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
@gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze I think $999 million is far too high. It should be closer to $50 or $30. But billionares should absolutely NOT exist, no question.
ShadSterling@codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze IIRC $30,000,000 is in the ballpark of what you need to have invested to be able to support a family on investment income alone. I’m not sure that should be a limit on allowed net worth, but there’s no reason not to tax wealth above that level at a high rate
Handler@ShadSterling @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze
You may have been reading this blog post, or one referencing it: https://www.financialsamurai.com/proper-safe-withdrawal-rate/
In there, he points out a safe withdrawal rate should be 80% of the 10-year bond yield. At that time of writing it was under 1%, and he said someone would need about $30M to maintain a $150k income per year.
The bond yield currently sits at 3.4%, giving a withdrawal rate of 2.7%, which would be $816k per year if you had $30M invested.
Or going the other way, you need about $5.5M to generate $150k per year from investments without fear of going broke.
The main takeaway in his post is to be flexible year-to-year. And my takeaway is $30M is way too much to target if someone is looking to live off investments…and I have no qualms about a wealth tax on anything over $10M.
The Proper Safe Withdrawal Rate: 4 Percent Rule Is Outdated
For those of you without cushy pensions, I'm sorry folks. The 4 percent rule is outdated. The rule was popularized in the 1990s. It is now unwise to follow the 4 percent rule as a proper safe withdrawal rate in retirement, especially if you are part of the FIRE movement. Instead, I highly recommend lowering your safe withdrawal rate for the first year or two after you retire, especially if you retire early. Retirement life will likely be much different than you expect. You may be filled with uncertainty and doubt. As a result, the proper safe withdrawal rate should
@handler @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze around here the income needed to support a family is a lot closer to the $400k/year number Biden’s been using than to the $150k you used, but I’m not thinking of a threshold to start taxing but a threshold to tax at a “nobody needs that much” rate - I’d be fine with Warren’s 2% tax well below $10M, but above where nobody needs that much I’d tax at 90%
@ShadSterling @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze
So we’re on the same page, that’s $150k of pure spending via investments, which is not the equivalent of $150k in paycheck income. Most of that (first $83k of gains if married filing jointly) is not taxed at all. And none of that would need to be saved since our hypothetical couple is done saving. It’s all for spending.
But yes, understand and agree with your overall point.