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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:55AM
Soon you'll be rich, just like the billionaires. See, they work too, and so should you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:09AM
Dogbert: I finished ghostwriting your autobiography.
CEO: "I was ridiculously lucky. The End." I was hoping you'd include something about all of my hard work.
Dogbert: You didn't work any harder than your gardener, and he lives in his truck.
CEO: What about my vision and intuition?
Dogbert: My first draft had a chapter on your hallucinations and magical thinking. But I covered that ground with the title: "I'm A Delusional Sociopath And You Can Too."
CEO: I'm starting to regret paying you in advance.
Read more: http://dilbert.com/strip/2012-12-30 [dilbert.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:24AM
To be honest, if I'm a millionaire, I'm starting a company on day one and start doing things my way, instead of the stupidity that I've suffered every day of my working life.
(P.S. I'm sure some of those under me will see my ideas as just as stupid).
But "working" is not the antithesis of happiness. It's working for others, and working poorly, that is. I'm more unhappy to see things done badly than not done at all.
Lounging about doing nothing is, I'm sure, wonderful for quite a long time. But most people would, I think, retain some semblance of work, even if it's on their own, at their pace, and when THEY want to.
I'd try to hire those people who I know do a good job but are under-appreciated. I would literally go back and track those people down and try to convince them to come with me, even if it meant starting another company and hiring people just to make them work in their chosen area.
I'd try to push out one of those products that I always think "Why does nobody ever get this right?", even if I was the only person who bought it.
I'd sink enough money in the company/companies to pay everyone for 10, 20, however many years even if we NEVER MAKE A PENNY BACK.
And then I'd expect / hope that we would actually make money enough to do something useful and earn something back.
It's nothing to do with charity, or being a rich smartarse, or showing off, I'd do it to give good people a stable job, and to cure a few personal bugbears. I won't be getting up at 7 to rush into the office unless - and this is the important bit - there's something there that MAKES me want to do that. I would hope that, done right, there would be something like that.
It doesn't mean I wouldn't splash out and do my own thing and have lie-ins and waste money on junk. But making something, doing something, building something, is an inherent part of enjoying life, rich or poor. Whether that's a house, a family, a skyscraper, or a vaccine, everyone has something that they want to make.
To be honest, I'd plot the finances such that they last me into old age and no longer. And I'd bring friends, co-workers and family that were hard-working along with me for the ride.
And the Christmas parties would be awesome.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:50AM
Lounging about doing nothing is, I'm sure, wonderful for quite a long time. But most people would, I think, retain some semblance of work, even if it's on their own, at their pace, and when THEY want to.
Nope. See hikikomori, neets, social refusniks don't want to work, and quite frankly they don't want to deal with people like you, because of this:
But making something, doing something, building something, is an inherent part of enjoying life, rich or poor. Whether that's a house, a family, a skyscraper, or a vaccine, everyone has something that they want to make.
Instead of recognizing that people can be motivated to make things for their own personal satisfaction, you presuppose the motivation for making things should be to impress other people. You're not worth it, asshole.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:53AM
Nope. See hikikomori, neets, social refusniks don't want to work, and quite frankly they don't want to deal with people like you, because of this:
Not just because of that, but because they lack a desire to interact with others to varying extents. The contempt for filthy normies is part of it, but not everything.
Although I would hardly describe what they do as "nothing". They have their own hobbies and presumably enjoy them greatly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:03PM
Hikki hobbies don't necessarily produce anything that they can show to others, and why should they, because they don't interact with others. They may deliberately choose to produce nothing tangible, so the filthy normies never get their filthy hands on it. Consider for one example, a musician who never performs for an audience and never records their work in any form.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:35PM
Instead of recognizing that people can be motivated to make things for their own personal satisfaction, you presuppose the motivation for making things should be to impress other people. You're not worth it, asshole.
OTOH, I wouldn't have a problem working for such a person, since at least they care about their work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:56PM
Hikis and neets exist because society is broken. Its certainly why I became one for a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:38PM
That might be true for some of them, but countless others genuinely don't like interacting with others and would rather do other things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:07PM
They don't like interacting in person because people are shit and everyone's a fucking asshole, because society raised them that way. They get all their interaction online, like in MMOs and irc, where people aren't all such fucking pricks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:06PM
I'd do it ... to cure a few personal bugbears.
