Yes you are [being gifted the same]. From yesterday's Money Stuff:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-10-22/zuc...

> The solution is a quasi-share split: Meta is creating a new Class C stock, with zero votes per share. Shareholders will get one no-vote Class C share for every one-vote Class A share or 10-vote Class B share that they currently own. Zuckerberg, who owns about 341 million high-vote Class B shares (and like 1 million low-vote shares), will get about 342 million new zero-vote shares; all the other shareholders, who own about 3.4 billion low-vote shares, will get 3.4 billion new no-vote shares.

And in the footnotes:

> Stock exchange rules prevent already-public companies from creating new high-vote shares, or from distributing new low/zero-vote shares in non-proportional ways. So Meta could not, for instance, give Zuckerberg a big dividend of voting shares while giving everyone else a big dividend of zero-vote shares. But this mechanism — giving everyone the same dividend of zero-voting shares — works.

It’s just a byproduct of owning shares of a company that becomes big. Which subpart do you object to?

Yeah, the existence of billionaires is a problem. But then again, so is the existence of millionaires and thousandaires.

Honestly if any one has more than $999 the government should take it from them.

As a moron, are you allowed to decide that Zuck knows how to run Meta better than the shareholders?

The SEC is very good at creating complexity, but has been terrible at protecting shareholders. The SEC has failed to detect and prosecute almost every massive fraud, including Madoff and Enron (despite being tipped off in both cases).

> … an index designed to track the 500 largest companies is required to exclude some of those just because they happen to be run by a guy you dislike?

Emotions about the executives and founders aside, it may be worthwhile to exclude securities with multiple concentrated voting classes (like Meta) or those with one owner with more than X% of the float (like SpaceX).

They can buy and sell the stock. If they weren't okay with it, they could not buy, or sell if they already own.

Yes since Zuck controls the board and negotiators he effectively dealt this outcome to himself, to large degree. Obviously "the shareholders" in a general sense have limited interest protecting the dual class structure.

Where did you get this information? We know how this works. This is a public company. This all happens in the open.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000162828026...

It depends on the day and how honest people feel. If it were truly about numbers they would probably find more success in getting their government to spend smarter.

The tax will probably raise negative revenue but that will be fine because revenue was never the point of it.

> The point of the law was to generate money for the state to fund the same mistakes France and GB are currently reeling from.

Which mistakes of France and GB are you referring to? The money (90%) will go to health care spending. So, yes - vastly overpriced crap - France spends half for universal care with better outcomes.

Cui bono?

Aiming to reduce the number of billionaires is not sound economic policy. You are taking away the incentives that have generated so much progress and job creation in America. Mostly when people complain about billionaires it’s either sour grapes, or a certain type of billionaire they disagree with politically.

If society truly did not like the company, society would stop using whatever the company made/did/provide. Since billions of people use the service he company uses, it's hard to say society does not like the company

They did a stock split