Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

brendancahill.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#31

Post by johnpaulkiser »

tw04 wrote: post #22

"I became rich when I earned more than I spent" are words spoken by a rich man with 0 self awareness. I can tell you the second my life became infinitely less stressful: when I paid off my student loans. I too spent almost no money, went on almost no trips, and lived way, way below my means to make it happen in my 20s. It turns out as my income has increased my happiness has increased - and I'd agree with all the stu…

I think it is noble to preach being rich in the moment. I think for Derek quitting his job in his 20s to play music full time was for sure a mark of affluence in his social circle at the time.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#32

Post by tkiley »

DennisP wrote: post #28
tkiley wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a bunch of equity in a startup that had a cost basis of, essentially, $0. Under normal circumstances, I would have sold this for $millions, and would have paid nearly 20% in capital gains taxes immediately. Instead, I contributed my equity to a CRUT. I paid zero capital gains taxes at that moment, and the CRUT pays zero capital gains taxes ever. Also, because a contribution to the trust is a contribution in par…

Whether that's bad depends on how you feel about the way your government spends tax money. Because you used a CRUT, the money that doesn't support you will go to some worthy charity, instead of funding a series of wars, pervasive surveillance, and cages for kids. Of course the government also does many worthwhile things, but your extra money will be spent entirely on worthwhile things, and not at all on horrific ones…

That's true! I'm happy that I am paying low taxes. It just seems ridiculous that my effective tax rate is so much lower than the effective tax rate paid by other people.

As best I can make out, a CRUT reduces your tax burden dramatically if 1) you are young, and 2) you fund the CRUT with equity that has a very low cost basis. I don't think the tax code should contain a special magic wand that reduces tax liability so low for this particular situation, because this advantage seems unfair to people who accrue their wealth over a lifetime by more traditional means.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#33

Post by tw04 »

johnpaulkiser wrote: post #27
tw04 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the path from living with 4 other people working 40 hours a week at McDonald's to filthy rich? Haven't gone to college, don't have a skill that sets you apart (music/art/etc), and aren't particularly intelligent or scrappy. Seems to me there's literally no path from A to B.

If there's ever a time to do it it's when all of information is virtually free. Unfortunately this also means there are an equal amount of cheap distractions.

You understand there is a large swath of the human race that just isn't that intelligent right? Saying "but the information is free!!!" means absolutely NOTHING to someone who can't comprehend it.

That's ignoring the fact you expect them to decipher which information is accurate and inaccurate. How exactly do you expect someone who lacks critical thinking skills to determine who is telling them the truth and who is lying? The fact there are hundreds of thousands to millions of US citizens who believe in Q-Anon should tell you how flawed your logic is.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#34

Post by cheez »

tw04 wrote: post #23
cheez wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if, learning to be happy with "enough", is how people get filthy rich? https://sivers.org/richand

So what's the path from living with 4 other people working 40 hours a week at McDonald's to filthy rich? Haven't gone to college, don't have a skill that sets you apart (music/art/etc), and aren't particularly intelligent or scrappy. Seems to me there's literally no path from A to B.

As you implied, it requires intelligence and a desire to achieve. So lazy dum dums are unlikely to be able to do it. Which sounds about right.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#35

Post by DennisP »

tkiley wrote: post #32
DennisP wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether that's bad depends on how you feel about the way your government spends tax money. Because you used a CRUT, the money that doesn't support you will go to some worthy charity, instead of funding a series of wars, pervasive surveillance, and cages for kids. Of course the government also does many worthwhile things, but your extra money will be spent entirely on worthwhile things, and not at all on horrific ones…

That's true! I'm happy that I am paying low taxes. It just seems ridiculous that my effective tax rate is so much lower than the effective tax rate paid by other people. As best I can make out, a CRUT reduces your tax burden dramatically if 1) you are young, and 2) you fund the CRUT with equity that has a very low cost basis. I don't think the tax code should contain a special magic wand that reduces tax liability so…

Seems it'd be a substantial savings even if only (2) is true. A 55-year-old who's retiring a bit early after holding Amazon for twenty years could avoid a lot of capital gains.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#36

Post by skrebbel »

tkiley wrote: post #26
skrebbel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow cool! For those of us who don't regularly create charitable remainder trusts, what are the tax consequences and why are they unfair?

I had a bunch of equity in a startup that had a cost basis of, essentially, $0. Under normal circumstances, I would have sold this for $millions, and would have paid nearly 20% in capital gains taxes immediately. Instead, I contributed my equity to a CRUT. I paid zero capital gains taxes at that moment, and the CRUT pays zero capital gains taxes ever. Also, because a contribution to the trust is a contribution in par…

Thanks! I think I get it, but not fully yet: if you'd deplete the entire trust before dying, you'd have paid the same capital gains tax as you would've if you had not made the trust, correct? Just spread out over many years.

Why do you feel that it is a loophole if you pay the same, just at different times? (except over what you give to charity, but isn't charity untaxed pretty much across the board in the US?)

EDIT: by they way, yours is the first tax related comment that I recall reading that complains about unfair rules that are in your favour. Hats off, I had expected the opposite answer.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#37

Post by fredsanford »

tw04 wrote: post #23
cheez wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if, learning to be happy with "enough", is how people get filthy rich? https://sivers.org/richand

So what's the path from living with 4 other people working 40 hours a week at McDonald's to filthy rich? Haven't gone to college, don't have a skill that sets you apart (music/art/etc), and aren't particularly intelligent or scrappy. Seems to me there's literally no path from A to B.

Watch Forrest Gump.

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#39

Post by [deleted] »

antisocial wrote: post #3
chrisblackwell wrote: post #2

Does anyone else find it frustrating when people talk about not working too hard and already having enough, after they have become wealthy?

Wealth is relative, one can be a multimillionaire and still feel inferior to a billionaire. Even in billionaires, there is a ranking game.

[deleted]

Re: Derek Sivers and the Art of Enough

#40

Post by mcaswell »

That #10.5 point really resonates with me. Especially now with all of this isolation, it’s become very apparent that almost all communication on the internet is the screaming from inside the car type instead of the real human connection type. I made https://otherrs.com/ as an experiment to see if I could drum up more of that second type
Post reply on HN