This sounds kind of free software-ish. Scratching an itch. I wonder if there is some kind of economic equivalent to open-source either already in existence, or waiting to be invented?
I agree with your sentiments. If I had huge amounts of money I'd see to my own extended family's stability and comfort, and then redistribute the rest in the most fairest and most efficient way possible: Infrastructure. Either set up an organisation or team up with local / regional / national government(s) (depending on scale of my fortune) to build lasting infrastructure that will benefit thousands of people every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:14PM
I wonder if there is some kind of economic equivalent to open-source either already in existence, or waiting to be invented?
Begging, SN does it.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:45PM
The reason open source works so well economically speaking is that while the cost of producing one copy of software is very very high, after that, the cost of producing any number of copies of the same software is almost zero. Other things that kind of behave that way are what are thoroughly misnamed "intellectual property": musical recordings, writing of all kinds, artwork, research and scholarship, and so forth. So with that in mind, one very ethical option for rich people is becoming, to use an antiquated phrase, "a gentleman and a scholar".
That, or your proposed foray into philanthropy, are absolutely worthwhile and fulfilling activities for rich people. Playing the game of who's highest on the Forbes list or who has the bigger ... yacht are not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:51PM
I'd try to change the world. You speak of infrastructure. I'd like to get people thinking that governments should build more transportation systems than just roads for cars and trucks. I'd like to see the sidewalk promoted to the walkway. The "side" in sidewalk denotes a vastly inferior status. Just because a route is inconvenient for an automobile road is no reason why it can't be done with a walkway. Make most buildings at least 2 stories, and connect the upper story with an entire network of elevated walkways. Move the sidewalk to the 2nd floor, call it a walkway or maybe a skywalk, and leave the ground level to the cars. The buildings themselves can be designed to support the walkway, no need to put bridge piers all along the walkway.
But then, we can't be bothered to eliminate railroad crossings.
I'd also like to see copyright law made completely irrelevant, turned into the kiss of death that ensures a work of art will be buried in obscurity because no one will touch it, and that because we have set up better business models to pay artists.
Would take more than a few millions to swing those, I'm sure.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:14PM
part of the problem with city design is that things were made as the technology allowed it, rather than designed from the ground up with everything we have today. rails were laid down across the country long before the personal automobile was even a dream, and walkways were used long before either of them. we've had to lay rails across the walkways, and then lay roads across the rails, leaving us with a big, mishmashed mess of modern and legacy pathways crossing over each other all over the place. i dont think there's a single city in existence that doesn't predate the automobile (maybe in like China or Dubai or something, there's probably an edge case somewhere, but in general, most cities are well over 100 years old). if a new city were designed today, it could factor in all kinds of better ideas, like elevated walkways and light rail from the start instead of implementing them each as the new technology becomes available.
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:28PM
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:16AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday December 15 2016, @08:43PM
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday December 16 2016, @11:43AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:25AM
I wonder if there is some kind of economic equivalent to open-source either already in existence, or waiting to be invented?
Funny you should mention that. I've long liked to think of Technocracy [technocracy.ca] as an "open source" style of economy. It's entirely voluntary, just like open source. It works better with transparency and sharing of information like open source, as opposed to "trade secrets" that companies like to keep. And infrastructure!
and then redistribute the rest in the most fairest and most efficient way possible: Infrastructure. Either set up an organisation or team up with local / regional / national government(s) (depending on scale of my fortune) to build lasting infrastructure that will benefit thousands of people every day.
Technocracy's katascopic methodology insists on getting proper infrastructure in place from day 1. It's a key component of efficiency which is an important part of the design. This might be what you (and perhaps even ledow) are looking for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:50PM
To be honest, if I'm a millionaire, I'm starting a company on day one and start doing things my way, instead of the stupidity that I've suffered every day of my working life.
(P.S. I'm sure some of those under me will see my ideas as just as stupid).
Reasons I don't share your ideal of running my own company with a bunch of employees:
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:27AM
Bezo - selling to idiots
Zuck - advertising to idiots
I never shop online and I always ignore ads. Where are these idiots who made Bezo and Zuck into billionaires?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:56PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg [youtube.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:32AM
Probably a correlation between getting rich through innovation and intelligence.
