It's hilarious seeing all the dweebs melt down because they are completely baffled that rich celebrities don't want to pay for a meaningless check mark. They honestly think it's them being cheap, rather than understanding that they'd be embarrassed to have their brand associated with a bunch of gullible nerds.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
This hard work angle is just absurd. And don't forget, for a lot of jobs you are paying for the years of training and experience it took them to get there. Which is reasonable. But to imply that these CEO's somehow have training and experience worth 1000 times their peers, thats absurd. And to imply that flying around to hob knob with other elites is working harder than the average laborer? Again, absurd.
Sorry for the delay. Again I am speaking from my observations of real people that I have directly interacted with. This has lead to my perspective.
How many top corporate leaders or ultra rich have you interacted with enough to know how they actually live? I see a lot of people on here responding to what sou ds like a narrative rather than experience.
Unless you’re married to them or their child, I am not sure how much insight you can glean about their work ethic. Once the company is built, it’s not just a one-person show anymore nor is the person’s wealth because of them alone.
They would be taxed 4%-5% plus inflation on all total wealth regardless of form. So a person worth 5 billion would face a 250 million dollar tax bill. How they pay it is up to them. This tax would disappear once wealth dropped below 1 billion. In theory this creates an incentive to put perform the average market performance as otherwise they lose wealth.
Did you just suggest that 100 people or .00025% of the population having 5% of the wealth not being concentration? That’s an odd statement. The problem that causes concentration is that a large portion of annual income is spent or will be spent on living whereas in a high net worth individual it doesn’t get spent and accumulated capital. So overtime the high net worth individual continues to accumulate while regular people spend and many end up near zero at death or a few million. So overtime the HNWs gain a greater and greater portion of wealth.
This eventually leads to revolution of left unchecked as an ultimate worst case scenario.
I think the number could be debated. In the capitalist system by having different wages for different things it causes the work force to be properly allocated to where needed without centralized planning. It also incentivizes people to work to perform the required work of society. It also incentivize people to take risk and create. The hard core UBI people will argue that money is not a motivator at all but I’m not oone of those people. So you could put the number at what ever value maintains the incentives of capitalism required to have the creation element.
So if you capped it at 2 million I think you would encourage too many people to retire early in important positions and people in retirement wouldn’t be able to maintain lifestyles they had while working. You can see how 2 million is different right. Now when someone says why not 100 million I think arguments could be made for or against that value.
You say you want to invest in these people Look at the Thomson’s and the Irving’s and these mega rich families. Are you sure you want to invest in the children of these initial billionaires? Secondly I think you mistake the initial thing that made them a billionaire vs them continuing to be a billionaire. We are watching it in real time with musk. He made 100s of millions pre-Tesla and space X. Invested those hundreds of millions and became a billionaire and now is in his decline days spending money on Twitter to make 69 jokes. He and his heirs fo not need 100 billion in perpetuity generating money without requiring any meaningful contribution. Society doesn’t benefit at that point.
So you would continue to tax the same wealth (realized or not) every year? Highly punitive and would absolutely drive investment out of the country.
The disposable income argument can be made for anyone making over $100k/year. Is that unfair? My point on concentration is that they do not control the majority of wealth in Canada. High paid professionals have a high degree of disposable income and tend to invest it in assets, like real estate, farms (another tax avoidance scheme) and other such things. Is it because they have crossed the imaginary line that they don't get the same punishment although they likely control as much or more total wealth.
Quality of life has increased across the board due to Industrialization. While the Robber Barons you speak of were monopolists and should have been regulated. But overall capitalism has been the rising tide for all boats.
Second generation wealth does tend to be less a benefit and third definitely less. But the same can ultimately be said about money managers and venture capitalists.
The tone seems to be rich bad the line seems to move around. Even you have gone fromm $1B to$100M to$2M in this thread.
Unless you’re married to them or their child, I am not sure how much insight you can glean about their work ethic. Once the company is built, it’s not just a one-person show anymore nor is the person’s wealth because of them alone.
So I am guessing your answer is none. Yet you make comments which are more informed than someone who has direct knowledge.
Didn't say the wealth was generated by one person directly. A one person company is fine, but most have employees. What arbitrary number of employees do you start to consider the owner no longer safe from being vilified?
So I am guessing your answer is none. Yet you make comments which are more informed than someone who has direct knowledge.
Didn't say the wealth was generated by one person directly. A one person company is fine, but most have employees. What arbitrary number of employees do you start to consider the owner no longer safe from being vilified?
Where did anyone vilify them? You are putting them on this pedestal and people here are just saying that maybe the adulation isn’t warranted.
If you want to play anecdotes, yes, I know some multi-millionaires who built businesses up from nothing. You know how much time and energy they put into the businesses once they had enough to not have to work? The answer is not much. Mailing it in and coasting on their past laurels. Not unlike Musk.
