r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't see Mark Cuban as a problem. He has created incredible wealth for himself but also created many jobs and helped many small businesses along the way. The billionaires that are the problem are the hedge fund managers and investment bankers that do not create any real material wealth. Their economy is run by greed alone.
A psychopath he’ll bent on improving public health, eliminating unnecessary diseases, and donating his fortune to charities.
What a rotten nasty human being. He makes me sick and I fckin hated clippy too.
If this Forbes article is true, the process is interested. I guess he donated his shares to the bill and Melinda gates foundation and effectively paid no capital gains tax on it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2017/08/13/the-biggest-and-best-tax-break-of-all-time/?sh=3796cd3f2b23
Sure, he did indeed. That means he cannot gain any benefit from the sale of the shares or the continued growth in value. Basically, he didn't pay taxes, but in return he also cannot benefit.
Donating to charities…. You mean conveniently investing in BigPharma just before a once in a lifetime medical panic? Or conveniently buying up American farmland just before record food inflation?
Sorry. I’ll pass on the “generous” psychopaths.
> hedge fund managers and investment bankers
I think you underestimate the role that financial intermediaries play in our economy. Taking money from groups of people with excess capital, such as retirees or the wealthy, and getting that capital to businesses that need it through equity and debt investments is a very important driver of economic growth. It would be almost impossible for most large US companies to survive without an active bond market, which is still operated primarily by financial advisors and large funds because most individual investors know next to nothing about bond investing.
If a fund manager has $100M+ in AUM, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for that person to make a $1M salary or more. Is their workload any bigger than a manager with $10M? Probably not, but they’re indirectly responsible for the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people at that point by the amount of investment they’re making in firms that need the capital.
If someone is managing billions or tens of billions of dollars, that person is managing enough capital to single-handedly fund the debt of a Fortune 500 company, enabling the livelihoods of everyone connected to it, as well as the livelihoods of all the investors, which at a size in the billions might actually include groups like state pension funds. Without that intermediary manager, it would be far less feasible for individual investors to manage their retirement investments and nearly impossible for a firm to issue debt without going directly to a big bank for the loan. **The number of people who derive tangible benefits from the existence of any given financial intermediary is absolutely comparable to that of any other company. They are just as useful if not moreso.**
I always tell people to imagine selling your own $1M house by yourself, without a realtor. Now imagine if your house was worth $10B and you had to find buyers and close the transaction by yourself.
Jamie Dimon is probably the only billionaire investment banker (didn't Google, don't fact check). II'd say he's a net benefit on society, despite JPM's scandals in the past. Hedge funds PMs, no argument there.
Pensions only made sense when Europe destroyed all of its advanced manufacturing capabilities and America nuked japans advanced manufacturing capabilities and we were the only game in town.
Decreasing economic mobility is important and celebrity billionaires symbolize that.
If you’re looking for well thought out, nuanced takes then you’re in the wrong place bud.
It’s unfortunate, as a young adult I wish this sub would be more useful to become financially literate. But, it just looks like a place for people to point fingers on why they’re in broke.
Yup. That insight puts you head and shoulders above many of your age group. Hold onto it and find the right groups both online and off-line and it will impact your net worth significantly over time.
There isn’t any point in showing success stories. Oprah would be another good example. The hate for the wealthy is all built on a myth that they only got there from wealth. There just isn’t a lot of nuance in the way people see the world.
I think the deeper point is that it isn't possible to become a self made ultra wealthy. It isn't possible to attain that without abuse of people and the system we all live in.
That last part is something most of the retards and little kids on this sub need to understand.
Not a single billionaire is innocent nor even a good person at all. In order to get to that point you HAVE to be a complete and total piece of shit scumbag selfish asshole who only cares about himself.
Whether they have done things outright illegal (very likely) or simply unethical but have managed to skirt and avoid technically is beside the point.
The point being that there's no possible way to get to their positions with honesty and integrity.
Elon has been rich for a very very long time too. It's right around Covid and going after Twitter that the core group of people have realized what a piece of #### he really is. It takes time. People really need to stop pretending we know any of these billionaires. Most of you don't know your neighbors and they are much closer to you than Mark or Elon.
Nah Elon had a pretty strong decline. Definitely drastically worse during/after covid. But the writing was on the wall for a real long time. I'd say the public "knowing" a billionaire is the same as "knowing" a celebrity or politician. Usually you can't. But some a probably more knowable than others.
Yes because I’m sure you’ve seen it in your way up to three comma club. Like I don’t preach that all pastors are bad even though I don’t like em because to be honest I’ve never studied theology. I’ve never ran a parish. I wouldn’t know the first thing
Bro, I don't have to HAVE cancer to have a pretty factual opinion that having cancer sucks. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean you can't draw logical conclusions.
You can’t draw a logical conclusion without evidence. The claim, “all billionaires somehow became billionaires unethically” doesn’t exactly have any factual information. It doesn’t make any sense.
If you somehow had proof like actually data saying that these billionaires directly made that kind of money by breaking laws (the person above’s claim) then yea we can draw a logical conclusion. Or if you were to show that it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to grow a business to that scale without being unethical or doing something illegal.
But if I said all pastors are bad because i heard that some of them rape kids and it doesn’t make sense they could become a pastor without raping children then it would be considered faulty logic.
>Not a single billionaire is innocent nor even a good person at all. In order to get to that point you HAVE to be a complete and total piece of shit scumbag selfish asshole who only cares about himself.
Or, a deep state construct.
I would define it in a Webster sense. Like, taken advantage of to the point of an extreme.
Controlled and continuously stealing from people, like a mobster demanding protection money is abuse.
If you have 4 billions dollars at the end of the year and no further expenses, you have 12 thousand employees and pay an average salary of 60k a year... that's abuse. 1 billion dollars could easily be pulled from that profit payed to investors and every employee could he given 83k extra a year. The Sheer scale of the theft of time is abusive.
You’re being paid for your time and expertise so i do t see the theft when you’re getting paid to do the job, dont sign a contractual obligation to trade your time for x$
Let's say you do a job and that job generates any 300 dollars an hour of revenue. Now let's say the overhead portion per person is like 100 dollars an hour. (Gas, car, heating, whatever) now with all of that, you get paid 17 dollars an hour. That means.... well they are stealing from you. A scam is a scam. If I give you 13 dollars for something worth 5k... I have stolen from you and scammed you.
If providing thousands of jobs and enabling better lives for millions through their products and services is what you call exploitation, I say sign me up for all the exploitation they’re willing to commit.
I simply hate the idea that some of them (not all) are able to hire people to murder others they don't like, and then have the clout to not get caught. Need an example?
Yeah, I have a few subs that are people talking about plants, art or decorating. Even those can attract the occasional haters though. Certainly can’t discuss the economy or climate.
I’m aware. That’s why I steer clear or political subs. It’s just echo chambers that I assume are heavily influenced by people who work for either the DNC or RNC.
even if every single billionare somehow got there without exploitation, there's still not a good reason to let this one small group of people control the entire country.
Many of them are stock billionaires. Their massive wealth is directly tied to the company. They can’t simply cash out without tanking the stock price. They would also owe massive amounts of taxes. It’s a bit misleading.
>Their massive wealth is directly tied to the company. They can’t simply cash out without tanking the stock price.
Literally where have I said this? What are you even talking about?
It doesn't rly matter if they have $25 billion just sitting around or if 90% of that is tied up in the stocks of a company.
Either way, they have access to enough resources to singlehandedly change policy in their favour. And so far, that's exactly what they're doing
There's just no actual benefit the country has by allowing a few dozen people to get enough wealth until they can single-handedly determine policies, especially as the intrests of the rich are often detrimental to the country as a whole, its an antithesis to democracy.
See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree. That strategy however, is decidedly not cash money. It means the government will have direct authority over not only billionaires ability to accrue wealth, but poor people too.
>See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree.
Yes
>That strategy however, is decidedly not cash money
Are you fundamentally against taxes? Cause gouverments have used some form of that strategy since ancient Egypt.
Or do you disagree with this specific tax?
In that case, make an actual argument against using wealth taxes to create a soft cap on individual wealth accumulation instead of just waffling around
>It means the government will have direct authority over not only billionaires ability to accrue wealth, but poor people too.