I'm willing to bet that those who get rich from winning the lottery, don't keep it for long.
Although I do know a man who won $12 million in the lottery many years ago. From talking to him, you wouldn't know he was a multi-millionaire.
Then again, having a million bucks these days isn't really considered "rich" is it? A million is a nice goal to have after working for 10-15 years in a decent salary job, and throwing $18k to your 401k and $5k to your Roth IRA and letting compound interest take over. I'm halfway there. Yeah, I still have student loans, but I pay the minimum. It isn't a zero sum game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:57AM
Probably a correlation between getting rich through innovation and intelligence.
Probably just your own greed and hero worship.
I'm willing to bet that those who get rich from winning the lottery, don't keep it for long.
And your prejudice against the poor.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:52PM
I would also assume there is a correlation between ambition and getting rich. Definitely not 1, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correlation.
(There might be some correlation between sociopathy and ambition > 1 as well. I'm not implying ambitious people 'd be morally superior.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:54PM
Calling it strictly prejudice against the poor is misleading. I would not expect someone who has never had much money to be as good at handling it and keeping it as someone who has had money all their life. There's an aspect of training and experience involved. That does not mean that the poor are somehow incapable of handling money well, but any time you do something you've never done before you're more likely to fail. Follow this with the simple fact that more people around you need money and I would guess that stacks the odds even farther against you. I mean, I live in a $155k house nestled among million dollar homes. If I won a $1M lottery no one in my neighborhood would be coming by asking for cash. A million dollars would get me a pat on the head, and an "oh he thinks he's people" from some of them. Move 2 miles north and I'm currently wealthy compared to the neighbors.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:41PM
I have heard second generation rich often lose a lot of money.
Actually knowing how to work for it helps as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:05PM
They often don't: This is known as the "Sudden Wealth Effect". Basically, when a poor schlub wins the lottery, a combination of several factors more often than not destroys the fortune.
1. They have no idea how to manage that much money, and often how to handle the math involved, so they end up buying ridiculously expensive things they can't really afford to maintain.
2. They are prey for con artists of all types, many of them portraying themselves as competent financial managers.
3. All their friends and family and anybody else who vaguely knew them will come to them begging for a handout.
4. Charitable organizations swarm them, asking for donations.
Many of the same problems affect professional athletes who are from non-rich backgrounds.
Your millionaire friend is being very very smart: Millionaires who stay millionaires don't tend to talk about or flaunt their money.
Having $1 million in your portfolio means you have about $1 million more in savings than the average American. If you invest that at 5% return, that's $50K a year, which is the average household income in the US. Which means you can probably live quite comfortably without you or any spouse you have working, if you spend it wisely. That puts you in the upper class by my reckoning, because that early retirement option is always there, unlike everybody who either works or starves.
And by world standards, of course, you are fabulously rich.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:09PM
Well yea, maybe I wouldn't quit working, but I wouldn't have to keep sucking my boss dick or suffer fools either. There is a PROFOUND liberation that happens when you can say "fuck you, I quit" at any time, which is probably why there is so much backlash against basic income. A bunch of assholes would be permanently out of a job, and the workplace would become instantly more pleasant.
Not to mention I enjoy making furniture. Some people would consider that work, but I find it meditative. Might even start a business doing as such if I won the lottery. But comparing CEO with the general plebe is idiotic- a large percentage of CEOs are in it for the power. Most people want money to be free of that power.
I'd also start my own Epicurean compound with most of my friends. We'd indulge our stupid ideas, like white nationalism, but mostly would just be free to enjoy each other's company without impositions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:35PM
Just imagine every job is like contributing to an open source project. Suck maintainer dick to get your contribution accepted or it will rot in your personal fork where no one will ever see or use it. Otherwise maintain your own fork and spam the shit out of the search engines or your fork will rot and no one will ever see or use it. Deal with lazy fuckers who contribute nothing except bug reports telling you to add features for them or to demand you port your project to platforms you never use. Hell just imagine every job is like working on Linux. You either have Linus reaming your ass or you have Sarah Sharp trying to fire Linus for being a colossal fucking asshole. Either way you work with assholes. Basic income is not going to make assholes more pleasant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:44PM
Small difference is most businesses are out to make money. Hard to do that if Bob is causing high turnover.
