6 ms·

I agree but how rich is too rich?

by beardedwizard 2y ago

lenerdenator 2y ago
A cool billion ought to do it.
- Kapura 2y ago
  This feels correct.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  But who is going to want to work hard if they could only ever possibly earn a billion dollars? /s Edit: Added an obviously needed sarcasm tag.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Eh, I think that covers most of the population. Obviously, there are exceptions: people with severe psychopathy, for example.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      Sorry, I should have tagged my sarcasm. It should cover every person in the population. A billion dollars is enough money that you and your family for untold generations will never have to work again.
      - roughly 2y ago
        To put some math on that - assuming a market rate of return of ~7% and an inflation rate of, hell, we’ll call it 4%, that’s $30M/yr inflation adjusted forever. You invest $30M at the same rates, and it generates $900k/yr inflation adjusted forever. That’s the combined income of 10 median families, give or take - which means a billion dollar fortune throws off enough money to comfortably support 10 families per year forever, forever.
  - 52-6F-62 2y ago
    What do you really need beyond that? Just double what you already have?
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      You don't need anything beyond that. At that point you're basically just keeping score. There is no need and few wants that would be beyond your grasp.
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  tres commas!
daveguy 2y ago
2% on wealth over a billion, simplify tax code to reduce loopholes, add increasing rates at higher income levels like we used to have. That should help.
- Kapura 2y ago
  100% on wealth over a billion.
  - wincy 2y ago
    This is an evil sentiment and would destroy the modern world.
    - yladiz 2y ago
      Destroy in what way?
    - roughly 2y ago
      In the modern world, Elon Musk bought his way into controlling the federal government, Larry Ellison is proposing an autocomplete panopticon, Mark Zuckerberg is building a survival bunker on Hawaii, and the leading cause of bankruptcy for everyone else is medical debt.
    - Kapura 2y ago
      what, the modern world in which thousands are allowed to starve while tax dollars are spent on weapons used to commit genocides abroad? the world in which everybody in america needs to own a car because it's not profitable enough to build modern rapid transit systems? oh no, please don't destroy that, it would be terrible
    - skyyler 2y ago
      You'll never make more than a billion dollars, wincy.
    - esseph 2y ago
      Then maybe it needs to die.
wussboy 2y ago
Should our inability to unanimously agree on something prevent us from doing anything? No. Let’s start somewhere. We can adjust if we need.
- freedomben 2y ago
  The problem with this approach is that to someone out there, any amount is "too much" Should we start with confiscating all earnings in excess of $100 per month and adjust from there if needed? No matter how ridiculous a thing I propose, if you don't agree then I can easily just say > Should our inability to unanimously agree on something prevent us from doing anything? No. Let’s start somewhere. We can adjust if we need.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    You know we have all sorts of laws which are iffy-squishy, right? Like, why is the voting age 18 and not 17.5? Why is the drinking age 21 and not 20? Why not allow 2 year olds to vote and drink hard liquor? The tax brackets, and tax levels for each bracket, are another squishy thing. Always have been. Easiest is to start with the 1944 tax rate, at 94% on taxable income over about $2.5 million in today's dollars. We know the US survived that level.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Of course! But looking at the reality of the policy, don't you think that barring a person who turns 18 tomorrow from voting but allowing some other person to vote who is 12 hours older is kind of silly? We do have to draw a line somewhere in order to get things done, but we should be honest and aware of how arbitrary such a line is. We shouldn't just grab some random number out of our ass and say "we have to start somewhere." My point above is that argument can be used to justify anything no matter how draconian. We need a better standard than just "we have to start somewhere" Also there is a practical difference between voting and drinking (your examples) and taxation levels (the subject matter). Most reasonable people acknowledge that somewhere around 18 to early 20s people become "adults." Everyone develops at different levels, but the main idea there is not to have children voting in horrible politicians (clearly we adults are good enough at that already, sadlol). Same with drinking. We know that young people are often irresponsible and dangerous with it, and it can damage their brains. They also aren't able to make informed rational decisions as their frontal lobes aren't complete. Compare that to "how much money is too much" and you're going to get a huge and inconsistent range of answers, compared to "at what age should people be able to vote or drink."
