591–600 of 875 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At his age healthcare is covered by taxpayers, just like in most other countries.
Nursing homes are only covered longterm if you are destitute. Good places will take your assets and use them all up until it’s gone then apply for Medicaid. Won’t pay for personal in-home nurses either. But 2 million should buy him plenty of elder care. I would have kept 10 million just in case.
I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…
Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's liquidate all US billionaires and spread that money to every person in the US. Let's also set aside the question of how one could legally liquidate the billionaires. Per https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/05/21/the-net-wo... the combined net worth of every US billionaire was 3.4 trillion in May of this year. Per https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-ways-that-the-u-s-popu... there were 331 million Amer…
Not enough to live on the passive income even in the cheapest parts of the globe. Why do you think that is the right metric? 3.4T is obviously a vast amount of money.
I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…
Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you don’t decide how much tax to pay. Obviously many poor people will decide that few rich people must pay more.
> many poor people will decide that few rich people must pay more I fail to see the problem, if you have more money than you could possibly use in a lifetime, why shouldn't that be redistributed through programs that benefit all of society, instead of whatever pet projects the rich person favors.
Who decides that? The great and scholarly politicians we elect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...
Is that Giving Index skewed by American tipping culture at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the wealth was accumulated legally and fairly, as a result of creating such vast value for society that society willingly parted with their money for the goods/services from the company/ies that the wealthy person invested in and retained an ownership stake in, I don't find it obvious that society should have a further claim on the proceeds from the result of those transactions just because the owner "has too much…
Something being legal doesnt mean it was moral.
Society has made murder, theft, and rape illegal largely because of a fairly broad-based agreement that those are immoral.
Where there isn’t broad agreement on morality, I would prefer to avoid passing laws to regulate behavior and allow choice. (Roe v Wade/abortion being just one crystal clear case of this tension which I believe is generally best resolved in favor of individual freedom. I am free to follow my own morals where they are stricter than the law; I do not force others to follow them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The savings rate is an important contributor to economic growth because surplus permits investment. However saving can hurt growth by reducing consumption. Savings can be thought of as a steady state rate of saving that the economy has adjusted for. Saving is a higher order effect that causes an increase in the savings rate, temporarily depriving the economy of the level of consumption it expects.
I'm curious what portion of new investment goes into IPOs, additional issues, VC, etc., compared to the portion that just changes hands between fellow 'savers'. If I buy $1mil of MSFT, I didn't contribute a cent to their payroll. I didn't create jobs, or grow anything. I just transferred $1mil to another investor, who will probably use that money to invest in AAPL. Seems to me a huge portion of investment is just mov…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax To whom it may concern: Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving a…
> The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth Only insofar as you believe taxation to be a moral commentary. If one thinks taxation is punishment for a decision, then I can see why one might see it this way. I don't agree, though. Taxation is reinvestment into the society that makes the usage of that tool–money–possible in the first place. I think it's…
Moral or not it is a deterrent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.
>That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. yes, let's do that. we don't - there has never been such thing as a free society, and we don't live in one now. all society has rules - without rules, it's not a society anymore. Let's once and for all take away this absurd escape-hatch where one can avoid defending an idea on it's merits by claiming it restricts their freedom. If we truly lived in a free society…