And no, I'm already almost at the independently wealthy point, and my employers know it, so I don't even catch 1/10 of the shit other people do.
Maybe the problem is the organization of open source projects? I mean most socialist countries become shitholes. Hard not to imagine most things that emulate that end up the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:56PM
And no, I'm already almost at the independently wealthy point, and my employers know it, so I don't even catch 1/10 of the shit other people do.
You mean your employers aren't itching to fire you juuuust before you become independently wealthy, to screw you over and make you beg? How fucking lucky are you!
Maybe the problem is the organization of open source projects? I mean most socialist countries become shitholes. Hard not to imagine most things that emulate that end up the same.
The organization of open source projects is anybody can quit at any time, the most stubborn asshole always wins, and the key to advancement is to become the biggest asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:05PM
The organization of open source projects is anybody can quit at any time
Or fork the project. Or start another project. Or possibly the problem isn't the other people...
In any case, that's different than coding at EA and having to make rent.
the most stubborn asshole always wins, and the key to advancement is to become the biggest asshole.
See the Soviet Union.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:00PM
You mean your employers aren't itching to fire you juuuust before you become independently wealthy, to screw you over and make you beg? How fucking lucky are you!
Oddly enough, people aren't colossally stupid just because you have infantile stereotypes.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:26PM
> Hard to do that if Bob is causing high turnover
Hey! It's not my fault if those guys can't handle perspective and context.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:59PM
Not to mention I enjoy making furniture.
I think the problem is not so much in the obviously constructive jobs. There are just some other jobs, where it is probably more difficult to find some intrinsic satisfaction, like e.g. scrubbing toilets.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:12PM
Actually ran out of cash during a road trip, and ended up scrubbing bathrooms to get enough to make it back home.
While not the most enjoyable thing I've done, there's a certain satisfaction in doing something well. Mike Rowe has made the same observation.
Or all the more reason to pay the more unpleasant jobs well, but then you get into why oil rig workers earn more than gender studies baristas, the whole wage gap thing... Marx's labor theory of value.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:29PM
reason to pay the more unpleasant jobs well
I agree. With basic income for everyone, earning something on top would be an enjoyable thing compared to work hard to hardly make ends meet now. Also I suspect that the less enjoyable jobs usually require less training, so it would be entirely feasible (with basic income available) to have more people just working a few hours a week for some additional luxuries instead of having few people being forced to do it as a full time job.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:41PM
So guys, next time you visit a nice, clean public toilet, tip the toilet lady a dollar more ;)
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:21AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:45AM
What about this one. [telegraph.co.uk] I haven't quite figured out why those guys are paid so much. Now, the guest stars who fly in and have their names in the marquee, they're different because they're pulling in crowds and jacking up the ticket prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:41PM
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.
That's not working, that's "working".
When's the last time you saw a CEO actually working?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:52PM
would you really want this person working for you?
When the shit really started hitting the fan and you needed everyone producing 200%, they could just go "Yah, well i'm the fuck outta here, i don't need this shit... i'm freakin' rich" and have them walk on you.
I'd only want them around if they WERE the kind of person who ALWAYS gave 110%... the kind that you know would have your back.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:36PM
If you're needing everyone working at 200% you're already doomed anyway.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:57PM
When the shit really started hitting the fan and you needed everyone producing 200%, they could just go "Yah, well i'm the fuck outta here, i don't need this shit... i'm freakin' rich" and have them walk on you.
Plan better or hire more people. Because if it gets that bad, you'll be very lucky, if they're the only ones who leave.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:23PM
When the shit really started hitting the fan and you needed everyone producing 200%, they could just go "Yah, well i'm the fuck outta here, i don't need this shit... i'm freakin' rich" and have them walk on you.
I'm really trying to make sense of a case where this 200% thing seems like reasonable rhetoric at all. If an employer talks in those sorts of numbers, I'm probably out the door on day one anyway.
On the one hand, there's the rational perspective where 100% is actually maximum effort or whatever, and all this BS about "giving 110%" all the time is just nonsense. In that case, even expecting 100% for extended periods will lead to rapid burnout and actually decrease productivity due to burnout effects. It's more reasonable maybe to expect 60-70% on a normal basis, pump it up to 80-90% for brief periods of crisis.
