Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Snow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the this-is-just-what-our-corporate-overlords-want-us-to-think dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:26PM

    by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:26PM (#440834)

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:08PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:08PM (#440850) Journal
    When it comes to allowed taxes, the entire lifespan of the US. Not all constitutional aspects are equally abused.
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 14 2016, @12:03AM

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @12:03AM (#441087)

      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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:31AM (#441111) Journal
        The Sixteenth Amendment only allows in addition taxes on income.

        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

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday December 15 2016, @07:39PM (#441731)

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 16 2016, @05:08AM (#441952) Journal
            It was intended from the beginning of the amendment to be a major change. No one should be amending the Constitution lightly IMHO. Anyway, the point is that the change, major as it is, is completely allowed by the original amendment. An asset tax would be a huge change that is not allowed by the amendment.