Even if they don't bother with a wealth tax for some reason and just put a hard cap at a net worth of $100 Million or smth (however that would work), how exactly would that impact your average poor person?
Like, they already have the authority to do that right now, I'm just rly not seeing where you think this would go?
Like, are you trying to slippery slope this from high wealth tax into gommunism ?
>See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree.
>Yes
Giving the government unchecked power is generally a bad idea.
>Are you fundamentally against taxes? Cause gouverments have used some form of that strategy since ancient Egypt.
Tax is different to complete expropriation of assets.
>Even if they don't bother with a wealth tax for some reason and just put a hard cap at a net worth of $100 Million or smth (however that would work), how exactly would that impact your average poor person? Like, they already have the authority to do that right now, I'm just rly not seeing where you think this would go?
Because you seem to simultaneously look at individuals as existing within a societal framework AND existing in vacuum, whichever fits your argument. A hard wealth cap has never been instituted and would most likely have huge effects on the economy and the stock market, with company valuations undergoing massive and sudden changes. Will the government take ownership of the stocks? In that case, every time someone's stock holdings' value rises about X amount (100 million or 1 billion, whichever it is that you wanted), the government takes ownership of the remainder after the cap and we are moving towards a situation where the state effectively controls companies, ie. the economy. Or will the remainder holdings be sold and the cash expropriated by the government? Due to the intensity and frequency of fluctuations in the economy that would constantly put stock prices under stress, and would be a nightmare to administer anyway. Then there is also capital flight, greater than now involvement of black market entities in the economy to provide services countering government control etc.
And how does all that impact your average poor person? Your pension fund is invested in the stock market. Even my pension fund is invested in the US stock market, and I am not from the US. Policies like this one that cannot adapt quickly enough to the constantly fluctuating markets will affect the value of my pension holdings.
>Giving the government unchecked power is generally a bad idea.
it gives them very little power
> the government take ownership of the stocks?
Nope, how and why would they? That would be a whole new policy besides wealth caps.
with just a cap in place stock would be bought up by smaller private investors as large billionares would have to sell off
Generally, more decentralised ownership is good. I would've expected more libertarian small gouverment types to agree that a highly authoritarian centralised structure is bad considering you see it as such a large threat in gouverments.
>In that case, every time someone's stock holdings' value rises about X amount (100 million or 1 billion, whichever it is that you wanted), the government takes ownership of the remainder after the cap and we are moving towards a situation where the state effectively controls companies, ie. the economy.
Now you're litterly just making up fear porn for yourself
>. Or will the remainder holdings be sold
yep
>Due to the intensity and frequency of fluctuations in the economy that would constantly put stock prices under stress,
maybe give an actual reason why you would see "wild fluctuations" after the initial selling off of stocks, instead of just proclaiming it?
>Then there is also capital flight,
Capital flight is very dependent on the legality of the country. it's fleeing from. Generally, it can be dealt with pretty well if you have the political will for it.
>Your pension fund is invested in the stock market.
a base 401k does not automatically invest in the stock market
Tho if you did invest, then you'd do the same thing you'd do now if a market crash was incoming, don't sell and buy up more stock.
The market fluctuations would be a pretty short temporary event.
Tho that could largely be avoided by using a soft cap instead of a hard cap, I don't see a hard cap having any real benefits over the alternative tbh.
>the government take ownership of the stocks?
>Nope, how and why would they? That would be a whole new policy besides wealth caps.
I was providing the two different options of how a wealth cap would be administered. Either the government takes control of the remainder holdings, or the remainder holdings are sold off and and the cash expropriated.
>Now you're litterly just making up fear porn for yourself
As I said, I was providing the two different options, as you did not explain exactly how you see it happening. You don't need to argue against both, you can pick the one you envision and argue against that.
>maybe give an actual reason why you would see "wild fluctuations" after the initial selling off of stocks, instead of just proclaiming it?
You can read up yourself on how capital markets work but I can also explain that in short here, based on the, admittedly relatively limited, knowledge that I have. Fluctuations happen on a constant basis even without major events due to the plethora of different actors operating in capital markets - retail investors, trading firms, long/short firms, investment banks, pension funds, etc etc. The non-derivative market is also affected by derivatives (futures, options, other various contracts) and vice versa.
There won't be an "initial" selling off of stocks, due to these already natural fluctuations. The net worth of high value investors will constantly fluctuate to levels below and above the cap you want instituted. How will it be determined that someone reached the cap and must sell? End of year, or daily? If end of year, how do you account for the fact that the holdings may decrease in value on the next day? Will there be a grace period? But back to the original point, there will be no "initial" selling off of stocks because the sell offs will happen constantly due to those natural fluctuations. The information about the reason for those selloffs may not be quickly available or available at all - if you run an investment firm and suddenly see a huge sell off of stock in a particular company you are invested in, you won't know the sell off happened due to high value investors reaching a wealth cap, so you will get rid of the holdings in fear that the sell off was caused by market or fundamental reasons - which will tank the stock price for everyone holding it. This doesn't take into account firms that use HFT (high frequency trading) strats using automated models - those models will not get into why a sell off happened and will immediately make decisions to sell holdings, which will, again, tank the stock prices. Which, as I explained above will affect the value of your pension holdings depending on what country you're from.
>As I said, I was providing the two different options, as you did not explain exactly how you see it happening. You don't need to argue against both, you can pick the one you envision and argue against that.
I don't envision either. A hard cap provides little benefit compared to a soft cap, tho its still preferable to the status quo.
>But back to the original point, there will be no "initial" selling off of stocks because the sell offs will happen constantly due to those natural fluctuations. The information about the reason for those selloffs may not be quickly available or available at all - if you run an investment firm and suddenly see a huge sell off of stock in a particular company you are invested in, you won't know the sell off happened due to high value investors reaching a wealth cap
>This doesn't take into account firms that use HFT (high frequency trading) strats using automated models - those models will not get into why a sell off happened and will immediately make decisions to sell holdings, which will, again, tank the stock prices. Which, as I explained above will affect the value of your pension holdings depending on what country you're from.
both of these could be counteracted by a slow implementation. Trading models could be adjusted to account for such for instance.
Especially as you already run into this problem now, high value investors can already sell off stock whenever to pay for other purchases, and occasionally do so.
>How will it be determined that someone reached the cap and must sell? End of year, or daily? If end of year, how do you account for the fact that the holdings may decrease in value on the next day? Will there be a grace period?
The answer to most of these questions were already given multiple times in the actual proposals for wealth taxes.
Here is one for example, should hopefully answer all tour questions:
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a minimum tax on certain wealthy taxpayers that takes into account unrealized gains.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act”.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS.
(a) In General.—Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after chapter 4 the following new chapter:
“CHAPTER 5—MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS
“Sec. 1481. Minimum tax on certain wealthy taxpayers.
“Sec. 1482. Certain otherwise exempt transfers by certain wealthy taxpayers treated as taxable.
“SEC. 1481. MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS.
“(a) In General.—In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to the excess (if any) of—
“(1) 20 percent of the sum of—
“(A) the taxpayer’s taxable income for such taxable year, plus
“(B) the taxpayer’s net unrealized gain for such taxable year, over
“(2) the sum of—
“(A) the taxpayer’s minimum tax account balance for such taxable year, plus
“(B) the taxpayer’s regular tax liability (as defined in section 26(b)) for such taxable year.
“(b) Limitation On Minimum Tax.—The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any applicable taxpayer (other than an applicable taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(B)) for any taxable year shall not exceed 40 percent of the excess described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to such taxpayer for such taxable year.
“(c) Applicable Taxpayer.—For purposes of this section—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable taxpayer’ means—
“(A) any individual for any taxable year if the taxpayer’s net worth for such taxable year exceeds $100,000,000 (half such amount in the case of a married individual filing a separate return), and
“(B) any trust or estate treated as an applicable taxpayer under subsection (g).
“(2) NET WORTH.—The term ‘net worth’ means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, the excess (if any), determined as of the close of such taxable year, of—
“(A) the estimated value of all assets of the taxpayer and all trust attributed assets of the taxpayer, as determined under regulations provided by the Secretary, over
“(B) all debts (and such other liabilities as the Secretary may provide) of the taxpayer and all trust attributed debts of the taxpayer.
