You’d think striking it suddenly rich would be the ultimate ticket to freedom. Without money worries, the world would be your oyster. Perhaps you’d champion a worthy cause, or indulge a sporting passion, but work? Surely not. However, remaining gainfully employed after sudden wealth is more common than you’d think. After all, there are numerous high-profile billionaires who haven’t called it quits despite possessing the luxury to retire, including some of the world’s top chief executives, such as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
But it turns out, the suddenly rich who aren’t running companies are also loathe to quit, even though they have plenty of money. That could be, in part, because the link between salary and job satisfaction is very weak.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:40PM
Well, if you don't have income, then you probably don't pay taxes.
If you do have income, then either you're working, or you're getting capital gains - i.e. profiting exclusively from other people's work. So why shouldn't you pay more taxes to society since you're profiting entirely from it's work?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:20PM
In the Netherlands you pay tax on the wealth you own, independent on income. 30% based on a 4% fictional interest of all the wealth you own. So effectively 1,2%.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:29PM
The Netherlands tax both income and asset/wealth. But all advantages are in the income part.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:26PM
Since when has a constitutional obstruction stopped them?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:08PM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 14 2016, @12:03AM
I don't know, the sixteenth amendment allowing for a pretty huge change in tax law - prior to that the federal government could only raise funds by apportionment amongst the states.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:31AM
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday December 15 2016, @07:39PM
And today personal/corporate income tax is the government's primary source of income. I'd say that's a pretty major change, wouldn't you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @05:08AM