Microblog Memes

That's the revolution I will get behind

2-3 Million € would be enough to comfortably live off and be at or close to 0 when I kick the bucket. If I somehow won that much, I'd not work a day in my life ever again.

I would like the luxury of choice of food, I know it's a lot.

Hell, you can give away 990 million of it, buy a house, put what's left in a high yield savings account, and live comfortably on the interest alone for the rest of your life.

Once you have more than say 500million dollars, your bank account becomes purely a highscore entry

1. It is possible to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a yacht, and billions on space travel.

2. Sociopathic behavior is desirable in corporate leaders, and Infinite Growth is good for board members and shareholders.

3. Growing the hoard can be it's own game similar to idle games or gatcha games.

They are, because corporations are about taking as much profits away from others as possible and getting them for yourself. Its nothing nice about it. But it gives jobs.

This entire society is built on just taking resources, taking land, taking power from someone else, so you can benefit and not the others.

If there would be cooperation instead, humans could make a dream world here. But they cant. Its just in their fucking heads that they need to take more from others instead of sharing.

My idea is to implement a wealth tax rate of 3% on everything above an exempt amount of $10 million, that is to be paid annually.

This way, there is no hard limit. You can have more money without going to jail, but you have to help the community.

The rule would work something like this:

1. the rule applies to all citizens of the United States
2. calculate the total wealth of the person:
   • items such as money on bank accounts, shares in companies, real estate, and other valuables are estimated and added
   • debts and other negative value can be deducted
3. if the amount is less than $10 million, no taxes are paid
4. otherwise, subtract $10 million from the total net worth, then multiply by 0.03, that is the value that you have to pay

this procedure is to be repeated annually

to prevent people from giving up their US citizenship and taking on the citizenship of some other country, which may not have a wealth tax, there needs to be a way to make sure the US citizenship remains attractive to people. for example, if you do not have US citizenship, you're not allowed to possess more than $10 million in total wealth inside the US, i.e. in real estate, company shares and bank accounts.

my first assumption is being more wealthy than 95% of the population is immoral
But if hypothetically if everyone had 5 million and you have 5 million + one, I wouldn't say having $1 more is immoral.

idk, that's an interesting question. That's gonna be in my head for a while lol

4% interest is an odd assumption, but the amounts makes some sense considering that 100K per year is an amount someone can reasonably live off of with a house.

Are you in the US? Move to a country which actually respects bikes (and weed) like the Netherlands and it might tbh. Disclaimer: I'm not from there but I am from a nearby European country, and I know there's always a shortage of bike mechanics, enough so that the courses get subsidised.

This narrative keeps being peddled by capitalists, but it is false.

Humans are often intrinsically motivated. People dont get more money by working at a soup kitchen. They dont get financial rewards for looking after their grandchildren....

Capitalists need to instill this idea that everything needs to be motivated by money and every interaction between humans needs to be commodified. Otherwise the greedy hoarders would be exposed as such at the system would collapse as people help each other just because it is the right thing to do.

Networks of mutual aid and care are politically dangerous To capitalism as it means resilient people who value life over money. These need to be crushed for capitalism to prevail.

Always a Bigger Fish

Glad you have a target.

One tweek you may consider. As you won't be saving for retirement in retirement, focusing on matching current spending not salary may produce a more enjoyable number. Otherwise a salary raise will push back the retirement date.