5 ms·
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age
by saulpw 8mo ago
The limit should not be a fixed dollar amount, but rather relative to what it gets you. We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. $1m is nowhere near enough for that. So let's not try to figure that, say, $3.6m is the appropriate wealth cap for 2026. Let's speak in terms of orders of magnitudes. $1m is not enough. $10m is. Let's let the minimum wealth maximum be $10m.
- renewiltord 8mo agoOh yeah, of course you want early retirement so others can slave away to create the world you live in without doing anything. No. This is why equality is important. $200k is enough.
- saulpw 8mo agoYes, it is reasonable for some people not to have to work for survival. A person can earn non-work through age (retirement), vulnerability (disabled, children), lottery, or contribution. We want neither pure communism nor pure capitalism. (I've seen other comments from you on here, you know you're being an unreasonable edgelord.)
- renewiltord 8mo agoI think it’s quite clear you want to place the limit at the the limit of your own achievable targets. Which sure, I’m on board with no taxes on people with the name Rene. Very self serving but not too different from yours.
- saulpw 8mo agoI think you're wrong, it's quite clear that there are objective levels of wealth that are positive for people to aspire to, and levels of wealth that are beyond what any one person should be able to control. You can strawman all you like but it's just bad faith arguing at this point.
- renewiltord 8mo agoYes, it just so happens that all these levels happen to be perfectly calibrated to one's own life. The Blub Paradox reigns supreme.
- krapp 8mo ago> We want to allow people to earn the luxury of retirement at a young age, including healthcare costs (not included in the US), children's higher education, etc etc. Do we want that only ever be available to a privileged few? The goal should be to eliminate privilege such that the inequities of capitalism apply fairly (or unfairly) to everyone. $1m, A level of income which the vast majority of people will never see in their lifetimes, is clearly sustainable. If you consider that an unreasonable burden then perhaps we should restructure society to be less capitalist such that everyone has an opportunity for healthcare and education regardless of income, and can retire at a more reasonable age.
- saulpw 8mo agoSure, everyone should have access to healthcare and education regardless of income, I agree. This is separate from the amount of wealth a person should be allowed to accumulate. We can certainly lower this amount of wealth when society has improved to this degree, but I'm merely saying that, today, we can institute wealth caps within the current system that are broadly acceptable.