Fuck Zuck
Fuck META
Fuck Billionaires
Fuck Slop
That’s Epstein style accounting right?
potentially forcing him to sell voting shares to pay it
…as though it’s some huge fucking life-changing burden on him
He has bankers he can borrow from and could quite possible purchase more voting shares to maintain his majority. Fuck Zuck.
If you have a Facebook account, you support this piece of shit. No excuses. Deactivate that shit.
If you use facebook, instagram, google or any of their services, a browser that is built off of chromium, a search engine that is just a google clone, use tiktok, buy nestle products, shop at target, jcpenny, walmart, fredmeyer; you’re supporting the big bad billionaires. Stop it, no excuses.
Use the fediverse for everything, use startpage or duckduckgo, use firefox or a fork, make your own clothes and fire your own kitchen ware from clay, bike everywhere, and grow your own food and go vegetarian/vegan.
No, you don’t want to do all that? Well you’re a bad person I guess. I understand the sentiment, but you gotta market the change better or you just fall into the chorus of “you’re bad unless you do what I’m doing”.
It may not be possible to do ALL those things, but even cutting back wherever possible can make a difference. If these companies had a 10% annual dip, it would be devastating to them. It would throw them into chaos, C-Suiters would lose jobs, major changes would happen.
We might not be able to end them, but we can definitely hurt them, badly.
deleted by creator
Won’t somebody think of the shareholders?!
They are doing a 2 for 1 split where everyone gets half voting shares half non voting shares. No one is being fleeced. Everyone still has the same share value and voting power from the split. There is no dilution.
Well there is, only for new buyers of the c class shares. Idk why people are downvoting you. You’re right.
Everyone keeps the A class shares, and A class share count doesn’t change therefore voting power per shareholder doesn’t change.
But, what zuck is still doing, is trying to make sure nobody gets more voting power when buying his new shares.
He’s trying to make sure he doesnt lose control of his company to pay a forced tax bill on unrealized gains. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me even if others dont like it.
If this passes it probably won’t be the last either which would have further jeopardized things. Now he has money for future things too.
Edit: Zuck has 60% of the company. Do this a couple times and he loses his company. I get wanting to tax him, but taxing him and taking his company are two different things.
…on unrealized gains…
I’ll be willing to accept that they are unrealized gains once they can no longer used as collateral to secure loans or used to calculate wealth. Until then they have value and should be taxed either when given (which is different than bought) or as an annual wealth tax.
Seems like that wasn’t argued, just a maneuver to preserve the control facet of the shares even while surrendering some of the financial value could be seen as acceptable…
Wealth tax is a property tax, and just like I am forced to pay tax based on a presumed amount I could sell my house for, it can absolutely make sense to do the same for stocks. But I can totally accept that whatever that is, it shouldn’t mean someone must cede control of a company based merely on a tax burden.
Of course, that said, these ‘too big’ companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that’s a separate discussion than the taxation part.
Of course, that said, these ‘too big’ companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that’s a separate discussion than the taxation part.
I agree, thats a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with a tax or this citizen ballot measure.
In my understanding he‘s not losing his company. He only will sell the shares that do not include parts of the company
If they hadn’t done this he would have been at risk. Hes no longer because of this.
I’d be fine if they took him below 50% control. Companies that large should be required to be owned by many multiples of the number of people who currently own them and anyone seeking to remain on top of such a thing should be dancing for their many masters daily.
The ballot measure isn’t should large companies be allowed a majority shareholder. Thats a very different issue than wanting them to pay taxes.
Do this a couple times and he loses his company
Voting shares are not being diluted.
If he hadn’t done this.
Ah, ok. That condition wasn’t clear.
This is the new precedent for fleecing the public markets for capital since the Fed Put (Federal Reserve QE bailout) is off the table and the bond/debt market isn’t buying the AI/ Hyperscale bullshit narrative any longer. Wage growth is outpaced by inflation and now any wage earner and or retiree are being robbed to fit the bill. Inflation CPI/Core are already being nerfed and underreported to keep SS benefit payments artificially low.
