3 ms·

If you read the article South Dakota is a great choice. It's a fantastic read on the history of how these states to harbor cash came to be. This part of the ar

If you read the article South Dakota is a great choice. It's a fantastic read on the history of how these states to harbor cash came to be. This part of the article sums it up in a very compelling manner: "Here is an example from one academic paper on South Dakotan trusts: after 200 years, $1m placed in trust and growing tax-free at an annual rate of 6% will have become $136bn. After 300 years, it will have grown to $50.4tn. That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach." So, yes - if you want to anonymously store your legally gained cash you have options stateside.

jdminhbg 7y ago
> That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach. Economically speaking, this is Not Even Wrong.
milesskorpen 7y ago
That example is a bit ridiculous. Yes, compounding is powerful. But there’s also inflation, and a single passively invested $1mm is never going to own the entire economy (if nothing else, returns would be distorted by scale). That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.
- dane-pgp 7y ago
  Perhaps you're thinking of this classic scene from Red Dwarf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg
- windexh8er 7y ago
  First it's factual. By qualifying it as "ridiculous" serves what purpose exactly? The point is that $1MM is used as an example and you could swap that amount with $50MM, $100MM to showcase greater gains in exponentially less time. That is the point the article is making overall. No billionaire is going to harbor $1MM in a trust with the intent to have some heir pull it out in 200 years. But the people with those means can leverage the same monetary vehicle to do the same thing in much shorter time frames with higher initial investment. > That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction. Or not. None of it it fictional. Feel free to clarify what you mean, but the only thing fictional is the entirety of your comment.
sjwright 7y ago
Those numbers are less impressive after you correct for inflation. Meanwhile if a deposit is truly anonymous, I don't see how I could ever be reassured that I could ever withdraw the money later.

jdminhbg 7y ago

> That is more than twice the current size of the US economy, and this trust will last for ever, assuming that society doesn’t collapse altogether under the weight of this ever-swelling leach. Economically speaking, this is Not Even Wrong.

milesskorpen 7y ago

That example is a bit ridiculous. Yes, compounding is powerful. But there’s also inflation, and a single passively invested $1mm is never going to own the entire economy (if nothing else, returns would be distorted by scale). That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction.

dane-pgp 7y ago
Perhaps you're thinking of this classic scene from Red Dwarf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEu0o62ycmg
windexh8er 7y ago
First it's factual. By qualifying it as "ridiculous" serves what purpose exactly? The point is that $1MM is used as an example and you could swap that amount with $50MM, $100MM to showcase greater gains in exponentially less time. That is the point the article is making overall. No billionaire is going to harbor $1MM in a trust with the intent to have some heir pull it out in 200 years. But the people with those means can leverage the same monetary vehicle to do the same thing in much shorter time frames with higher initial investment. > That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction. Or not. None of it it fictional. Feel free to clarify what you mean, but the only thing fictional is the entirety of your comment.

sjwright 7y ago

Those numbers are less impressive after you correct for inflation. Meanwhile if a deposit is truly anonymous, I don't see how I could ever be reassured that I could ever withdraw the money later.