I think that, somewhere north of $1 ~ $5 million is life-changing on its own. There’s no need for someone to have tens of millions or hundreds of millions. Tens of millions is like, changing multiple lives in a family with how much that can stretch.
Whenever someone has billions to their name, it is boggling to think about. That it becomes just ‘fuck you’ money at that point because more often than not, not a lot of billionaires out there being charitable. When they know they’re set for a few lifetimes just by a single billion alone.
No single person should ever have that amount of gross wealth.
Let me put it this way.
It’s possible to become a millionaire through a combination of hardwork, brains, luck and timing.
It’s impossible to become a billionaire after that without exploiting others, whether that is workers, employees, investors…whoever.
In other words, it’s possible to be an honest millionaire, but not an honest billionaire.
So the amount of wealth a person is entitled to is the amount that they can earn with their own labour without exploiting others in order to do so.
So if you own a furniture store, and you pay your employees a living wage, give benefits, etc… and after that you’re successful enough to be a millionaire…great. You deserve it. If you’re an employer and you own a furniture store, and in order to become a millionaire you have to pay your workers minimum wage and rely on unfair labour practices to inflate your profits…you don’t deserve it.
I use the furniture store example because I worked for just such a guy. Family run business. Paid us all well enough. Gave us benefits. Made sure we were taken care of. Treated us like family. And he was financially very successful while managing to do so. Could he have made even MORE if he had taken it from wages and benefits…sure. But that wasn’t the type of person he was.
To me, THAT example is capitalism working as it should in it’s purest form. Corporatization is just a bastardization of the concept created by venture capitalists and shareholders.
I totally agree. And id like to ask, what sort of system benefits this?
Regulation is what government does and kills small business while large corps either pay em off to get by or they submit to regulation and lose a few billion but doesn’t affect em.
Socialism is viewed here as government ownership of everything, no more individualism, and Americans fear government above all else (ironically blindly trusting corporations with all their money and data).
Cant we outlaw corporations and continue as we are? Sure would be nice.
Cant we outlaw corporations and continue as we are? Sure would be nice.
I think the world would do better if all of us shrank a bit to be more mindful of a community economy.
If my neighbour down the street woodworks in his spare time and makes bespoke tables and chairs, I’ll do everything I can to go buy from him rather than a corporation (for example)
Growing up on an Acreage, it was more common for us to buy a half a side of beef or pork from the farmer next door than to go to the grocery store. Same for vegetables from farmer’s markets or similar community markets.
It’s less about criminalizing corporations and more about refusing to reward them for making their profits off the backs of poverty wages and government subsidies…
I agree.
People are SO against doing that though, almost vehemently so. 1000 people will go to scamazon to buy some junk before 1 person goes 2 blocks to get it from a local store. People are so lazy they dont want to get up to put in a dvd (yes im old, but this is something I heard a friend actually say not long ago)
Not to mention everything made local costs 4x more by default.
There’s really not much sense of community anymore in America.
In America midwest, 100k is plenty to own a couple acres and a few cars and buy most things you want and travel.
On the coasts, about $250k yr to live like this, maybe 350k.
When you say “make”, do you mean extract?
I’ve heard Wall St destroy over 7 times as much wealth as they “make” from us.
I’ve also heard salaries over $£€70,000 no longer increase happiness. (Though, that was a few years ago… so, adjust for devaluation.).
More than what should a UBI be set to, if all the emancipatory technologies ceased being suppressed, and instead were proliferated to the benefit of each and all… would we even need money any more?
A house, a car, and enough to pay all the bills and still have some lifestyle, without the terror of knowing you are one job loss away from homelessness and starvation. Able to retire for 25 years before dying.
I think for us (a family not a single person) that really is a million in the bank and 200k per year. We don’t have that, nor do many others.
As a cap? I think nobody needs to accumulate more than 5 million in cash and other assets. Less if you live somewhere with reasonable pension and healthcare.