Further, this is essentially the same play that Bessent and Trump have in the works to “refi” the federal deficit via hyperinflation. Every US taxpayer is getting fucked and will be — I guarantee it. This is the new “too big to fail” bailout absent Federal Reserve intervention. The US dollar hegemony is being decoupled from oil (petrodollar) and replaced with the US taxpayer as a credit/debt derivative product. USD/Riyad parity will for the first time spread an none of the Wall St black boxes or models were trained with this scenario. Buckle up.
Zuck, probably: " I don’t know why, they trust me. Dumbfucks"
I wish I could care about the poor shareholders with their 401ks, but get in line. the amount of damage this company has done to countless of people has created a long line up before anyone who should complain about their stock options.
In the US, 401Ks are pretty much your only retirement option now, no? Private pensions are almost nonexistent and there’s no national pension plan that I’ve heard of… state plans?
Not retiring, 401ks, and some union and public sector pensions. Listed from most common to least common.
There is also social security and Medicare both of which are supplemental pension and health insurance which contributes some for working class people
abd 401k are apparently dependant on the stock market. yea only certain govt employees get pensions.
USPS, city and county workers, police fireman.
401k isn’t necessarily dependant on the stock market, but the stock market being the ‘right’ investment has been a self-fulfilling property, any ‘default’ election goes mostly stock, because stock goes up. stock goes up in part because a portion of everyone’s paycheck defaults to being spent on stocks.
But what you can do with a 401k can be limited. I was looking at my options for something that would be a bit more bubble resistant, back testing them against the crash of the attack on Iran, and every single one of the options my plan allows had market exposure, even if more of them were not directly stock.
Bold of you to assume we can afford retirement, ever?
This is just current news.
Not “Today, I learned” material.Should be a 10year rule.
As in “This has been a thing for a decade, but I just learned about it now.”The current news cycle is only reporting the cap raise and attributing it to Meta’s AI CAPEX. Not his personal tax liability and the CA & NM AG lawsuits.
edit absent The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/22/meta-mark-zuckerberg-california-wealth-tax
That doesn’t make this the right community. It’s still just news
Welp, perhaps we all learned something today.
That’s what news means.
thanks Steve
Sure thing
The Guardian hides these kind of stories deep in unless you search for it. Thanks for posting.
Under the deal, Zuckerberg will receive new shares that could be sold to potentially foot a multibillion-dollar tax bill in the event that California passes a one-off billionaire tax. In return, he is committed to remain a resident of the state, or wherever Meta maintains its base, for eight years
Californians will vote early next month on Proposition 40, a one-off 5% tax on the roughly 250 billionaires who live in the state.
It’s insane that the mega rich cannot stand any decrease in wealth for any reason, and hence shield themselves like this.
Remember that some of these people can lose 99% of their wealth and still be billionaires.
His concern is (ostensibly) losing voting shares, and control of the company. I can sympathize with that to a degree, but I know for a fact he doesn’t know 10% of what’s happening in the company he supposedly runs. Consider though - Woz is still occasionally quoted as an authority figure on Apple. It’s hard to separate.
But he’s incomprehensibly wealthy and wants to keep 5%. If I had .001% of his net worth, it would be multigenerational wealth for my family. Fuck him and everyone around him
Meanwhile, infrastructure remains unbuilt.
They rationalize the AI spend on hardware they can’t power that will be obsolete by the time they get it online.
Make one think they want to tank the economy for some of that depression era labor exploitation for the next wave of build out…
Conveniently buried in nearly all the coverage aside from the SEC filing which alludes to raising liquidity for Zuckerberg (personally).
How is it called when people are technically correct but still make a fool of themselves because it shows that they can’t grasp intent?
lol
His $80B bet on the Metaverse was so wrong for so long how can he have any confidence in his decisions let alone ask investors to let him continue to lead the company?
