If there is one thing companies and rich people are good at regardless of their sector it’s making them appear poor on paper
This is not true. Companies openly show themselves to be very rich on paper. What you’re thinking of is the systemic exploitation of tax loopholes to avoid tax liability. That’s not the same thing as “looking poor”.
Consider this document from Amazon (PDF). The company openly shows its net income to be some $30 billion in the first quarter of 2026.
The number reported to investors is extremely important and there is a voluminous amount of legislation to ensure it isn’t manipulated (accountants who help a company cook its books will lose their licences and could go to prison), because it’s the basis for shareholder decisions regarding the company’s stock. If there’s any number that the 1% will not allow to be manipulated, this is the one.
You are, however, correct that this does make it hard to punish a company that isn’t currently profitable. But that’s really just pushing against the limits of what a monetary fine is even capable of achieving, because you will eventually run into the problem of it being impossible to draw blood from a stone.
A better way to approach this is to fine companies a portion of their equity. So a company which is hit with a 10% equity fine means that 10 new “golden shares” of the company are minted and passed into the possession of the Government, while the remaining shares of the company (owned by its shareholders) now only represent a 90% ownership stake. The golden shares would represent a fixed amount of equity and cannot be diluted by the issuance of more stock. They can be disposed of, or they can become an investment to fund things like social programmes and public pension funds.
Fining companies a portion of their equity, in my opinion, is the most effective way to punish them, because it goes directly after the line which is supposed to go up. Suddenly, a 10% fine means line go down 10%. That’s a huge incentive not to do the thing that results in a fine.
This is not true. Companies openly show themselves to be very rich on paper. What you’re thinking of is the systemic exploitation of tax loopholes to avoid tax liability. That’s not the same thing as “looking poor”.
Consider this document from Amazon (PDF). The company openly shows its net income to be some $30 billion in the first quarter of 2026.
The number reported to investors is extremely important and there is a voluminous amount of legislation to ensure it isn’t manipulated (accountants who help a company cook its books will lose their licences and could go to prison), because it’s the basis for shareholder decisions regarding the company’s stock. If there’s any number that the 1% will not allow to be manipulated, this is the one.
You are, however, correct that this does make it hard to punish a company that isn’t currently profitable. But that’s really just pushing against the limits of what a monetary fine is even capable of achieving, because you will eventually run into the problem of it being impossible to draw blood from a stone.
A better way to approach this is to fine companies a portion of their equity. So a company which is hit with a 10% equity fine means that 10 new “golden shares” of the company are minted and passed into the possession of the Government, while the remaining shares of the company (owned by its shareholders) now only represent a 90% ownership stake. The golden shares would represent a fixed amount of equity and cannot be diluted by the issuance of more stock. They can be disposed of, or they can become an investment to fund things like social programmes and public pension funds.
Fining companies a portion of their equity, in my opinion, is the most effective way to punish them, because it goes directly after the line which is supposed to go up. Suddenly, a 10% fine means line go down 10%. That’s a huge incentive not to do the thing that results in a fine.