Maxence Ronzié @ronz_max

@wickedguro « SaaS is dead » 🤣

@sc_cath Avec le raisonnement de ce cancre Thomas Porcher la dette de la Grèce n’aurait jamais été un problème (malgré le fait que la Grèce ait fait défaut sur sa dette - alors que pourtant il parle de risque « quasi nul »)

Bonsoir Gabriel Zucman, on ne vous a pas entendu commenter le vote du peuple suisse à 78% contre un impôt fédéral de 50 % sur les successions et donations dépassant 50 millions de francs le 30 novembre 2025. Bizarre. Pouvez vous nous rappeler le niveau de vie d’un suisse médian ? Par rapport à un français médian? Le smic à Genève ? Le taux de chômage moyen des cantons ? Le taux de pauvreté ? Tout ça comparé à la France. Ce serait intéressant de vous voir vous exprimer la dessus.

@hii_mohit No need to even subscribe for it, you can vibecode your own « datafast ». Even easier because no user management, no payment integration, etc…

J’aime beaucoup ton contenu. J’ai un portefeuille d’environ 280k$ mais je n’arriverais jamais à faire ce que tu fais, stock picking. J’aurais trop peur de me foirer. En plus en France on a la flat tax ce qui fait de gros frottement fiscaux à chaque revente si une plue value latente est actée. Alors je reste sur des ETFs mais j’ai le sentiment qu’on peut faire bcp mieux sachant que comme toi, je supporte relativement bien la volatilité.

You might be true on this point. But does this mean an unfair tax should be applied elsewhere or should it be removed ? And you can implement Zucman’s tax. But there would be dramatic consequences, especially long term. If it’s a fair or unfair tax is just a moral statement, that can be personal. At the base of my comments I just said the comparison Zucman used has absolutely no sense.

@Ikigai_z @gabriel_zucman Fair point on this despite I don’t think Zucman fights for a better democracy, he’s just trying to win the Nobel Prize with his tax idea (my take). But pretty much like Pr Raoult tried it with the Hydroxychloroquine. Lot of ego in it (again that’s my humble interpretation)

@llewellynsteven @gabriel_zucman I don’t.

Indeed but the difference is that you don’t need to sell the toilet to pay the property tax. Or you don’t need to do another loan in the bank. This one time purchase already anticipates all sort of bills / taxes. That’s why banks don’t lend any amount of money : they look at incomes

@nickforok @gabriel_zucman I agree this has to be criticized. But that's not the topic of Zucman's post.

@Maxouudoudou @gabriel_zucman If my comment reall hit it I guess he won't answer with arguments but like he did when even well-respected economists deep dived on his work : he blocks

@BadCatLoki @theoverhypedd @gabriel_zucman Not in danger in terms of personal wealth but in terms of control yes. You don’t risk losing property with the property tax. You can with the wealth tax on the long term for the companies you own.

IPO dilution is voluntary, done once (or in planned stages), and the money stays in the company. Wealth-tax sales are forced every year, the cash goes to the government, and the founder has no choice on timing or amount. One is a strategic decision. The other is a permanent annual tax bill that keeps eating ownership. Not the same.

@Ikigai_z @gabriel_zucman Different story, I never said I approve every billionnaire spendings. I just reacted on Zucman’s misleading post.

@jeymer @gabriel_zucman Y a écrit quoi ?

Property tax ≠ wealth tax. Property tax is local, funds local services (schools, roads, police) that directly benefit the property, and applies to a relatively stable, easy-to-value asset. A wealth tax on concentrated stock holdings is national, hits highly volatile assets, creates recurring forced selling pressure, and can erode control of entire companies. Unlike a wealth tax, there’s no risk to sell a portion of the asset (like the kitchen) to pay the tax. One funds sidewalks. The other risks national economic side-effects. Different scale, different consequences. Not a double standard.

There’s no double standard. Unrealized gains have economic value and that’s why banks lend against them. They also carry risk so that’s why banks can margin-call and force sales if the price drops. A wealth tax ignores that risk and demands cash every year on the full paper value, with no refund if it later collapses. Value for a voluntary loan ≠ permanent taxable income. Different risk, different rules.

Sure. Liquidity problem: Most of the fortune is in concentrated stock (Tesla, SpaceX, etc.). Paying 2% of net worth every year means selling large blocks of shares annually. That creates constant selling pressure, can depress the stock price, and forces the founder to raise cash even in down years when the company itself needs capital. Control problem: Repeated forced sales dilute the founder’s ownership. Over a few years it can meaningfully reduce voting power and decision-making control of the company they built. Concrete consequences: • Weaker company performance and lower stock prices (hurting employees, retail investors, and pension funds) • Founders lose influence over long-term strategy • Capital flight and less willingness to keep companies public or grow them in the taxing country That’s why almost every European country that tried a serious wealth tax eventually watered it down or repealed it.

That’s not how it works. Using stock as collateral for a loan is voluntary, temporary, and the bank prices the risk (and can margin-call you if the stock drops). You still own the asset and choose if/when to sell. A wealth tax is a permanent annual claim on the full paper value, whether you have cash or not, whether the stock crashes next year or not. No refund. No choice. Collateral ≠ forced annual liquidation. Different things.

Once again Zucman is lost. Selling ~0.1% of your shares once to fund a political PAC ≠ being forced to sell several percent (2% is 20x this amount) of your company every single year to pay a wealth tax on paper gains that can evaporate the next day. One is voluntary and limited. The other is compulsory, recurring, and creates real liquidity + control problems. These are not the same thing.

Gabriel Zucman @gabriel_zucman

22 hours ago

So let met get that straight: paying a wealth tax is impossible (“billionaires have no liquidity”, “it would be taxing unrealized gains”, “their wealth is virtual”) but paying half a billion to influence elections is possible. Did I understand well?

489 6K 31K 517K 1K