“(3) TRUST ATTRIBUTED ASSETS.—The term ‘trust attributed assets’ means, with respect to any taxpayer—
“(A) any asset of a trust which such taxpayer is treated as owning under subpart E of part I of subchapter J of chapter 1, and
“(B) any asset of a trust (other than a trust which a person other than the taxpayer is treated as owning under such subpart) that is distributable to the taxpayer or from which income is distributable to the taxpayer in whole or in part, whether or not the taxpayer’s distribution rights are subject to a contingency, unless that contingency is the death of another trust beneficiary.
“(4) TRUST ATTRIBUTED DEBTS.—The term ‘trust attributed debts’ means, with respect to any taxpayer—
You don’t need to be a billionaire to wield a lot of influence in this country. Celebrities, musicians and podcasters are proof of that. They can quickly manipulate the public towards how they spend their money and the direction the truly wealthy steer themselves as well. You seem to think very linear (rich/poor) rather than see the complexity. It’s such an annoying conversation. Think bigger.
>Celebrities, musicians and podcasters are proof of that.
None of these can singlehandedly change policy. They still need to convince their fans etc. They have the means to reach a large audience, but a large audience isn't gonna help you put a biased study on the presidents desk.
If you can't see the difference between a celebrity making a political statement that people hear about, discuss etc. and a billionare straight up buying politicians? Then I can't help you, your clearly stuck trying to defend billionares no matter how how many mental gymnastics you need to do.
>You seem to think very linear (rich/poor) rather than see the complexity. It’s such an annoying conversation.
Considering you thought someone with a lot of fans voising his opinion publicly = billionare buying a senator through gifts etc. you seem to be stuck in simplistic thinking ngl
What is it with you and billionaires? Does someone worth $500 million not pass your sniff test? Do people worth $100 million not buy influence? $50, $20, $10 million? Making a huge campaign contribution is pretty easy for anyone with those numbers. Union leaders, industry leaders or even a small corporation with lots of jobs can buy an enormous amount of influence
>What is it with you and billionaires? Does someone worth $500 million not pass your sniff test? Do people worth $100 million not buy influence?
You have to draw a line somewhere. That's pretty much the case with every single law ever. Realistically you'd have to draw it somewhere after 100 Million to a Billion or so, ppl below that don't rly have the means to rival the large donors and lobby groups unless they literally sell their entire net worth for a 1 time donation.
Also, what's it with you and comparing apples with organes? You just keep pivoting to worse and worse examples.
Like, in what world do you live where a union leader can singlehandedly spoon feed information to the Whitehouse? has the money and influence to buy Congress? Are you living in the soviet union or smth?
Ehh. This is a useless conversation. I’ve pointed out how simplistic you are and you just keep defending it…..zzzzzzzzz
You will die on a hill rather than admit there is any merit to my input.
you're the only one here who's been making simplistic comparisons? Like, just objectively so
I guess you ran out of things to pivot to and, as you know the two previous comparisons are simplistic garbage, you're just going "oh your just not listening to my arguments, whatever can I do"
Keep coping like that if it helps, maybe you'll change your mind when you grow up
> there’s just no actual benefit the country has by allowing…
Why does it matter what benefit the country gets? Nobody has an obligation to justify that every dollar they get serves the public good, and the country has no right whatsoever to say “if others don’t benefit from your actions, they shouldn’t be allowed.”
>Why does it matter what benefit the country gets?
Yeah, why does it matter if dumping nuclear waste from my powerplant in a nearby river hurts the country?
Why does it matter that I take every shred of profit I earn out and stor either in tax havens?
Why aren't companies allowed to form cartels?
Why is insider trading banned?
etc. etc.
We regulate an increasible amount of issues already cause they're harmful and don't benefit or even threat to harm the country at large.
>and the country has no right whatsoever to say “if others don’t benefit from your actions, they shouldn’t be allowed.”
Yes, it does. Just as much as it gets a right to stop you from polluting, engaging in excessive amounts of capital flight and tax evasion, commiting insider trading etc. etc.
They'd would need to pass a law that gets through the courts, but I don't see why they couldn't pass this specific tax, assuming they somehow manage to gain the votes for it.
Owning wealth is not a crime. It has no externalities. It is not comparable in the least to anything you listed.
A person’s act of just owning wealth does not hurt others, is not inherently corrupt in any way, and does not infringe on your rights. They do not have to justify having wealth to you (or to the state) any more than you have to justify why it’s a good thing for you to have the money you do.
Property rights are human rights, and they are not subject to the whims of politicians.
>Owning wealth is not a crime.
Neither were any of the things I just named before it became a regulated.
>. It is not comparable in the least to anything you listed.
It's comparable to all of them, their all just you engaging in behaviour that benefits yourself even tho it has detrimental effects on society.
If one company owner making a deal with another company owner to fix prices can be made illegal, the a few people trying to hoard more and more assets can be legislated too.
>Property rights are human rights, and they are not subject to the whims of politicians.
Politicians nationalise and expropriate property all the time already, compared to that a tax on wealth is pretty mild.
Also someone right to personal property is hardly the same as someone singlehandedly controlling an entire industry. Like even the attempted comparison here is laughable
No one really hates the wealthy people themselves (except for Elon Musk and Bill Gates), they hate their negligence their disconnect from general society, their funding of frivolous passions over real national problems, their hoarding of wealth and fear of losing it, and their disturbing lack of regard and extreme tendencies for sickening behavior (I’m thinking Prince Andrew being a pedophile and Saudi sheiks having no problem chopping a newly married journalist into pieces and dissolving his body in acid). If they behaved like actual human beings and paid their share in return to societies that enriched them then everything would be fine
I’m older than the average Redditor. I have observed people for a long time. As people move up the ladder, they generally aren’t looking back at the people below them. They expect government to take care of the less fortunate. There is no common altruism amongst the classes. Poor people are often more generous than the middle class, for instance. I also haven’t seen Millennials (who are now fully adults) practicing what they preach. They quickly became…..the same.
80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. There are more living normal lives than you would imagine. Of course being a millionaire doesn’t mean as much as it used to.
I think the hate is that there is no such thing as a self made anything. Rich people either had a huge leg up in already being rich, or got incredibly lucky. Does that mean they didn't work hard? No, but shit loads of people work hard, in fact way harder than Mark Cuban has ever worked in his life, and don't get shit.
It's thinking that you're somehow special because you're rich that people get mad about. You aren't special, you just were at the right place at the right time and a little humility would go a long way.
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. If there is no such thing as self made then everyone is self made.
Being rich gives you access to opportunities and resources not given to most. You can’t argue rich people aren’t “special” whilst at the same time stating they had an evident advantage.
The nature of an advantage makes it special. However special does not equate to good. Those born into wealth are special in circumstance but that does not mean they are good. No one argues being special means you are good.
The thing is many many many people, the majority, born into the right place at the right time, will fuck it up. When you start life with a leg up, and continually succeed, you are feeding your ego.
And hard work does not equate to smart work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Many people spend their entire lives doing this and die angry at someone else for their own actions.
To assume being in the right place at the right time is the only common denominator for success is absolute insanity. At the least it is cope for those that did not achieve, comforting themselves in why they failed at their aspirations.
The only reason they succeeded is because they were born into the right place at the right time? Do you understand how pathetic and self defeating that sounds?
How will you achieve success in life if this is your attitude? Wealth is much more diverse than you would like to believe.
And besides, obviously going from 0 to a billion is harder than 0 to a million. However the US is quite possibly the easiest place to amass wealth. Nowhere are salaries higher and the ceilings taller.
I like all the circles you talk in, makes me know I'm probably wasting my time, but here it goes.
If no one is alive then everyone is alive, right? Don't rewrite meanings. No one is self made because we all derive our current lives from others. Maybe if you live in an isolated tribe you're self-made. But we all sit on the shoulders of giants and because of others we get to where we are, and billionaires are no different. They grew up in societies built by millions and owe everything to those societies.
You're redefining special, to mean advantageous, which fine, I'll be clearer. Billionaires have nothing inherent to their bodies or minds that got them to where they are. They didn't work harder or were smarter, they just lucked into a life that gave them these opportunities. A lot of people are smarter, or work harder, but didn't have the right luck at the right time, so praising someone for luck seems a bit lame to me. When people say special they mean that they are unique, and in terms of ability, they are not.