They’re non-voting shares that essentially double the float (total number of shares issued). This is just for him as the board made the decision not shareholders. This could quite possibly be a golden parachute given the record highs of METAs credit default swaps (CDS). Bond market basically thinks META will default. Funny thing is the stock price dropped 8% but if the float was double that math would cut and devalue/dilute existing shares & price thereof significantly more. Granted nothing material occurs for 89 more days. Should prove to be an interesting shit show to say the least.
I’d love it if Meta shareholders spun up a class-action about this.
yeah there’s starving lawyers out there who need a share
Some of them are even unfortunate enough to have to drive a Porsche instead of a Ferrari 😞
a company cannot make new stock without following precedures including disclosure. It should not be legal to use company funds to pay a private bill. even in the current situation im not sure how he could get away with something like this.
The SEC isn’t what it used to be, that’s for sure.
he will in 90 days.
A lot of people can.
Lol so now we care about Meta shareholders?
I don’t really see how on the one hand you can be yelling Fuck Meta, then on the other be complaining about how Zuck is taking money from the owners of Meta and giving it to California in the form of tax money.
META Shareholders: Pension funds and passive holders in their retirement accounts via index funds and mutual funds.
And that’s that greatest swindle played against the working class… Allocating their pension towards holding stocks from toxic companies like meta.
‘Meta shareholders’ include most people with a retirement account. Even if you don’t have much in it and they’ve only defrauded you of $5, multiply that by 150 million people who have a 401k.
If you don’t like how a company behaves (like giving someone a pile of cash to pay their tax bill) don’t invest in them. If you think stock go up anyway, and don’t mind, do.
‘Make it your unpaid job to track down the behavior of the dozens to hundreds of companies in your 401k’ is an unrealistic bar to expect the average person to be able to jump. You can start and share your findings.
Also kind of a weird response to criminal behavior from a corporation.
It’s not criminal- it is immoral. But Meta - do you really expect different. And yes, I do care about the things I’m invested in - cos it’s my money.
So share a list and your findings of the companies in your 401k, to make it easier for others.
I’m new to these facts myself, but:
Consider first Friedman’s erroneous belief that shareholders “own” corporations. Although laymen sometimes have difficulty understanding the point, corporations are legal entities that own themselves, just as human entities own themselves. What shareholders own are shares, a type of contact between the shareholder and the legal entity that gives shareholders limited legal rights. In this regard, shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees, all of whom also enter contracts with the firm that give them limited legal rights.
– The Dumbest Business Idea Ever. The Myth of Maximizing Shareholder Value, By Lynn Stout
As other commenters have pointed out, you don’t have to choose to invest in Meta to find yourself a Meta shareholder, or at least holder of shares in another entity that does hold Meta shares.
This seems to be nonsensical splitting of hairs. While shareholders do not technically own the corporation directly they can and will perform functions like shutting down a corporation. While the day to day operations is conducted by the board of directors they answer to the shareholders.
Shareholders are the legal owners of a corporation, while the board of directors is the governing body elected by those shareholders to oversee company leadership.
Furthermore, saying shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees is absolutely nonsense unless they themselves are also shareholders. While this may be technically true in some respects the reality is quite a bit different. This argument completely falls apart under many common circumstances.
There is also a big difference between minority and majority shareholders with the minority (often employees) being mostly ignored.
While shareholders do not technically own the corporation directly … Shareholders are the legal owners of a corporation
It seems to me you’re trying to have it both ways.
saying shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees is absolutely nonsense
I read this to mean that everyone in those groups has some kind of contractual understanding with the corporation, and none of them have property rights. That the shareholders aren’t, legally speaking, special.
I’m just some rube on the internet. I’m not really in a position to argue the fine points of corporate law. The author of this article, though, was.
It is a legal thing, shareholders own the corporation, but not the companies physical assets. So a shareholder couldn’t walk into a business and take something and say “I own this”. They can however vote to close a corporation or fire the board and form a new one.
The shareholders legally are special, but it doesn’t always work in their favor. For instance, they are the last to be paid.
I am no expert, but I have been an Executive Director in the past. I was just talking about the concept, which as you can tell, is pretty complex.
