4 ms·

my fault for not being clearer. in my preferred world, no-one would be so rich they could afford to own and maintain 250+ ft yachts on their own. however, i a

my fault for not being clearer. in my preferred world, no-one would be so rich they could afford to own and maintain 250+ ft yachts on their own. however, i am not averse to people just being rich enough to join clubs that can jointly afford such a thing. i am also averse to individuals being rich enough to have their own full-scale private golf courses; but am not averse to people playing games of golf. >“But for the guy who owns the Eclipse [Roman Abramovich, a Russian oligarch], that’s not the point. He’s not chartering that thing out. It has a submarine and a missile detection system. See, the power of owning a magnificent yacht like that is in how you’re telling the world that you’re beyond buying and selling. You have more money than there is money to have. You’ve transcended. There are no frontiers left for you on dry land. I mean, true peace is only at sea.”

kbutler 8y ago
I just don't get the perspective that says, it's OK for someone to be 10 times as wealthy as I am, but no one should be 100 times as wealthy as I am, but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  > ... but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people. Can you point me to the place where we write that? Because I certainly don't see it. I'm speculating, but the world he imagines is one where the wealth of those who are 10x and up richer don't exist because feedback mechanisms (e.g. tax) exist to use that excess wealth to help those who are now 1000x poorer.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-riche... Central African Republic, $712, US average $62,000. There's a 100x disparity in averages. You don't get shared yacht enthusiast clubs at $62,000/year. High earners distort this a lot, and if you actually save a large percentage of your income in two-earner, high-earning households, you will accumulate a lot of wealth. Should they not be able to save it? Not be able to spend it after they've saved it? Hence the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. It's OK for me to be way richer than others, but nobody can be way richer than me.
    - TomVDB 8y ago
      You're combining numbers that should be used in isolation. In a hypothetical world where the richest are only 10x richer than the other across the world, your $712 vs $62k data comparison simply doesn't exist. Ultimately, my beef is with you making a straw man argument.
      - kbutler 8y ago
        Within one working life, by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income while someone who spends 100% of income ends up with 0 wealth. What part of this are you going to make illegal? Individual choices, even with absolutely equal starting conditions, yield unequal outcomes.
        TomVDB 8y ago
        First of all: I'm not taking sides any way or the other. I was simply annoyed by your straw man ways of making an argument. The one where you claim that OP is being fine with having 1000x more money than this guy, but not 100x less than the other. OP never said or implied that in any way or form. That said: if somebody wanted to implement something like this, nothing needs to be made illegal. It could easily be done with a more aggressive form of progressive taxation on income or on total assets (as exists in some European countries).
        kbutler 8y ago
        No strawman, just an observation that it is far easier to see the excesses of those far more wealthy than us than for us to see our own excesses compared to those far less wealthy. The 10X numbers were just categories, which were inferred based on the various items mentioned (yacht ownership vs yacht club, etc.)
        notacoward 8y ago
        > by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income That wasn't even true for 50%, let alone 10%. Wrong facts lead to wrong conclusions. Get facts.
- estebank 8y ago
  It might be that the parent is ok with anyone being 10 times as wealthy as them, and not 100 or 1000 times as wealthy as the least wealthy person.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
slowhand09 8y ago
Calling http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Harrison Bergeron
kbutler 8y ago
18-hole golf course for sale: $3,700,000 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinson-KS/12143363/ https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinso... That's a pretty low threshold for "too much wealth".

kbutler 8y ago

I just don't get the perspective that says, it's OK for someone to be 10 times as wealthy as I am, but no one should be 100 times as wealthy as I am, but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people.

TomVDB 8y ago
> ... but it's OK for me to be 1000 times as wealthy as some other people. Can you point me to the place where we write that? Because I certainly don't see it. I'm speculating, but the world he imagines is one where the wealth of those who are 10x and up richer don't exist because feedback mechanisms (e.g. tax) exist to use that excess wealth to help those who are now 1000x poorer.
- kbutler 8y ago
  https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-riche... Central African Republic, $712, US average $62,000. There's a 100x disparity in averages. You don't get shared yacht enthusiast clubs at $62,000/year. High earners distort this a lot, and if you actually save a large percentage of your income in two-earner, high-earning households, you will accumulate a lot of wealth. Should they not be able to save it? Not be able to spend it after they've saved it? Hence the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. It's OK for me to be way richer than others, but nobody can be way richer than me.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    You're combining numbers that should be used in isolation. In a hypothetical world where the richest are only 10x richer than the other across the world, your $712 vs $62k data comparison simply doesn't exist. Ultimately, my beef is with you making a straw man argument.
    - kbutler 8y ago
      Within one working life, by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income while someone who spends 100% of income ends up with 0 wealth. What part of this are you going to make illegal? Individual choices, even with absolutely equal starting conditions, yield unequal outcomes.
      - TomVDB 8y ago
        First of all: I'm not taking sides any way or the other. I was simply annoyed by your straw man ways of making an argument. The one where you claim that OP is being fine with having 1000x more money than this guy, but not 100x less than the other. OP never said or implied that in any way or form. That said: if somebody wanted to implement something like this, nothing needs to be made illegal. It could easily be done with a more aggressive form of progressive taxation on income or on total assets (as exists in some European countries).
        kbutler 8y ago
        No strawman, just an observation that it is far easier to see the excesses of those far more wealthy than us than for us to see our own excesses compared to those far less wealthy. The 10X numbers were just categories, which were inferred based on the various items mentioned (yacht ownership vs yacht club, etc.)
      - notacoward 8y ago
        > by investing 10% of income, I can accumulate wealth of over 100 times annual income That wasn't even true for 50%, let alone 10%. Wrong facts lead to wrong conclusions. Get facts.
estebank 8y ago
It might be that the parent is ok with anyone being 10 times as wealthy as them, and not 100 or 1000 times as wealthy as the least wealthy person.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

slowhand09 8y ago

Calling http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html Harrison Bergeron

kbutler 8y ago

18-hole golf course for sale: $3,700,000 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinson-KS/12143363/ https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/922-Crazy-Horse-Rd-Hutchinso... That's a pretty low threshold for "too much wealth".