Matt BlazeLong ago, Harlan Crow thought, "When I get really rich, I'm going to buy myself some really nice Hitler memorabilia and a Supreme Court justice. And maybe some dictator statues, for the garden."
Jeff Atwood@mattblaze the sad thing is, being rich means you can basically do whatever you want. As a very rich person I am sad to report that this is basically true. And it's deeply wrong.
Jeff Rivett@codinghorror @mattblaze I like to think of a future where being wealthy has huge stigma attached to it, because it's understood that you're a terrible person. A person with no compassion, or regard for others.
@jrivett @mattblaze I favor more of an absolute cap. You can be this rich, but no more, because it's bullshit. That money should be used to help people, to build things, to reduce poverty. Beyond that, money, like power, corrupts. It corrupts absolutely.
Greg Knauss
Helge Heß@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze I always find it funny (and telling) why people don't go for "no more millionaires".
Patrik@helge @gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze There are single family homes that a worth more than a million. So, it should no longer be possible for single persons to own these?
(In fact, most buildings in mayor cities cost more than a million.)
@PatrikSchoenfeldt @helge @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze the incredible growth in home costs is such a problem. It's an essential human need. When we founded Stack Overflow, Joel Spolsky asked me "hey, if this gets really big, what would you spend the money on" and I had one simple answer: I want to own my home. That's it. That's literally all I wanted. And it's still true. I don't need fancy cars, boats, planes, designer crap.
@codinghorror @PatrikSchoenfeldt @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze Precisely, most buildings in mayor cities are owned by the richest of the rich. A regular worker can't afford a tiny flat in a mayor city anymore for a very long time, they can hardly afford the rent for one.
@helge @codinghorror @PatrikSchoenfeldt @jrivett @mattblaze I think you’re arguing against your own $1M limit. I’m coming up on the end of a 30-year mortgage for a house in Los Angeles. This technically makes me a millionaire. But — LOL — I’m not the richest of the rich. My house was built in 1962 and is in various stages of decay. Someone with a hundred times what I have (much less a hundred thousand times) might be a better starting point.
@gknauss @codinghorror @PatrikSchoenfeldt @jrivett @mattblaze Well, my house was built in 1916, don't tell me about states of decay ;-)
But you essentially make my point, if you are a millionaire, a million is just fine and necessary, but a billion is wrong. Ignoring that a million is a shitload of money to most of your larger community even in LA and they will never be able to afford that home, condition whatever.
(I don't know the LA distribution, but I'd guess it puts you in the top 10%)
But you essentially make my point, if you are a millionaire, a million is just fine and necessary, but a billion is wrong. Ignoring that a million is a shitload of money to most of your larger community even in LA and they will never be able to afford that home, condition whatever.
(I don't know the LA distribution, but I'd guess it puts you in the top 10%)
@helge @gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze The whole point was: If living in your own property (or working on your own farm) should stay possible everywhere, the cap needs to allow that.
I'm not saying you can buy it in cash but you should be allowed to keep it once the last rate is paid.
PS: Not allowing billionaires to accumulate all the houses will directly make them more affordable.