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.
Jon Waltz
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.
@codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze I’ve always used $100M in my head, because I’m a round-number fetishist, but yeah. “You win, enter your initials” should be a thing at some point.
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The Proper Safe Withdrawal Rate: 4 Percent Rule Is Outdated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.
Dude Canáraí@codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze
I think the dynasties need to end at a minimum. Maximum 1 billion distributed to heirs. And also end the royalty horseshite. Their properties could easily sustain tourism as monuments of looters and grifters.
I think the dynasties need to end at a minimum. Maximum 1 billion distributed to heirs. And also end the royalty horseshite. Their properties could easily sustain tourism as monuments of looters and grifters.
Xavier Detant (He/Him)@codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze I like the idea of keeping it relative. Set a minimal revenu (ideally a UBI) then set a maximal revenu according. I find allowing a factor 100 quite liberal. It already means that some will earn more in a year than other in a lifetime.
Mikael Lundin 🍀🥦♻️@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze no, you get a t-shirt which says ”I got to $1 billion and all I got was this stupid t-shirt”
Helge Heß@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze I always find it funny (and telling) why people don't go for "no more millionaires".
@helge @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze well, I think there has to be a compromise position here somewhere. If you created something amazing, you do deserve an award. We have to incentivize creating amazing things.
Ron DeSantis's BDE@codinghorror @helge @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze
Jeff, is your argument that $999 M isn't enough incentive to create amazing things? Really?
N.B. the actual, real human beings who create actual, real amazing things almost NEVER get $999M.
@DoesntExist @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze No, he was suggesting that 999.999 might not be enough incentive. Which I disagree with 😬
@helge @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze
Same. I'm giving him a chance to rethink that position, especially since $999M is not, empirically, the motivation for creating amazing things for 99.999% of the amazing things that have been created.
In fact, it's as irrational as saying "everyone who creates amazing things should get a poodle, b/c poodles are great and people need an incentive."
@DoesntExist @helge @gknauss @jrivett @mattblaze no. my argument is $30m or $50m should be more than enough to incentivize creating amazing things without corrupting people and the world
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.
@PatrikSchoenfeldt @gknauss @jrivett @helge @codinghorror come on, you’ve gotta have at least one Hitler painting in the house SOMEWHERE, right? Or maybe a Pol Pot statue?
@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.
@helge @codinghorror @PatrikSchoenfeldt @jrivett @mattblaze Their meat is going to be much more tender, too.
@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.
@codinghorror @helge @PatrikSchoenfeldt @jrivett @gknauss I believe Kurt Vonnegut once said to (Norman Mailer?), while at a party at some rich guy’s house, “Our host easily has a hundred times more money than I’ll ever have. But I have something he never will: Enough.”
JMaverickJacks1@mattblaze @codinghorror @helge @PatrikSchoenfeldt @jrivett @gknauss I don’t agree with everything Kurt Vonnegut said, but he was a national treasure, and we need him back in times like this.
it's B! Cavello 🐝@mattblaze @codinghorror @gknauss @jrivett @helge it’s a good question! I certainly don’t have a million dollars, but I do have fears that a million dollars might not be enough for the healthcare costs that I or my loved ones might need. I think if healthcare wasn’t such a cost, I wouldn’t really desire more than I have.
prozacchiwawa@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze it sounds radical until one realizes that taxes were built very like this before 1960. People had to invest in real property, wages and factories to keep gaining wealth.
stux⚡️
@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze Kinda funny..
Today i said about the same to folks visiting..
"Billionaires should not excist, it's not normal a single person is able to grab so much wealth"
Outeast@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze A buddy of mine says execution at a billion. No exceptions. You can't go over briefly - top it & ya done. Create a situation where the extremely wealthy are in a constant mad drive to find ways not to accumulate further wealth. Trickle-down with teeth.
Dr Dan Marshall@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze I draw the line at The Value of a Statistical Human Life. Estimates vary between $7 mil and $10 mil, just below the 1% line in terms of wealth. Nobody should have the money value of another human being in their investment portfolio.
Threadbane
strwbrryJen@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze
i like the concept but personally i think we should take it further and have no millionaires either
Sam Gross@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze @Migueldeicaza No. The trophy has to be repeatable. Every time you earn another billion, you get a multiplier for your physical and digital trophies.
“I won capitalism” x 32
ecsd
msgbi Markus Sagebiel
morri@gknauss how about 1 000000
Juan Cruz Martinez@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze
The problem relies on how wealth is built, is not that they have cash around in those amounts, it’s stocks, participations, real state, and others.
How do you go about distributing that? Most is not real, but it relies on what others would pay for it, but now you give it for free altering market forces.
I’m not an economist, but perhaps someone else can add to that.
@gknauss
I also want a "I beat capitalism and all I got is a lousy t-shirt" t-shirt
Linecutter@gknauss
It would be good for the tax avoidance advisor system, they're having a harder time nowadays I hear.
@codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze
It would be good for the tax avoidance advisor system, they're having a harder time nowadays I hear.
@codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze
Reiner Jung 🇬🇱 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@prefec2 @gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze Thomas Piketty proposed a global wealth tax. Unfortunately, that would require nation-states tolerating an international organization poking and prodding their most influential and powerful citizens...
Tomek Kuźma
Food_Is_Important@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze
No "charitable" foundation should ever have more than $1 billion in assets. Here in Minnesota, the McKnight Foundation has $3.2 billion in assets. They could start paying off mortgages at a rate of $253,800/day, for over 31 years, and still have $200 million in assets at the end. Which is almost double how much they distributed in grants in 2021.
Not just private wealth, but wealth hoarded in foundations is a terrible scam.
#solidarity > #charity
No "charitable" foundation should ever have more than $1 billion in assets. Here in Minnesota, the McKnight Foundation has $3.2 billion in assets. They could start paying off mortgages at a rate of $253,800/day, for over 31 years, and still have $200 million in assets at the end. Which is almost double how much they distributed in grants in 2021.
Not just private wealth, but wealth hoarded in foundations is a terrible scam.
#solidarity > #charity
Zathras@gknauss @codinghorror @jrivett @mattblaze @zwei How about when the lowest paid person makes $400,000 they can make more?