Enough they never have to worry about food or housing no matter how much they plan on working.
So little that they can never own something as expensive as a yacht or a company by themselves.
Billionaires don’t have billions in their bank accounts. That’s not how wealth works. It’s not like they’re sitting on a pile of cash and just want more. The vast majority of it is tied to property and businesses edit: and stocks. Thinking that just because one could comfortably retire that they should is kind of like telling a runner to stop running after having completed their first marathon. They’re a runner - runners run. A person who became a billionaire views making money the same way. It’s what they do. It’s what they’re good at and derive meaning from.
Billionaires don’t have billions in their bank accounts. That’s not how wealth works.
This is a strawman argument used by dishonest business types who think everybody else is dumb about how wealth works. Nobody is saying billionaires have billions in their bank accounts.
The vast majority of it is tied to property and businesses
Right you are on the same page as the rest of the people arguing against the existence of billionaires.
The number of properties held by a person should be limited to one. Ideally having a clause saying that it has to be on rent for a regulated price. And individuals cannot own a majority of business unless it’s a one man job. I would like the world to head towards worker owned cooperatives instead of 0.01% hoarding 90% of the wealth.
Thinking that just because one could comfortably retire that they should is kind of like telling a runner to stop running after having completed their first marathon. They’re a runner - runners run.
So the entire neo-liberal thesis is that we should reward psychopaths. That’s kind of a non-starter for sustainable living.
A person who became a billionaire views making money the same way. It’s what they do. It’s what they’re good at and derive meaning from.
I can’t begin to tell you the enormous amount of problems with this statement with regards to somebody’s mental health. You can’t be a billionaire without causing suffering to other people. Without leaving somebody else with the short end of the stick. Kindness is alien to people who think this is okay and should be encouraged. This level of worship of money is quite deviant because civilization evolved and thrives on cooperation, not on some misconstrued notion that a single person can derive so much “value” such that they can demand 99% or more of wealth.>
Means the only solution is the guillotine sadly.
Agree. Billionaires shouldn’t exist.
Personally, every penny you have in money/assets/stocks over £1b is taxed at 100% in exchange you get a medal that says “I beat capitalism” and a statue.
While I agree, then you are giving the government massive power to decide how much you shouldn’t make.
And what happens with all the “tax” money? Straight into politician pockets.
I’m not bothered about the specifics, its the principal.
The money could all goto charity for all I care. Point is, no person on this planet should have that much wealth at the expense of others.
I agree.
But its still dangerous to give government that power. however, if you can actually elect the politicians, its fine. But we all know its rigged bullshit and votes dont actually matter anymore, if they ever did.
Its a compromise. You can have 999 mil as long as you invest back 100% into society thereafter…though, no one ever needs 999 mil either.
as long as you invest back 100% into society
Taxes
Yeah but then they find ways to slurp up the tax money through bailouts and BS government contracts.
Yes, but we are talking tax policy, not how to solve human greed and corruption.
Getting to direct where every dollar goes above a billion is a huge amount of power. A single person deciding how to spend millions or billions of dollars to do what they deem to be improving society? They may do some good things, but a democratic process would probably do better overall.
Exactly
Enough to cover their needs: from shelter and food, to enriching experiences and opportunities. We could all have this if we taxed the rich and corporations adequately as we once did.
They’re in the trillions now. It’s like a disease.
No they aren’t. Musk is only around 700-800B as of the end of 2025.
Oh, Ok. I was worried.
likeDragon sickness
sounds too cool
canceris a better term is imowealth addiction
This is a difficult question because we don’t have an agreed upon baseline of what “living” looks like worldwide.
Some countries may say, “living a long life.” Other countries may say, “And a roof over your head.” And Other countries may say, “That and a yearly vacation.”
Also, it’s sad to say that million dollars isn’t even “dick around” money anymore. My wife’s retired grandparents retired on a million at age 70. They’re living okay, very modestly at age 90. Medicine is fucking expensive, hip surgeries, paying for physical therapy, etc. No brand new cars or fancy trips. Just coupon clipping and finding lunch deals.