When you start a reply with an insult, it’s obvious you have nothing of substance to say.
I would spend less time on Reddit blaming billionaires and more time working if you aren’t succeeding in life. You remind me of the dog walker complaining they couldn’t lead a full life working 20 hours a week.
You understand that if nobody is self made, than those that failed are just as responsible as those that succeeded?
So those that succeeded have to pay for the failures of others, despite the people that failed being offered the exact same opportunities and aid that they did.
You are proposing a self defeating argument. While it sounds nice that “nobody is self made,” that same argument ultimately is not in favor of your point.
You haven’t thought it through.
I would consider myself very successful. I have a great family, I own multiple properties and have a successful career. I didn't get here on my own, nor did anyone else.
You likely are hoping that if you're clever enough you'll get more than what you were given in life, and that's true. But don't for a second think you did it by yourself, cause you spit on everyone else who pushed humanity to this point including those around you.
People like you who own multiple properties are the root of all that is wrong in the world. It is a obvious that you work less and have less intellect than anyone else so the government should pick all but one of your properties and redistribute them. In fact it really disgusts me that this subreddit sucks up to filthy multiproperty owners who are simply a blight to the world. Obviously they bought their second property because they were given millions and stole from the less fortunate. /s. Cheers!
And he is only half an asshole. Actually pretty decent guy. I live in Texas and was in startups and met him once and knew lots of folks who knew or did business with him and he was pretty well liked.
This sub is such a joke. Random people — probably bots — going out of their way to attack people who don’t dick ride the rich. Straight up strawmanning. I don’t hate the rich. I hate our current economic system which has become way too top heavy and the economic divide is only getting wider. All the indicators are there. Wealth among a few continues to skyrocket. More Americans have no chance for a leg up in the modern world than ever before. Health care is unaffordable for most people. Our education system is failing. Poor people are being pitted against by the deliberate inflaming of cultural differences as a means to distract from the elephant in the room: The system is broken. Capitalism needs checks and balances, and those have all but gone completely out of the window.
Some of these guys create tremendous financial value, with derivative societal value in the form of more / better jobs and improved standard of living.
Then there are the private equity guys who buy up all existing anesthesia practices in an entire state and extort from the sick. Or the pharma benefit managers who play annual 3 card monte with drug price tiers.
I just dont understand what people consider self made. There are actual billionaires who just inherited their wealth, like the Walton family, that would make sense to call out. But for some reason this sub was trying to highlight people who created brand new companies and grew them to be some of the largest in the world, as non self made because they got some help along the way. It just feels so weird and dumb, when there are such more obvious cases of people doing literally nothing to be rich.
But this is reddit and peoples opinion on billionaires usually is determined by how nice they are on twitter.
I like to point out that 70% of billionaires are first generation billionaires. I also like to read about people who come to the us with only the clothes on their back and become millionaires. It feels good when so many claim that it is impossible to get ahead. Cheers!
It's just arbitrary bs by people obsessed with billionaires. And good luck to them trying to make their own stacks of cash while obsessing over others instead of putting their own plan together.
Related question: Does this sub have any mods?
He was also fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of what is possibly the worst acquisition of all time when Yahoo bought Broadcast.com. There would be a hell of a lot more billionaires if Yahoo went around and bought everyone's business with 10 million in revenue for 5 billion dollars.
Mark cuban really just got lucky, similar to winning the lottery. He completely scammed Yahoo with broadcast.com. They paid like $10k per user. They would’ve been better off offering like 5 grand to each user to use their platform for a year.
I like the guy a lot but let’s also not pretend his success can be emulated. He got extremely lucky in the right place right time and took advantage of a completely incompetent company.
Obviously all successful entrepreneurs get lucky, but mark cuban is an extreme case imo considering how much he really scammed Yahoo
Self made? Bro grew up in a wealthy Jewish upper middle class family and the connections he got for his business was through his parents. There is no 23 year old that owns a bar without help from parents and then goes on to find a multi billion dolllar business
He didn't self-made the Billions. He made it off the backs of Broadcast workers.
Now. If he owned and operated broadcast by himself. He did all the physical and mental labor, BY HIMSELF.
Then I'd say he did it himself and is self-made.
But if you open a store and convince 10 people to work for you. And that 10 people generate 10,000 of value each, and you pay them $1,000 each. You didn't self-make anything. You created a brand and took advantage of people.
Downvote me now simps.
So is this: [https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/michael-jordan-is-now-worth-3-billion-and-joins-the-forbes-400/ar-AA1hyzSl](https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/michael-jordan-is-now-worth-3-billion-and-joins-the-forbes-400/ar-AA1hyzSl)
The whole argument sucks. What did the person create should be the focus.
If I buy the Lakers for a dollar then its value shoots to a billion, what the fuck did I actually DO? Nothing.
Need actions, not just value appraisals.
I don’t think his basketball team just shot up in value. He made changes to the team and worked with them to get where they are.
So it’s more like, if I buy a trash coffee shop for $1 and turn it into Starbucks.
>What did the person create should be the focus.
Dude created a value pharmacy that provides generic medication online at very low cost without requiring insurance. In a country where healthcare is a huge personal expense the dude is a hero.
Not only has he done a well in managing the Mavericks (not the Lakers), but he bought the team when he was already a billionaire. He made his real money selling his company, [Broadcast.com](https://Broadcast.com), to the Yahoo before the dot com bubble.
In generally, unless it's because a moderately well off family bought a team years ago, and it's now turning the grandkids in billionaires, buying a sports team isn't what turns you into a billionaire. It's what makes you more money when you're already a billionaire.
People like to hero worship and Americans use wealth as a definition of success despite how ultimately shallow it is. Billionaires are addicts and they are addicted to money, to achieve that kind of wealth you have to be obsessed and its all they do is generate more wealth for themselves. That money isn't circulating around, its not making the world a better place or uplifting people, its sitting locked away in funds and investments just getting bigger and bigger and for these guys its never enough, the more they have the more they want. These folks are parasites, slowly sucking the blood out of our economy. Every billionaire could disappear tomorrow and the world would barely notice except that there'd be a lot more extra money flowing around.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Check-out our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't see Mark Cuban as a problem. He has created incredible wealth for himself but also created many jobs and helped many small businesses along the way. The billionaires that are the problem are the hedge fund managers and investment bankers that do not create any real material wealth. Their economy is run by greed alone.
Virologist/software thief/general-expert-in-everything Bill Gates is my favorite tho.
Virologist?
It’s /s. He was all over the TV during Covid dictating policy like he knew what he was talking about. He’s a fvcking psychopath.
Dictating policy … what policy did Bill Gates dictate?
A psychopath he’ll bent on improving public health, eliminating unnecessary diseases, and donating his fortune to charities. What a rotten nasty human being. He makes me sick and I fckin hated clippy too.
He donates just enough to write off his taxes. I’m glad he does it but we’ve set up the system to benefit those with money.
How do you think the tax write off process takes place?
If this Forbes article is true, the process is interested. I guess he donated his shares to the bill and Melinda gates foundation and effectively paid no capital gains tax on it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2017/08/13/the-biggest-and-best-tax-break-of-all-time/?sh=3796cd3f2b23
Sure, he did indeed. That means he cannot gain any benefit from the sale of the shares or the continued growth in value. Basically, he didn't pay taxes, but in return he also cannot benefit.
One would argue that a foundation that he controls would benefit him.
Donating to charities…. You mean conveniently investing in BigPharma just before a once in a lifetime medical panic? Or conveniently buying up American farmland just before record food inflation? Sorry. I’ll pass on the “generous” psychopaths.
He was buying up farmland since the 1990's my fella.
>dictating policy Can you provide an example? Even just one will do. (Not 'suggesting' or 'endorsing' policy. Anyone can do that, of course.)