Where did anyone vilify them? You are putting them on this pedestal and people here are just saying that maybe the adulation isn’t warranted.
If you want to play anecdotes, yes, I know some multi-millionaires who built businesses up from nothing. You know how much time and energy they put into the businesses once they had enough to not have to work? The answer is not much. Mailing it in and coasting on their past laurels. Not unlike Musk.
Not on a pedestal. In fact said I couldn't nor wouldn't want to be tem.
The difference I see is that the multi millionaires you know stop and then don't continue to push higher. Hence hitting their ceiling, self induced. The people that I am talking about are the ones that are never satisfied and that is why they get to the higher/highest levels.
Again not someone I aspire to be in any way. I self limit myself to my comfort level.
Last edited by Just a guy; 04-22-2023 at 11:11 PM.
So you would continue to tax the same wealth (realized or not) every year? Highly punitive and would absolutely drive investment out of the country.
The disposable income argument can be made for anyone making over $100k/year. Is that unfair? My point on concentration is that they do not control the majority of wealth in Canada. High paid professionals have a high degree of disposable income and tend to invest it in assets, like real estate, farms (another tax avoidance scheme) and other such things. Is it because they have crossed the imaginary line that they don't get the same punishment although they likely control as much or more total wealth.
Quality of life has increased across the board due to Industrialization. While the Robber Barons you speak of were monopolists and should have been regulated. But overall capitalism has been the rising tide for all boats.
Second generation wealth does tend to be less a benefit and third definitely less. But the same can ultimately be said about money managers and venture capitalists.
The tone seems to be rich bad the line seems to move around. Even you have gone fromm $1B to$100M to$2M in this thread.
You asked about why 2 million isn’t the line and I explained it to you. You are no longer discussing this in good faith.
So you would intervene if they controlled the majority of wealth? 50.01% is your like for the top 100 hundred Canadians. Why not 45%? See I can play this game to.
I don’t think you you read any of my posts if you think the summary is rich bad.
Not on a pedestal. In fact said I couldn't nor wouldn't want to be tem.
The difference I see is that the multi millionaires you know stop and then don't continue to push higher. Hence hitting their ceiling, self induced. The people that I am talking about are the ones that are never satisfied and that is why they get to the higher/highest levels.
Again not someone I aspire to be in any way. I self limit myself to my comfort level.
Also nobody said putting someone on a pedestal means you want to be them.
The real question is, do the super rich pay their fair share to the jurisdictions where they make their wealth? What do you think your rich friends make as taxable income vs. what they hold that isn’t taxed? Would it be good for society if everyone could avoid paying taxes like that?
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I've personally interacted with 2 guys worth over $100 million. One is a decent human who lives a relatively normal life, just with lots of money that he made in business. The other was an arrogant jerk who always thought he was the smartest one in the room and blew tens of millions trying to prove it in an industry unrelated to the one he made his money in - because he wasn't really all that smart, just ruthless and focused.
The jerk had his whole life revolve around work and the power wealth gave him. Nothing about him was admirable, and his type deserves contempt, not adulation. People like him only do good by accident, and we should be building a society where worth and power don't accrue to his ilk, and not celebrating them.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
You asked about why 2 million isn’t the line and I explained it to you. You are no longer discussing this in good faith.
So you would intervene if they controlled the majority of wealth? 50.01% is your like for the top 100 hundred Canadians. Why not 45%? See I can play this game to.
I don’t think you you read any of my posts if you think the summary is rich bad.
Not trying to be in bad faith, just making the point that there can be a different arbitrary number and you explained that, same as the $100M number. The number moves depending on perspective. I have always enjoyed our discussions and they have always enjoyed polite and informative.
Didn't set an intervention level. Just the perspective that prior to Industrialization the wealth gap was even greater. I just happen to believe that we (society in general) need these people to change the world and in most cases in a positive way..
I have read your posts and definitely sense the undertone that anyone ultra rich
Is seen In a negative light.
I've personally interacted with 2 guys worth over $100 million. One is a decent human who lives a relatively normal life, just with lots of money that he made in business. The other was an arrogant jerk who always thought he was the smartest one in the room and blew tens of millions trying to prove it in an industry unrelated to the one he made his money in - because he wasn't really all that smart, just ruthless and focused.
The jerk had his whole life revolve around work and the power wealth gave him. Nothing about him was admirable, and his type deserves contempt, not adulation. People like him only do good by accident, and we should be building a society where worth and power don't accrue to his ilk, and not celebrating them.
Agree. If you read what I have said is that I wouldn't want to be that. I have interacted with highly successful people that are good people, but they have given up more than I ever would.