A simple estimation based on investing that amount of money into a total world stock market index fund (e.g. VTWAX) would be your yearly expenses divided by 3.25% (pretty conservative rate). The idea is that you withdraw 3.25% of your wealth from the stock market every year, and you’ll be able to withdraw that much purchasing power every year forever due to compound interest pushing the number up as you withdraw. Realistically if you’re not withdrawing the full amount blindly during market downturns you can kick that number up to 4% or even more, but 3.25-3.5% is basically impossible to go broke with, and most likely will quickly increase your nest egg to double/triple/etc in most universes.
So, if my expenses were 50k/year in post-tax money, I would need to invest ~1.5 million in order to withdraw 50k of “free” money per year forever, inflation-adjusted. You can do the rest of the math on how many post-tax expenses a normal person/family has and will quickly reach the conclusion that hey, a billion dollars is kinda fucking crazy.
This right here is why everything is so fucked up.
$5 million is the threshold where you start to not need to work full time if you’re not old age. Like, you can basically have 40 working years of your life back and not sacrifice on milestones like owing a home, having a family, security in your elder years, and a comfortable life…
I’m cautious about using the word “need”. No one needs almost anything. That is not the standard we should be judging things. Anyone can point to anything you love and say you don’t need it. It can get miserable quickly.
Excessive wealth does corrupt, in many ways so a limit on personal wealth is easily justifiable.
Without writing an essay, a somewhat arbitrary 100 milion seems like a reasonable upper limit if there are some appropriate checks in place. For example, fines need to be proportionate to wealth. A speeding ticket serves a social purpose, but extreme wealth defeats the purpose. Proportionality, so it hurts the rich the same way it hurts the working man making a $200 speeding ticket becomes a $10,000 speeding ticket for the hundred-millionaire. Similarly taxes need to be progressive and at the limit, become 100%.
The key is to never allow personal wealth grow to where it can corrupt the state. Buying up media companies, funding political orgs, buying politicians etc, is a key goal of the wealth limit.
I think it should be percentage based, not fiscally based. That way it can adapt and grow with the times. I also think all income should be taxed, as it stands only certain types of income are taxed, and at different rates. Not surprisingly your W-2 taxes (taxes taken out of your paycheck) are one of the highest tax rates you can have on income. I also think tax breaks shouldn’t be a thing at all either. If the government wants to promote something they can offer a rebate so there’s a cap on how much they promote it, and it’s not an endless give away. Finally, expenses are the cost of doing business, and you shouldn’t be able to hide income because you paid money to make money.
The fact that I can buy a property, get a tax break because I’m paying interest on a mortgage, rent the property out for more than my mortgage, claim that as a business, then claim the mortgage as an expense for said business, and end up not paying any taxes on charging someone else to pay for my mortgage, is insane.
In my ideal world there would be no tax breaks period, you pay what is owed end of story. Anything below the median income (50%) isn’t taxed, anything above the median is taxed at 1.5% for each percentage point above the median. If you are in the top 10% and make more than 90% of the nation, you get taxed at 60% above the median and can take home 40% of that additional income after the median. In the USA this would be ($251,036-$80,610) x .4 + $80,610 or $148,780.4. If you are in the top 1% ($731,492) that would be a take home of $253,093.73. If you’re Elon Musk (est $400,000,000,000 last year alone) that would be “only” $100,000,000,000. Keep in mind in 2024 he didn’t pay any taxes, and in 2021, he was the highest tax paying individual in US history at $11 billion. Yes he would still be ultra rich, but there would be $300 billion going to taxes last year alone, or roughly 7.5% of all tax income.
This means rich people can still enjoy their money, while still paying their fair share, and if you’re just trying to get by, don’t worry about it, we got you.
None abolish money.
Can you explain in a rational way how getting rid of money helps?
Spoiler: He can’t.