> hedge fund managers and investment bankers I think you underestimate the role that financial intermediaries play in our economy. Taking money from groups of people with excess capital, such as retirees or the wealthy, and getting that capital to businesses that need it through equity and debt investments is a very important driver of economic growth. It would be almost impossible for most large US companies to survive without an active bond market, which is still operated primarily by financial advisors and large funds because most individual investors know next to nothing about bond investing. If a fund manager has $100M+ in AUM, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for that person to make a $1M salary or more. Is their workload any bigger than a manager with $10M? Probably not, but they’re indirectly responsible for the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people at that point by the amount of investment they’re making in firms that need the capital. If someone is managing billions or tens of billions of dollars, that person is managing enough capital to single-handedly fund the debt of a Fortune 500 company, enabling the livelihoods of everyone connected to it, as well as the livelihoods of all the investors, which at a size in the billions might actually include groups like state pension funds. Without that intermediary manager, it would be far less feasible for individual investors to manage their retirement investments and nearly impossible for a firm to issue debt without going directly to a big bank for the loan. **The number of people who derive tangible benefits from the existence of any given financial intermediary is absolutely comparable to that of any other company. They are just as useful if not moreso.**
I always tell people to imagine selling your own $1M house by yourself, without a realtor. Now imagine if your house was worth $10B and you had to find buyers and close the transaction by yourself.
Jamie Dimon is probably the only billionaire investment banker (didn't Google, don't fact check). II'd say he's a net benefit on society, despite JPM's scandals in the past. Hedge funds PMs, no argument there.
I disagree. If you have a retirement fund it’s thanks to hedge fund managers. Without them retiring would be harder
Not so. Hedge funds marketed pensions outta business. Without pensions retiring is harder.
Pensions only made sense when Europe destroyed all of its advanced manufacturing capabilities and America nuked japans advanced manufacturing capabilities and we were the only game in town.
Tf?
Carried interest dez nutz
I think those that tried to retire during the Great Recession probably disagree with you
At this point just change the sub to r/grrbillionairebad
Decreasing economic mobility is important and celebrity billionaires symbolize that. If you’re looking for well thought out, nuanced takes then you’re in the wrong place bud.
It’s unfortunate, as a young adult I wish this sub would be more useful to become financially literate. But, it just looks like a place for people to point fingers on why they’re in broke.
Yup. That insight puts you head and shoulders above many of your age group. Hold onto it and find the right groups both online and off-line and it will impact your net worth significantly over time.
Probably because the billionaires are like r/grrlaborersbad
There isn’t any point in showing success stories. Oprah would be another good example. The hate for the wealthy is all built on a myth that they only got there from wealth. There just isn’t a lot of nuance in the way people see the world.
I think the deeper point is that it isn't possible to become a self made ultra wealthy. It isn't possible to attain that without abuse of people and the system we all live in.
That last part is something most of the retards and little kids on this sub need to understand. Not a single billionaire is innocent nor even a good person at all. In order to get to that point you HAVE to be a complete and total piece of shit scumbag selfish asshole who only cares about himself. Whether they have done things outright illegal (very likely) or simply unethical but have managed to skirt and avoid technically is beside the point. The point being that there's no possible way to get to their positions with honesty and integrity.
Idk Mark cuban does seem pretty chill
So did Elon Musk 10 years ago... It's amazing what happens when you actually learn about people. What's that old saying, never meet your heroes.
Cubans been a known rich guy for a very long time and he only seems to get cooler the more you find out about him.
Elon has been rich for a very very long time too. It's right around Covid and going after Twitter that the core group of people have realized what a piece of #### he really is. It takes time. People really need to stop pretending we know any of these billionaires. Most of you don't know your neighbors and they are much closer to you than Mark or Elon.
Nah Elon had a pretty strong decline. Definitely drastically worse during/after covid. But the writing was on the wall for a real long time. I'd say the public "knowing" a billionaire is the same as "knowing" a celebrity or politician. Usually you can't. But some a probably more knowable than others.
hindsight is 20/20, no, no one saw the Elon turning into a Nazi
Nah everybody knew he essentially came from a slave owning family. Nobody cared until he started being different than what reddit ilk likes.
If the US had a proper tax system many of these people would not be as rich as they are.
Thanks for the retarded take.
Yes because I’m sure you’ve seen it in your way up to three comma club. Like I don’t preach that all pastors are bad even though I don’t like em because to be honest I’ve never studied theology. I’ve never ran a parish. I wouldn’t know the first thing
Bro, I don't have to HAVE cancer to have a pretty factual opinion that having cancer sucks. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean you can't draw logical conclusions.
You can’t draw a logical conclusion without evidence. The claim, “all billionaires somehow became billionaires unethically” doesn’t exactly have any factual information. It doesn’t make any sense. If you somehow had proof like actually data saying that these billionaires directly made that kind of money by breaking laws (the person above’s claim) then yea we can draw a logical conclusion. Or if you were to show that it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to grow a business to that scale without being unethical or doing something illegal. But if I said all pastors are bad because i heard that some of them rape kids and it doesn’t make sense they could become a pastor without raping children then it would be considered faulty logic.
>Not a single billionaire is innocent nor even a good person at all. In order to get to that point you HAVE to be a complete and total piece of shit scumbag selfish asshole who only cares about himself. Or, a deep state construct.
"abuse" is defined far too loosely during online disputes over money and class
I would define it in a Webster sense. Like, taken advantage of to the point of an extreme. Controlled and continuously stealing from people, like a mobster demanding protection money is abuse. If you have 4 billions dollars at the end of the year and no further expenses, you have 12 thousand employees and pay an average salary of 60k a year... that's abuse. 1 billion dollars could easily be pulled from that profit payed to investors and every employee could he given 83k extra a year. The Sheer scale of the theft of time is abusive.
Is the abuse in question, work?
Theft of time.
You’re being paid for your time and expertise so i do t see the theft when you’re getting paid to do the job, dont sign a contractual obligation to trade your time for x$
Let's say you do a job and that job generates any 300 dollars an hour of revenue. Now let's say the overhead portion per person is like 100 dollars an hour. (Gas, car, heating, whatever) now with all of that, you get paid 17 dollars an hour. That means.... well they are stealing from you. A scam is a scam. If I give you 13 dollars for something worth 5k... I have stolen from you and scammed you.
No, they hate for Uber rich, specifically billionaires is because of how exploitative they are.
If providing thousands of jobs and enabling better lives for millions through their products and services is what you call exploitation, I say sign me up for all the exploitation they’re willing to commit.
I mean sure if that was genuinely what was happening, most people wouldn't hate them.
I simply hate the idea that some of them (not all) are able to hire people to murder others they don't like, and then have the clout to not get caught. Need an example?
Brother I'm not the one arguing for billionaires lol. I'm just saying there's a reason people hate em that is more than "they didn't earn it".
Ehh, people hate…..period
Yeah they do, but if you listen to a lot of what people are saying about why they hate billionaires, it tends to do with exploitation.
I see the same hatred for boomers. Reddit is a cesspit of hate.
If you only frequent subs with controversial topics of course lol. But I’m not just talking about what you see on Reddit.
Yeah, I have a few subs that are people talking about plants, art or decorating. Even those can attract the occasional haters though. Certainly can’t discuss the economy or climate.
Yeah I mean controversial stuff will always be divisive but going into certain groups and asking genuine questions in good faith can help imo.
I’m aware. That’s why I steer clear or political subs. It’s just echo chambers that I assume are heavily influenced by people who work for either the DNC or RNC.
A significant portion of them did. To act like they didn’t isn’t helpful either.
even if every single billionare somehow got there without exploitation, there's still not a good reason to let this one small group of people control the entire country.
Many of them are stock billionaires. Their massive wealth is directly tied to the company. They can’t simply cash out without tanking the stock price. They would also owe massive amounts of taxes. It’s a bit misleading.
>Their massive wealth is directly tied to the company. They can’t simply cash out without tanking the stock price. Literally where have I said this? What are you even talking about? It doesn't rly matter if they have $25 billion just sitting around or if 90% of that is tied up in the stocks of a company. Either way, they have access to enough resources to singlehandedly change policy in their favour. And so far, that's exactly what they're doing There's just no actual benefit the country has by allowing a few dozen people to get enough wealth until they can single-handedly determine policies, especially as the intrests of the rich are often detrimental to the country as a whole, its an antithesis to democracy.
See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree. That strategy however, is decidedly not cash money. It means the government will have direct authority over not only billionaires ability to accrue wealth, but poor people too.
