I often write on Quora.com, where I am the most viewed writer on financial matters, with over 488.2 million views in recent years.
In the answers below I focused on the following topics and issues:
If you want me to answer any questions on Quora or YouTube, or you are looking to invest, don’t hesitate to contact me, email (advice@adamfayed.com) or use the WhatsApp function below.
Some of the links and videos referred to might only be available on the original answers.
Source for all answers – Adam Fayed’s Quora page.
I will be unusually succinct.
A picture tells a thousand words.
It should be obvious why an appreciation or fluctuation tax on unrealised gains doesn’t make sense, when capital gains and dividends are already taxable.
This quote says it all:
There are plenty of people who get rich quick on the surface, but when you look into it, it is usually because of previous work.
Some examples:
One of the first lessons I got concerning the latter point was when I was a student and volunteering overseas during the summer holidays.
One of the participants made great money working for a firm. He had a low salary and high commissions.
He started his own business and made really great money even in year one, after he took many of the clients from his previous employer.
He agreed to pay a one-off lump sum to his previous employer to avoid a court case as the contract had such a clause.
Despite the hefty upfront payment, he made money as he was building on what he had created for his previous boss. The clients trusted him and joined him, and he then scaled the business quickly.
Of course, luck can sometimes change these dynamics, but it isn’t realistic to rely on that.
What is also important to know is that many of the people who get sustainable wealthy don’t chase money in all circumstances and are happy to get rich slowly as well, if that is what it takes.
Thanks for the question.
I think it would make no sense, and will discourage investment.
The only exception is if there is a strong case of corruption. Let’s say it is proven that an arms company, or oil & gas firm, has actually campaigned for a war to increase profits, then I can understand it more.
Ultimately, Bezos and Amazon didn’t campaign for lock down and there is no evidence that any oil & gas companies encouraged the war in Ukraine.
Yes, they benefited from luck, but that is how business works. Sometimes firms gain, or lose, due to randomness or luck.
Breaking up bigger companies for competition (anti-trust) is a better way of dealing with occasions when monopolies form, and they take advantage of that.
It is clearly wrong, for example, if you have just one or two firms in an industry for an essential good, and they take advantage of that.