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
Some >100% of the median income/wealth. Perhaps 1000%. Progressive taxing up to the decided-upon cutoff, eventually taxing 100% at said cutoff.
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  psychologically people hate these theoretical limits, even though the vast majority will never, ever find them applicable
  - autoexec 2y ago
    As people's standard of living continues to decline "Won't Someone Think of the Billionaires?" will become less compelling
  - aylmao 2y ago
    Do we? In school the max grade we can get is 100%, and everyone seems fine with that. People don't seem to complain that there's a cap. In videogames there tend to be max levels, or max scores. People play them knowing they won't ever hit them, and no one seems to mind. No one starts a job thinking they can get infinite raises. A lot of people tend to have a general idea of what the max compensation they can expect in their line of work is, and seem to be fine with that. I think people tend to be pretty ok with theoretical or even hard limits, especially if they're far from them.
- ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
  The highest paid person of a company can never be paid more than 10x what the lowest end is earning. Including external contractors like cleaning staff. Very simple.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
makk 2y ago
Something related to wealth inequality rather than an absolute number.
throw0101c 2y ago
> I agree but how rich is too rich? Try an experiment: the current levels of richness may be too much, and we seem to be learning that through lived experience; it may be that we have to dial down the richness and if we go too in the other way we lift the restrictions. As it currently stands, wealth concentration is at about the same level as in the Gilded Age: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share_Top_1_Pct_and_0.1_Pct_1913_to_2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#The_Great_Compression,_1937–1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... So perhaps adjust tax rates to what they were from about 1950-70. Certainly there were other factors that helped prosperity (in the US) during that time period, but it's probably worth tweaking this variable.
smath 2y ago
Doesn't need to be a binary choice (above/below threshold) - it can be a spectrum -- also known as progressive taxation. Would this prevent people from working hard and being enterpreneurial? Not sure but I think not -- for 2 reasons: (i) success at that level requires more than just desire for money, because it requires pushing hard when the going is tough, and unless you care about it you will give up. we have heard this before from others (Steve Jobs?) (ii) a successfull entrepreneur will still make more money than an employee, so the financial incentive is still there, even with greater taxation.
bobsomers 2y ago
Let's start at $1B. I cannot think of any earthly reason a single individual needs more than $1B worth of wealth. After all, the US presidency apparently only costs $250M to buy. I would fully support a 100% wealth tax for everything over $1B. Now, of course, the implementation of such a thing would be enormously complicated. There are a million places to hide your wealth, squirreling it away behind shell companies and dark LLCs which you or a designated agent are a controlling member of. But in concept, I cannot fathom why a human being could possibly say, "You know, $1B really isn't enough for <this>."
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  What about companies. Would companies be allowed to have more than that?
  - tremon 2y ago
    Let's say the maximum amount allowed by a company is determined by the number of people that have a controlling share in the company. If one person controls the company, it's still $1B; if there's 8 people holding 51% of the shares it can hold $8B, etc.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      What if there is 1 person with 49 percent and then 1000 with 2 percent?
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Take the longest any human being has ever lived, subtract the age of the given person, multiply that many years by the the top 1% of US income, everything over that at the end of the year gets taxed at 100%. Reasonable place to start?
adamtaylor_13 2y ago
And how do you measure riches? Part of the game is hiding the amount of money you actually make so that you’re not taxed on it and it’s not “yours”. Rich people understand this and exploit it. And those who have the power to change this structure have NO incentive to do so… because they’re also rich.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >And those who have the power to change this structure have NO incentive to do so… because they’re also rich. And yet we did just that. FDR came AFTER the roaring 20s All it takes is Americans willing to vote for someone who says "rich people shouldn't exist", but currently Americans seem ideologically opposed to that, and millions instead seem to subscribe to "rich people are the only ones able to accomplish anything" despite ample contrary evidence.

I agree but how rich is too rich?

lenerdenator 2y ago

A cool billion ought to do it.