But for you, if 200% is something like "maximum," and you're normally expecting only 110%, then you're actually expecting everyone to generally operate at 55% of capacity but acting like it's some great effort. The cognitive dissonance involved in such nonsense is enough to make me want to walk out the door on day one. And it's also just teaching everyone to act badly, "Yeah -- I know I could be doing better, but he only expects X, and I'm already giving a little more than that, so I'm good. Let's not show him what we're anywhere near capable of..."
Now, on the other hand, if 200% is relating to something more quantifiable, like say number of working hours, or actual output of some widget or something, then what you're saying is also unreasonable. Maybe, in a severe crisis, you might expect people to do that for a day or two... ONCE in their career at your company. But if you're having an extended crisis that requires people to work twice as many hours as normal or produce twice as much stuff as baseline productivity for more than that, or if those "crises" occur on a regular basis, then the problem isn't "disloyal" workers who might walk -- the problem clearly is with the management who are creating these crises by refusing to staff properly. Either that, or if extra staff isn't affordable, the business is in danger of going under anyway, so I don't blame someone who wants to walk.
If even a rich person has any pride in their work, they're going to stick around for a short crisis. But my experience is that people who use rhetoric like "giving 110% all the time" and then expect you to "give 200%" are frequently the kind of folks with irrational demands for workers, and that irrationality grows even stronger in moments of crisis. Thankfully I've never worked for such a company, but I have a couple close friends who have. I don't at all blame people who wouldn't want to continue working under such conditions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:55PM
Amen brother. Not even machines can operate at 100% duty all the time, why should we think people can? Where does people like this learn basic math? 100% is ALL there is.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:52PM
In engineering, you de-rate things as much as 50% so that they will work reliably for a long time.
In that case, maybe 200% is the real maximum. However, at that power lever, you will get premature wear and possible failure.
In the case of expecting workers to give 200%, maybe they are expected to exceed safe working loads, or sprint from station to stain fast enough that they risk injury.
As you said, worker are not robots.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Geezer on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:24PM
If some think tank wants to study this further, I hereby volunteer to be rich for the study. Purely for the advancement of science, you understand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:31PM
Through various levels of society people actually expect you to work... even if you have sufficient money to live.
Also, in my country (the Netherlands) there are many tax benefits if you work, you are set back a lot compared to the working population if you have enough money to live and don't work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:49PM
Well, not everyone wants to be worker drones their entire lives, so the arrangement in the Netherlands isn't exactly fair. What kinds as "work" there, exactly? Working on free software projects which benefit everyone? Does non-profit stuff count, and would free software development be counted?
(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
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:17PM
So how did you get this pile of money to make you rich without paying taxes on it in the first place?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:26PM
I nowhere said I own a large pile of money. Also, there are enough ways to make money AND pay taxes, and still keep enough money left to end in a situation where you would like to stop working, but face the relative higher tax due to not working.
Politicians here have said often that "Working should pay off", meaning lower taxes for people who work. This is what I mean society expects you to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:17PM
Work where you get paid a salary (through a company, or as self employed (registered business)), or an income through social security (pension, disabilities, jobless). If you work voluntary for a non-profit, you're expected to have a paid job beside it (sometimes it is possible to combine it with a social security subsidy). But many social security subsidies aren't possible if you are too rich.
Example:
We have here a discount on tax where a percent of the rent on a mortgage can be subtracted from your income. If you have no job, this can't be subtracted (no income), while you might have a lot of wealth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:50PM
you make me rich enough to not need working, and I guarantee I won't do anything but pursue my hobbies afterwards.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:10PM
... but can you guarantee the hobbies are all totally unproductive?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:11PM
His hobby is Warcraft. QED
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:41PM
If the billionaires quit, who will they have to boss around? Do you think the cat sleeping on the sofa next to a retired billionaire gives a shit about the billionaire's sudden marvellous insights into market trends? Do you think his wife is going to jump up when he says he needs a memo dictated for everyone to read immediately? The newspapers and TV will be without his or her presence as well.
It's like when a politician is out of office and runs again a couple of years later because "The country needs me." (No it doesn't.)
See for example all our 70 year old politicians who just can't let go for someone else to run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:43PM
Well, I'd sure like to try! Why don't we just test me and see if I fail or not.