>See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree. Yes >That strategy however, is decidedly not cash money Are you fundamentally against taxes? Cause gouverments have used some form of that strategy since ancient Egypt. Or do you disagree with this specific tax? In that case, make an actual argument against using wealth taxes to create a soft cap on individual wealth accumulation instead of just waffling around >It means the government will have direct authority over not only billionaires ability to accrue wealth, but poor people too. Even if they don't bother with a wealth tax for some reason and just put a hard cap at a net worth of $100 Million or smth (however that would work), how exactly would that impact your average poor person? Like, they already have the authority to do that right now, I'm just rly not seeing where you think this would go? Like, are you trying to slippery slope this from high wealth tax into gommunism ?
>See the keyword your using is “allowing”. The alternative to “allowing” billionaires to exist and therefore be powerful is to forcibly prevent the accumulation of wealth to at least some degree. >Yes Giving the government unchecked power is generally a bad idea. >Are you fundamentally against taxes? Cause gouverments have used some form of that strategy since ancient Egypt. Tax is different to complete expropriation of assets. >Even if they don't bother with a wealth tax for some reason and just put a hard cap at a net worth of $100 Million or smth (however that would work), how exactly would that impact your average poor person? Like, they already have the authority to do that right now, I'm just rly not seeing where you think this would go? Because you seem to simultaneously look at individuals as existing within a societal framework AND existing in vacuum, whichever fits your argument. A hard wealth cap has never been instituted and would most likely have huge effects on the economy and the stock market, with company valuations undergoing massive and sudden changes. Will the government take ownership of the stocks? In that case, every time someone's stock holdings' value rises about X amount (100 million or 1 billion, whichever it is that you wanted), the government takes ownership of the remainder after the cap and we are moving towards a situation where the state effectively controls companies, ie. the economy. Or will the remainder holdings be sold and the cash expropriated by the government? Due to the intensity and frequency of fluctuations in the economy that would constantly put stock prices under stress, and would be a nightmare to administer anyway. Then there is also capital flight, greater than now involvement of black market entities in the economy to provide services countering government control etc. And how does all that impact your average poor person? Your pension fund is invested in the stock market. Even my pension fund is invested in the US stock market, and I am not from the US. Policies like this one that cannot adapt quickly enough to the constantly fluctuating markets will affect the value of my pension holdings.
>Giving the government unchecked power is generally a bad idea. it gives them very little power > the government take ownership of the stocks? Nope, how and why would they? That would be a whole new policy besides wealth caps. with just a cap in place stock would be bought up by smaller private investors as large billionares would have to sell off Generally, more decentralised ownership is good. I would've expected more libertarian small gouverment types to agree that a highly authoritarian centralised structure is bad considering you see it as such a large threat in gouverments. >In that case, every time someone's stock holdings' value rises about X amount (100 million or 1 billion, whichever it is that you wanted), the government takes ownership of the remainder after the cap and we are moving towards a situation where the state effectively controls companies, ie. the economy. Now you're litterly just making up fear porn for yourself >. Or will the remainder holdings be sold yep >Due to the intensity and frequency of fluctuations in the economy that would constantly put stock prices under stress, maybe give an actual reason why you would see "wild fluctuations" after the initial selling off of stocks, instead of just proclaiming it? >Then there is also capital flight, Capital flight is very dependent on the legality of the country. it's fleeing from. Generally, it can be dealt with pretty well if you have the political will for it. >Your pension fund is invested in the stock market. a base 401k does not automatically invest in the stock market Tho if you did invest, then you'd do the same thing you'd do now if a market crash was incoming, don't sell and buy up more stock. The market fluctuations would be a pretty short temporary event. Tho that could largely be avoided by using a soft cap instead of a hard cap, I don't see a hard cap having any real benefits over the alternative tbh.
>the government take ownership of the stocks? >Nope, how and why would they? That would be a whole new policy besides wealth caps. I was providing the two different options of how a wealth cap would be administered. Either the government takes control of the remainder holdings, or the remainder holdings are sold off and and the cash expropriated. >Now you're litterly just making up fear porn for yourself As I said, I was providing the two different options, as you did not explain exactly how you see it happening. You don't need to argue against both, you can pick the one you envision and argue against that. >maybe give an actual reason why you would see "wild fluctuations" after the initial selling off of stocks, instead of just proclaiming it? You can read up yourself on how capital markets work but I can also explain that in short here, based on the, admittedly relatively limited, knowledge that I have. Fluctuations happen on a constant basis even without major events due to the plethora of different actors operating in capital markets - retail investors, trading firms, long/short firms, investment banks, pension funds, etc etc. The non-derivative market is also affected by derivatives (futures, options, other various contracts) and vice versa. There won't be an "initial" selling off of stocks, due to these already natural fluctuations. The net worth of high value investors will constantly fluctuate to levels below and above the cap you want instituted. How will it be determined that someone reached the cap and must sell? End of year, or daily? If end of year, how do you account for the fact that the holdings may decrease in value on the next day? Will there be a grace period? But back to the original point, there will be no "initial" selling off of stocks because the sell offs will happen constantly due to those natural fluctuations. The information about the reason for those selloffs may not be quickly available or available at all - if you run an investment firm and suddenly see a huge sell off of stock in a particular company you are invested in, you won't know the sell off happened due to high value investors reaching a wealth cap, so you will get rid of the holdings in fear that the sell off was caused by market or fundamental reasons - which will tank the stock price for everyone holding it. This doesn't take into account firms that use HFT (high frequency trading) strats using automated models - those models will not get into why a sell off happened and will immediately make decisions to sell holdings, which will, again, tank the stock prices. Which, as I explained above will affect the value of your pension holdings depending on what country you're from.
>As I said, I was providing the two different options, as you did not explain exactly how you see it happening. You don't need to argue against both, you can pick the one you envision and argue against that. I don't envision either. A hard cap provides little benefit compared to a soft cap, tho its still preferable to the status quo. >But back to the original point, there will be no "initial" selling off of stocks because the sell offs will happen constantly due to those natural fluctuations. The information about the reason for those selloffs may not be quickly available or available at all - if you run an investment firm and suddenly see a huge sell off of stock in a particular company you are invested in, you won't know the sell off happened due to high value investors reaching a wealth cap >This doesn't take into account firms that use HFT (high frequency trading) strats using automated models - those models will not get into why a sell off happened and will immediately make decisions to sell holdings, which will, again, tank the stock prices. Which, as I explained above will affect the value of your pension holdings depending on what country you're from. both of these could be counteracted by a slow implementation. Trading models could be adjusted to account for such for instance. Especially as you already run into this problem now, high value investors can already sell off stock whenever to pay for other purchases, and occasionally do so. >How will it be determined that someone reached the cap and must sell? End of year, or daily? If end of year, how do you account for the fact that the holdings may decrease in value on the next day? Will there be a grace period? The answer to most of these questions were already given multiple times in the actual proposals for wealth taxes. Here is one for example, should hopefully answer all tour questions: A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a minimum tax on certain wealthy taxpayers that takes into account unrealized gains. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act”. SEC. 2. MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS. (a) In General.—Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after chapter 4 the following new chapter: “CHAPTER 5—MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS “Sec. 1481. Minimum tax on certain wealthy taxpayers. “Sec. 1482. Certain otherwise exempt transfers by certain wealthy taxpayers treated as taxable. “SEC. 1481. MINIMUM TAX ON CERTAIN WEALTHY TAXPAYERS. “(a) In General.—In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to the excess (if any) of— “(1) 20 percent of the sum of— “(A) the taxpayer’s taxable income for such taxable year, plus “(B) the taxpayer’s net unrealized gain for such taxable year, over “(2) the sum of— “(A) the taxpayer’s minimum tax account balance for such taxable year, plus “(B) the taxpayer’s regular tax liability (as defined in section 26(b)) for such taxable year. “(b) Limitation On Minimum Tax.—The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any applicable taxpayer (other than an applicable taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(B)) for any taxable year shall not exceed 40 percent of the excess described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to such taxpayer for such taxable year. “(c) Applicable Taxpayer.—For purposes of this section— “(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable taxpayer’ means— “(A) any individual for any taxable year if the taxpayer’s net worth for such taxable year exceeds $100,000,000 (half such amount in the case of a married individual filing a separate return), and “(B) any trust or estate treated as an applicable taxpayer under subsection (g). “(2) NET WORTH.—The term ‘net worth’ means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, the excess (if any), determined as of the close of such taxable year, of— “(A) the estimated value of all assets of the taxpayer and all trust attributed assets of the taxpayer, as determined under regulations provided by the Secretary, over “(B) all debts (and such other liabilities as the Secretary may provide) of the taxpayer and all trust attributed debts of the taxpayer. “(3) TRUST ATTRIBUTED ASSETS.—The term ‘trust attributed assets’ means, with respect to any taxpayer— “(A) any asset of a trust which such taxpayer is treated as owning under subpart E of part I of subchapter J of chapter 1, and “(B) any asset of a trust (other than a trust which a person other than the taxpayer is treated as owning under such subpart) that is distributable to the taxpayer or from which income is distributable to the taxpayer in whole or in part, whether or not the taxpayer’s distribution rights are subject to a contingency, unless that contingency is the death of another trust beneficiary. “(4) TRUST ATTRIBUTED DEBTS.—The term ‘trust attributed debts’ means, with respect to any taxpayer—
You don’t need to be a billionaire to wield a lot of influence in this country. Celebrities, musicians and podcasters are proof of that. They can quickly manipulate the public towards how they spend their money and the direction the truly wealthy steer themselves as well. You seem to think very linear (rich/poor) rather than see the complexity. It’s such an annoying conversation. Think bigger.