Kapura 2y ago
This feels correct.
SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
But who is going to want to work hard if they could only ever possibly earn a billion dollars? /s Edit: Added an obviously needed sarcasm tag.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Eh, I think that covers most of the population. Obviously, there are exceptions: people with severe psychopathy, for example.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Sorry, I should have tagged my sarcasm. It should cover every person in the population. A billion dollars is enough money that you and your family for untold generations will never have to work again.
    - roughly 2y ago
      To put some math on that - assuming a market rate of return of ~7% and an inflation rate of, hell, we’ll call it 4%, that’s $30M/yr inflation adjusted forever. You invest $30M at the same rates, and it generates $900k/yr inflation adjusted forever. That’s the combined income of 10 median families, give or take - which means a billion dollar fortune throws off enough money to comfortably support 10 families per year forever, forever.
- 52-6F-62 2y ago
  What do you really need beyond that? Just double what you already have?
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    You don't need anything beyond that. At that point you're basically just keeping score. There is no need and few wants that would be beyond your grasp.
dowager_dan99 2y ago
tres commas!

daveguy 2y ago

2% on wealth over a billion, simplify tax code to reduce loopholes, add increasing rates at higher income levels like we used to have. That should help.

Kapura 2y ago
100% on wealth over a billion.
- wincy 2y ago
  This is an evil sentiment and would destroy the modern world.
  - yladiz 2y ago
    Destroy in what way?
  - roughly 2y ago
    In the modern world, Elon Musk bought his way into controlling the federal government, Larry Ellison is proposing an autocomplete panopticon, Mark Zuckerberg is building a survival bunker on Hawaii, and the leading cause of bankruptcy for everyone else is medical debt.
  - Kapura 2y ago
    what, the modern world in which thousands are allowed to starve while tax dollars are spent on weapons used to commit genocides abroad? the world in which everybody in america needs to own a car because it's not profitable enough to build modern rapid transit systems? oh no, please don't destroy that, it would be terrible
  - skyyler 2y ago
    You'll never make more than a billion dollars, wincy.
  - esseph 2y ago
    Then maybe it needs to die.

wussboy 2y ago

Should our inability to unanimously agree on something prevent us from doing anything? No. Let’s start somewhere. We can adjust if we need.

freedomben 2y ago
The problem with this approach is that to someone out there, any amount is "too much" Should we start with confiscating all earnings in excess of $100 per month and adjust from there if needed? No matter how ridiculous a thing I propose, if you don't agree then I can easily just say > Should our inability to unanimously agree on something prevent us from doing anything? No. Let’s start somewhere. We can adjust if we need.
- eesmith 2y ago
  You know we have all sorts of laws which are iffy-squishy, right? Like, why is the voting age 18 and not 17.5? Why is the drinking age 21 and not 20? Why not allow 2 year olds to vote and drink hard liquor? The tax brackets, and tax levels for each bracket, are another squishy thing. Always have been. Easiest is to start with the 1944 tax rate, at 94% on taxable income over about $2.5 million in today's dollars. We know the US survived that level.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Of course! But looking at the reality of the policy, don't you think that barring a person who turns 18 tomorrow from voting but allowing some other person to vote who is 12 hours older is kind of silly? We do have to draw a line somewhere in order to get things done, but we should be honest and aware of how arbitrary such a line is. We shouldn't just grab some random number out of our ass and say "we have to start somewhere." My point above is that argument can be used to justify anything no matter how draconian. We need a better standard than just "we have to start somewhere" Also there is a practical difference between voting and drinking (your examples) and taxation levels (the subject matter). Most reasonable people acknowledge that somewhere around 18 to early 20s people become "adults." Everyone develops at different levels, but the main idea there is not to have children voting in horrible politicians (clearly we adults are good enough at that already, sadlol). Same with drinking. We know that young people are often irresponsible and dangerous with it, and it can damage their brains. They also aren't able to make informed rational decisions as their frontal lobes aren't complete. Compare that to "how much money is too much" and you're going to get a huge and inconsistent range of answers, compared to "at what age should people be able to vote or drink."

