3 ms·
$10M sounds like a lot, because it is a lot. It's so much that if you make the median US income, you have to make it for ~300 years -tax free- to save up $10M.
by Epa095 3y ago
$10M sounds like a lot, because it is a lot.
It's so much that if you make the median US income, you have to make it for ~300 years -tax free- to save up $10M.
It's 50 years, tax free, on a good developer salary.
It's so much that with 5% interest rate you can pay those $120k in tax and still get $380k a year, placing you among the top 5% wage earners in the US, while doing nothing more than own.
Is so much, that when I dream about becoming independently wealthy, the amount I dream of is half of it.
For people in retirement age it's even more obvious that it's a lof of money. Like, how do you even spend that much money before you die?
As you probably understand by now, I definitely don't think it's unreasonable to hit them with an extra $120K bill a year, because $10M is a lot of money for any individual, or couple, to own.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI mean, sure if you completely ignore investment returns; otherwise your numbers are bogus. The “safe” rate of retirement drawdown is generally accepted as 4% because inflation, bad years in the markets etc. In case it isn’t obvious, taxing wealth is basically taxing the older people in society, because they had more of a chance to accumulate wealth. Hitting people at retirement with a 25% marginal tax increase is just wrong and an unworkable policy proposal. Piketty’s proposal may work in countries with functional pension schemes, but not in the U.S. where personal wealth accumulation is necessary to extent a solid middle class lifestyle into retirement.
- Epa095 3y agoUse 4% then. You're left with 280k (400-120) a year. That's 9 times the median US income, and very close to being in the top 5% income. Not to mention that capital tax is usually lower than income tax. Even ignoring investment returns completely, $10M is enough for anyone to live extremely comfortable the rest of their life, just using this money! Taxing the very rich (as the top 1% is) is reasonable, also when they are retired. You speak as if the money itself can't be used, only the returns. As if it's somehow 'not a lot of money' if it's not possible to live indefinitely on the capital gains alone. But I agree that it's unworkable, but only because this is a powerfull group (wealth is power after all). I think it's completely unrealistic for that reason alone. But it's a good idea, and $10M is a lot of money.