

That's it! 

 

--------------------

 

But everyone paying the same percentage? Well, that's certainly EASY........... but it's wickedly UNFAIR! 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

indeed, there is not, but Delaware is not a "free for all" state either. You will find a lot of legal experts discussing details, but at the end, it's a court to decide, and despite legal opinions being strong, the court can choose otherwise, a Delaware court will not be different, in particular for protecting investors, and Elon is an investor in case you forgot.

Your argument here is just another way of stating anything's possible. But the issue isn't one of possibility but probability.

[placeholder]

And why did you mention that the CEO of Twitter is "Indian born"?