this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
1242 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
7583 readers
3953 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have been considering at what point is accumulation immortal.
Clearly, location matters. I think certainly by $100 million, one is immoral ($4 million to safety spend each year.) Perhaps $10 million is immoral. I am fairly certain $5 million ($200K to spend in a year) is okay. I am confident that $1 million is fine ($40K per year.)
Thoughs?
My idea is to implement a wealth tax rate of 3% on everything above an exempt amount of $10 million, that is to be paid annually.
This way, there is no hard limit. You can have more money without going to jail, but you have to help the community.
The rule would work something like this:
this procedure is to be repeated annually
to prevent people from giving up their US citizenship and taking on the citizenship of some other country, which may not have a wealth tax, there needs to be a way to make sure the US citizenship remains attractive to people. for example, if you do not have US citizenship, you're not allowed to possess more than $10 million in total wealth inside the US, i.e. in real estate, company shares and bank accounts.
That's called a wealth tax and it exists in (for example) the Netherlands. All assets except your house over 57k€ are taxed every year.
Not enough. Their fortunes need to actually shrink when above a certain amount. 7%+ is where we need to be to even counter their annual growth.
Accumulating that much wealth isn't just bad because it's unfair, it's bad because it gives them so much influence in politics, economy and society which damages Democracy and markets.
You put the finger in the wound with that ruleset though - first the negative of what you've said:
if you don't allow debt to be calculated against you fuck Up people who literally want to invest in their future (buying machinery for their dream job for example).
If you do allow debt dedication then you get the status quo: oh I do owe a yacht but I have w huge debt on that - sure I have a collateral against that debt but here is clever accounting and suddenly the net worth of the billionaire is negative on paper.
I really like what you've described, I only lack the fantasy on how to avoid this banking exploitation by peiple who are smarter and more ruthless than me. :(
my first assumption is being more wealthy than 95% of the population is immoral
But if hypothetically if everyone had 5 million and you have 5 million + one, I wouldn't say having $1 more is immoral.
idk, that's an interesting question. That's gonna be in my head for a while lol
4% interest is an odd assumption, but the amounts makes some sense considering that 100K per year is an amount someone can reasonably live off of with a house.
4% is widely used as a safe withdrawal rate. It's based on modelling with historical data of market returns and achieving a near 100% probability of not drawing down your principle over the long term.