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

Some >100% of the median income/wealth. Perhaps 1000%. Progressive taxing up to the decided-upon cutoff, eventually taxing 100% at said cutoff.

dowager_dan99 2y ago
psychologically people hate these theoretical limits, even though the vast majority will never, ever find them applicable
- autoexec 2y ago
  As people's standard of living continues to decline "Won't Someone Think of the Billionaires?" will become less compelling
- aylmao 2y ago
  Do we? In school the max grade we can get is 100%, and everyone seems fine with that. People don't seem to complain that there's a cap. In videogames there tend to be max levels, or max scores. People play them knowing they won't ever hit them, and no one seems to mind. No one starts a job thinking they can get infinite raises. A lot of people tend to have a general idea of what the max compensation they can expect in their line of work is, and seem to be fine with that. I think people tend to be pretty ok with theoretical or even hard limits, especially if they're far from them.
ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
The highest paid person of a company can never be paid more than 10x what the lowest end is earning. Including external contractors like cleaning staff. Very simple.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

makk 2y ago

Something related to wealth inequality rather than an absolute number.

throw0101c 2y ago

> I agree but how rich is too rich? Try an experiment: the current levels of richness may be too much, and we seem to be learning that through lived experience; it may be that we have to dial down the richness and if we go too in the other way we lift the restrictions. As it currently stands, wealth concentration is at about the same level as in the Gilded Age: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share_Top_1_Pct_and_0.1_Pct_1913_to_2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Pre-Tax_Income_Share... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#The_Great_Compression,_1937–1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... So perhaps adjust tax rates to what they were from about 1950-70. Certainly there were other factors that helped prosperity (in the US) during that time period, but it's probably worth tweaking this variable.

smath 2y ago

Doesn't need to be a binary choice (above/below threshold) - it can be a spectrum -- also known as progressive taxation. Would this prevent people from working hard and being enterpreneurial? Not sure but I think not -- for 2 reasons: (i) success at that level requires more than just desire for money, because it requires pushing hard when the going is tough, and unless you care about it you will give up. we have heard this before from others (Steve Jobs?) (ii) a successfull entrepreneur will still make more money than an employee, so the financial incentive is still there, even with greater taxation.

bobsomers 2y ago

Let's start at $1B. I cannot think of any earthly reason a single individual needs more than $1B worth of wealth. After all, the US presidency apparently only costs $250M to buy. I would fully support a 100% wealth tax for everything over $1B. Now, of course, the implementation of such a thing would be enormously complicated. There are a million places to hide your wealth, squirreling it away behind shell companies and dark LLCs which you or a designated agent are a controlling member of. But in concept, I cannot fathom why a human being could possibly say, "You know, $1B really isn't enough for <this>."

mewpmewp2 2y ago
What about companies. Would companies be allowed to have more than that?
- tremon 2y ago
  Let's say the maximum amount allowed by a company is determined by the number of people that have a controlling share in the company. If one person controls the company, it's still $1B; if there's 8 people holding 51% of the shares it can hold $8B, etc.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    What if there is 1 person with 49 percent and then 1000 with 2 percent?

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Take the longest any human being has ever lived, subtract the age of the given person, multiply that many years by the the top 1% of US income, everything over that at the end of the year gets taxed at 100%. Reasonable place to start?

adamtaylor_13 2y ago

And how do you measure riches? Part of the game is hiding the amount of money you actually make so that you’re not taxed on it and it’s not “yours”. Rich people understand this and exploit it. And those who have the power to change this structure have NO incentive to do so… because they’re also rich.

mrguyorama 2y ago
>And those who have the power to change this structure have NO incentive to do so… because they’re also rich. And yet we did just that. FDR came AFTER the roaring 20s All it takes is Americans willing to vote for someone who says "rich people shouldn't exist", but currently Americans seem ideologically opposed to that, and millions instead seem to subscribe to "rich people are the only ones able to accomplish anything" despite ample contrary evidence.