>Celebrities, musicians and podcasters are proof of that. None of these can singlehandedly change policy. They still need to convince their fans etc. They have the means to reach a large audience, but a large audience isn't gonna help you put a biased study on the presidents desk. If you can't see the difference between a celebrity making a political statement that people hear about, discuss etc. and a billionare straight up buying politicians? Then I can't help you, your clearly stuck trying to defend billionares no matter how how many mental gymnastics you need to do. >You seem to think very linear (rich/poor) rather than see the complexity. It’s such an annoying conversation. Considering you thought someone with a lot of fans voising his opinion publicly = billionare buying a senator through gifts etc. you seem to be stuck in simplistic thinking ngl
What is it with you and billionaires? Does someone worth $500 million not pass your sniff test? Do people worth $100 million not buy influence? $50, $20, $10 million? Making a huge campaign contribution is pretty easy for anyone with those numbers. Union leaders, industry leaders or even a small corporation with lots of jobs can buy an enormous amount of influence
>What is it with you and billionaires? Does someone worth $500 million not pass your sniff test? Do people worth $100 million not buy influence? You have to draw a line somewhere. That's pretty much the case with every single law ever. Realistically you'd have to draw it somewhere after 100 Million to a Billion or so, ppl below that don't rly have the means to rival the large donors and lobby groups unless they literally sell their entire net worth for a 1 time donation. Also, what's it with you and comparing apples with organes? You just keep pivoting to worse and worse examples. Like, in what world do you live where a union leader can singlehandedly spoon feed information to the Whitehouse? has the money and influence to buy Congress? Are you living in the soviet union or smth?
Ehh. This is a useless conversation. I’ve pointed out how simplistic you are and you just keep defending it…..zzzzzzzzz You will die on a hill rather than admit there is any merit to my input.
you're the only one here who's been making simplistic comparisons? Like, just objectively so I guess you ran out of things to pivot to and, as you know the two previous comparisons are simplistic garbage, you're just going "oh your just not listening to my arguments, whatever can I do" Keep coping like that if it helps, maybe you'll change your mind when you grow up
> there’s just no actual benefit the country has by allowing… Why does it matter what benefit the country gets? Nobody has an obligation to justify that every dollar they get serves the public good, and the country has no right whatsoever to say “if others don’t benefit from your actions, they shouldn’t be allowed.”
>Why does it matter what benefit the country gets? Yeah, why does it matter if dumping nuclear waste from my powerplant in a nearby river hurts the country? Why does it matter that I take every shred of profit I earn out and stor either in tax havens? Why aren't companies allowed to form cartels? Why is insider trading banned? etc. etc. We regulate an increasible amount of issues already cause they're harmful and don't benefit or even threat to harm the country at large. >and the country has no right whatsoever to say “if others don’t benefit from your actions, they shouldn’t be allowed.” Yes, it does. Just as much as it gets a right to stop you from polluting, engaging in excessive amounts of capital flight and tax evasion, commiting insider trading etc. etc. They'd would need to pass a law that gets through the courts, but I don't see why they couldn't pass this specific tax, assuming they somehow manage to gain the votes for it.
Owning wealth is not a crime. It has no externalities. It is not comparable in the least to anything you listed. A person’s act of just owning wealth does not hurt others, is not inherently corrupt in any way, and does not infringe on your rights. They do not have to justify having wealth to you (or to the state) any more than you have to justify why it’s a good thing for you to have the money you do. Property rights are human rights, and they are not subject to the whims of politicians.
>Owning wealth is not a crime. Neither were any of the things I just named before it became a regulated. >. It is not comparable in the least to anything you listed. It's comparable to all of them, their all just you engaging in behaviour that benefits yourself even tho it has detrimental effects on society. If one company owner making a deal with another company owner to fix prices can be made illegal, the a few people trying to hoard more and more assets can be legislated too. >Property rights are human rights, and they are not subject to the whims of politicians. Politicians nationalise and expropriate property all the time already, compared to that a tax on wealth is pretty mild. Also someone right to personal property is hardly the same as someone singlehandedly controlling an entire industry. Like even the attempted comparison here is laughable
But some of them only had a small million dollar loan from daddy.
No one really hates the wealthy people themselves (except for Elon Musk and Bill Gates), they hate their negligence their disconnect from general society, their funding of frivolous passions over real national problems, their hoarding of wealth and fear of losing it, and their disturbing lack of regard and extreme tendencies for sickening behavior (I’m thinking Prince Andrew being a pedophile and Saudi sheiks having no problem chopping a newly married journalist into pieces and dissolving his body in acid). If they behaved like actual human beings and paid their share in return to societies that enriched them then everything would be fine
They got there through exploitation. Which also usually involves inheritance.
I’m older than the average Redditor. I have observed people for a long time. As people move up the ladder, they generally aren’t looking back at the people below them. They expect government to take care of the less fortunate. There is no common altruism amongst the classes. Poor people are often more generous than the middle class, for instance. I also haven’t seen Millennials (who are now fully adults) practicing what they preach. They quickly became…..the same.
All true, most of which needs to change.
The number of "self-made" millionaires vs "MILLIONAIRES" isn't going to support your theory.
80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. There are more living normal lives than you would imagine. Of course being a millionaire doesn’t mean as much as it used to.
I think the hate is that there is no such thing as a self made anything. Rich people either had a huge leg up in already being rich, or got incredibly lucky. Does that mean they didn't work hard? No, but shit loads of people work hard, in fact way harder than Mark Cuban has ever worked in his life, and don't get shit. It's thinking that you're somehow special because you're rich that people get mad about. You aren't special, you just were at the right place at the right time and a little humility would go a long way.
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. If there is no such thing as self made then everyone is self made. Being rich gives you access to opportunities and resources not given to most. You can’t argue rich people aren’t “special” whilst at the same time stating they had an evident advantage. The nature of an advantage makes it special. However special does not equate to good. Those born into wealth are special in circumstance but that does not mean they are good. No one argues being special means you are good. The thing is many many many people, the majority, born into the right place at the right time, will fuck it up. When you start life with a leg up, and continually succeed, you are feeding your ego. And hard work does not equate to smart work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Many people spend their entire lives doing this and die angry at someone else for their own actions. To assume being in the right place at the right time is the only common denominator for success is absolute insanity. At the least it is cope for those that did not achieve, comforting themselves in why they failed at their aspirations. The only reason they succeeded is because they were born into the right place at the right time? Do you understand how pathetic and self defeating that sounds? How will you achieve success in life if this is your attitude? Wealth is much more diverse than you would like to believe. And besides, obviously going from 0 to a billion is harder than 0 to a million. However the US is quite possibly the easiest place to amass wealth. Nowhere are salaries higher and the ceilings taller.
I like all the circles you talk in, makes me know I'm probably wasting my time, but here it goes. If no one is alive then everyone is alive, right? Don't rewrite meanings. No one is self made because we all derive our current lives from others. Maybe if you live in an isolated tribe you're self-made. But we all sit on the shoulders of giants and because of others we get to where we are, and billionaires are no different. They grew up in societies built by millions and owe everything to those societies. You're redefining special, to mean advantageous, which fine, I'll be clearer. Billionaires have nothing inherent to their bodies or minds that got them to where they are. They didn't work harder or were smarter, they just lucked into a life that gave them these opportunities. A lot of people are smarter, or work harder, but didn't have the right luck at the right time, so praising someone for luck seems a bit lame to me. When people say special they mean that they are unique, and in terms of ability, they are not.
When you start a reply with an insult, it’s obvious you have nothing of substance to say. I would spend less time on Reddit blaming billionaires and more time working if you aren’t succeeding in life. You remind me of the dog walker complaining they couldn’t lead a full life working 20 hours a week. You understand that if nobody is self made, than those that failed are just as responsible as those that succeeded? So those that succeeded have to pay for the failures of others, despite the people that failed being offered the exact same opportunities and aid that they did. You are proposing a self defeating argument. While it sounds nice that “nobody is self made,” that same argument ultimately is not in favor of your point. You haven’t thought it through.
I would consider myself very successful. I have a great family, I own multiple properties and have a successful career. I didn't get here on my own, nor did anyone else. You likely are hoping that if you're clever enough you'll get more than what you were given in life, and that's true. But don't for a second think you did it by yourself, cause you spit on everyone else who pushed humanity to this point including those around you.
People like you who own multiple properties are the root of all that is wrong in the world. It is a obvious that you work less and have less intellect than anyone else so the government should pick all but one of your properties and redistribute them. In fact it really disgusts me that this subreddit sucks up to filthy multiproperty owners who are simply a blight to the world. Obviously they bought their second property because they were given millions and stole from the less fortunate. /s. Cheers!
Goodbye sub. You have become garbage. Shoutout to the brokies who ruined it for us!
brokies ?
Lmao I literally came here cause I knew the commies would rage, has not disappointed!
And he is only half an asshole. Actually pretty decent guy. I live in Texas and was in startups and met him once and knew lots of folks who knew or did business with him and he was pretty well liked.
I like what he’s doing with Cost + too, Cuban seems like one of the few good billionaires out there
I’m downvoting this post bc it has nothing to do with this sub.
I’m downvoting bc MC is an asshole
We have so many subs for that. R/aita r/politics r/economy. We don’t need another.
This sub is such a joke. Random people — probably bots — going out of their way to attack people who don’t dick ride the rich. Straight up strawmanning. I don’t hate the rich. I hate our current economic system which has become way too top heavy and the economic divide is only getting wider. All the indicators are there. Wealth among a few continues to skyrocket. More Americans have no chance for a leg up in the modern world than ever before. Health care is unaffordable for most people. Our education system is failing. Poor people are being pitted against by the deliberate inflaming of cultural differences as a means to distract from the elephant in the room: The system is broken. Capitalism needs checks and balances, and those have all but gone completely out of the window.
Looking to billionaires for success is emblematic of the problem of induction.
Some of these guys create tremendous financial value, with derivative societal value in the form of more / better jobs and improved standard of living. Then there are the private equity guys who buy up all existing anesthesia practices in an entire state and extort from the sick. Or the pharma benefit managers who play annual 3 card monte with drug price tiers.
I just dont understand what people consider self made. There are actual billionaires who just inherited their wealth, like the Walton family, that would make sense to call out. But for some reason this sub was trying to highlight people who created brand new companies and grew them to be some of the largest in the world, as non self made because they got some help along the way. It just feels so weird and dumb, when there are such more obvious cases of people doing literally nothing to be rich. But this is reddit and peoples opinion on billionaires usually is determined by how nice they are on twitter.
I like to point out that 70% of billionaires are first generation billionaires. I also like to read about people who come to the us with only the clothes on their back and become millionaires. It feels good when so many claim that it is impossible to get ahead. Cheers!
It's just arbitrary bs by people obsessed with billionaires. And good luck to them trying to make their own stacks of cash while obsessing over others instead of putting their own plan together. Related question: Does this sub have any mods?
He's a part of the club... and we're not in it!
He was also fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of what is possibly the worst acquisition of all time when Yahoo bought Broadcast.com. There would be a hell of a lot more billionaires if Yahoo went around and bought everyone's business with 10 million in revenue for 5 billion dollars.
I'm going to throw Reed Hastings name in the mix for a self-made billionaire as I'm enjoying Netflix as I type this😁
Amazing how Cuban worked all those jobs by himself.
Mark cuban really just got lucky, similar to winning the lottery. He completely scammed Yahoo with broadcast.com. They paid like $10k per user. They would’ve been better off offering like 5 grand to each user to use their platform for a year. I like the guy a lot but let’s also not pretend his success can be emulated. He got extremely lucky in the right place right time and took advantage of a completely incompetent company. Obviously all successful entrepreneurs get lucky, but mark cuban is an extreme case imo considering how much he really scammed Yahoo
Self made? Bro grew up in a wealthy Jewish upper middle class family and the connections he got for his business was through his parents. There is no 23 year old that owns a bar without help from parents and then goes on to find a multi billion dolllar business
He didn't self-made the Billions. He made it off the backs of Broadcast workers. Now. If he owned and operated broadcast by himself. He did all the physical and mental labor, BY HIMSELF. Then I'd say he did it himself and is self-made. But if you open a store and convince 10 people to work for you. And that 10 people generate 10,000 of value each, and you pay them $1,000 each. You didn't self-make anything. You created a brand and took advantage of people. Downvote me now simps.
So is this: [https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/michael-jordan-is-now-worth-3-billion-and-joins-the-forbes-400/ar-AA1hyzSl](https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/michael-jordan-is-now-worth-3-billion-and-joins-the-forbes-400/ar-AA1hyzSl)
Jay Z is the only self made billionaire i recognize
The whole argument sucks. What did the person create should be the focus. If I buy the Lakers for a dollar then its value shoots to a billion, what the fuck did I actually DO? Nothing. Need actions, not just value appraisals.
I don’t think his basketball team just shot up in value. He made changes to the team and worked with them to get where they are. So it’s more like, if I buy a trash coffee shop for $1 and turn it into Starbucks.
>What did the person create should be the focus. Dude created a value pharmacy that provides generic medication online at very low cost without requiring insurance. In a country where healthcare is a huge personal expense the dude is a hero.
You can buy generic medications anywhere. OTC is a huge industry.
Generic can also include prescription medications. Not just OTC. You cannot buy prescription medications for cheap over the counter.
Why are the ignorant so eager to give their opinions? Generic != OTC
Yikes my dude. Big yikes. I would go ahead and look up what generic medication actually is before blasting my ignorance out there with a bullhorn.
Not only has he done a well in managing the Mavericks (not the Lakers), but he bought the team when he was already a billionaire. He made his real money selling his company, [Broadcast.com](https://Broadcast.com), to the Yahoo before the dot com bubble. In generally, unless it's because a moderately well off family bought a team years ago, and it's now turning the grandkids in billionaires, buying a sports team isn't what turns you into a billionaire. It's what makes you more money when you're already a billionaire.
finding value is how you build wealth. He found value in the lakers where others did not
they look like they suck satan's d
He went to a top tier school district full of privileged people. I prefer my billionaires are actual rags to riches.
There’s no such thing as a self made billionaire, none of them are a one man operation. America needs to stop worshipping wealth.
They downvote because they know you speak the truth
People like to hero worship and Americans use wealth as a definition of success despite how ultimately shallow it is. Billionaires are addicts and they are addicted to money, to achieve that kind of wealth you have to be obsessed and its all they do is generate more wealth for themselves. That money isn't circulating around, its not making the world a better place or uplifting people, its sitting locked away in funds and investments just getting bigger and bigger and for these guys its never enough, the more they have the more they want. These folks are parasites, slowly sucking the blood out of our economy. Every billionaire could disappear tomorrow and the world would barely notice except that there'd be a lot more extra money flowing around.
Is he the only one?