Via mastodon (alt text on the other side): https://deacon.social/@JulieB/111805263164082967
I mean, all people need money but there is obviously a point where you really do have enough to live comfortably the rest of your life…
Bluntly, they need the money to make more money.
Most people of any significant wealth have a majority of their money/assets tied up in investments and other things. They’re worth that much basically on paper only. Their actual liquid monetary assets are generally very small in comparison to their “worth”.
They’re generally taking a relatively small cut off the top for their personal spending, and reinvesting whatever else they have “earned”. Once you get past a certain point with wealth, as long as you’re not stupid about it and ether invest it yourself or hire a firm to do it for you, more wealth is a normal outcome of having wealth.
There are calculations, as you may expect, to perform payouts “in perpetuity” (aka “forever”) which can account for growth/inflation. Personally, if I suddenly became ultra rich, I would find a good balance between how I live now and how I want to live, estimate what I would need to earn to acquire that lifestyle, then do the calculations to find out exactly how much I need to hold onto to achieve that, then either donate or otherwise give away the rest. I’d keep a healthy buffer on how much I’m keeping, and likely use some of it to update/upgrade key items in my life, not lavishly, but something better than I currently have (renovations to my home, upgrade for my vehicle, computers, electronics, etc)… Once my needs, both immediate and in the future) are satisfied and I have that extra “buffer” taken care of, the rest is useless to me.
I’d likely start with large donations to causes I believe in, and gift large sums to friends with coaching on how to make that money work for them as I did for me. My friends and I could become financially independent with a large enough financial “win”.
I don’t need more than what I require to maintain a fairly modest lifestyle. I don’t like, want, or desire any “glamour” or “fame”. I mainly want to be left alone. Paying off my house and having a good amount of passive income from investments is sufficient for me (where passive income grows with inflation year over year). Beyond that, I have no use for wealth. I only want enough that I can make that money “work” for me on the way that I’m no longer required to work. If my investments and buffer result in significantly more than I need being generated, I would give that extra away.
But I’m more communally focused than anything. Helping my friends and neighbors is more important to me than the idea of “more for me”.
To circle back to the point, wealth is the ultimate indicator of success in capitalism. People with excessive wealth are seen as some of the most important and influential people in a capitalist society. So to their mind, they’re important because of the money that they have. The mere suggestion of giving most of it away tends to be taken as handouts to those who haven’t earned it. Artificially inflating that person’s statue in society while diminishing their own. They’re at the top of the ladder of success in their mind, giving away their fortune puts them lower on the social ladder of success and therefore it’s unacceptable. The wealth they have is the representation of their importance, and by diminishing it, even a little bit, they’re “moving down” on the ladder of success, which is something that they never want to do.
I don’t agree with that, but I understand it. I’d personally gladly sacrifice my own excesses to bring people up. I only want for enough to secure my ability to provide for me and my family. Anything beyond that isn’t useful to me. I have no illusions of grandeur that because I have money I’m somehow better than anyone. I hold the opposite view, where earnings well above what is required to secure yourself financially, are unnecessary, and shouldn’t be kept. We’re all supposed to be equals in a democracy, but people who are aggressively capitalist see it differently.
*I only want enough to live comfortably for the rest of my life.
Okay this is great, I’ve got my house and enough money to live comfortably without worrying about the market at all.
Okay so I want a house in the city, but I also really value being able to get away from the bustle and noise of the city with a place by a lake in the country.
Well I can’t really relax while my parents and siblings stress about money. I need them to be reasonably comfortable too. I’ll set up trusts for them then relax by the lake and everything will be perfect.
This is great, but it’s a bit lonely up here at the lake by myself, I need a partner. I’ll try to meet some people in the city.
Everybody sucks once they find out I have money, yes I have enough money but I’m not in the business of buying dinner for everyone, we’re still going to split the cheque. Everybody’s just after my money. Well the people at the golf club are also interested in my money (well doing business) but at least they don’t treat me like a meal ticket. Maybe I’ll join.
Well I met the perfect partner. We deserve a wedding that won’t embarrass us in front of our friends. Finally we can relax and live a quiet simple life by the lake in the country.
Wow, my partner’s the best they really fulfill me. I should get them their dream car for their birthday.
Wow three kids, that happened fast. These are objectively the best humans in the history of the world. Also, I need to make sure they can focus on doing the amazing things I know they’re capable of without having to worry about student debt or part time jobs. More trusts. Soon it will be enough and I can focus on philanthropy. We need a bigger house, and a lake house that’s closer to the city.
The kids are complaining that they want a proper skiboat. Isn’t two weeks in the alps enough skiing every year? Kids will be kids, and I’m happy they like to spend time at the lake I guess.
These fucking spoiled brats want goddamn Ferrari’s for their 16th birthdays. No way. I draw the line at Audis. And now the ski boat sucks because it doesn’t have ballast tanks to throw a wake for wake surfing. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST MAKE THE WHINING STOP.*
But all of that is probably like $10M. So fuck Bezos.
This wouldn’t be me. I’m in a long term relationship, I have very few long term friends, a very small circle, and they’ve stood with me through thick and thin, good people, not the kind to take advantage; I’d still want to take care of them as best as I’m able with whatever I can. Mainly focusing on paying off debts.
I don’t really have need to find new friends, not flaunt my wealth nor horde it. I don’t want to move, there are very good reasons why I’m living where I am and money doesn’t change that. I don’t want nor need multiple properties for myself; I don’t like cities, I’m already living in a rural neighborhood.
If I were to move, I would only be doing it to have a bit more land. Our house is on a fairly small plot. I’d rebuild my existing house in a nearby location. The only real change would be adding a bit more floor space. But I wouldn’t retain my existing property. I would continue to have only one home, in a rural location.
I don’t really want anything lavish, just a little more land.
That’s probably the biggest change I would actually make given enough money to do it, and the costs would be recouped in part by selling my current home…
I’m just happy with what I have. Largely, I don’t want more than I do, I just want to be comfortable, and not worry about money.
If I was a multimillionaire I’d give so much of it away. I’d LOVE to singlehandedly fund our local cafe that feeds unhoused people every day, as well as house people all over the city. Nothing would make me happier than to actually do something meaningful. I’d be embarrassed to be greedy and buy Lamborghinis and shit. Give me a nice condo and a cute Mazda and a trip a year, maybe some clothes shopping, and that’s all I need to make me happy. The rest can go to improving the lives of those in need.
Why do these posts constantly think a Billionaire literally has a billion dollars sat in a bank like Scrooge McDuck. Most of their ‘net worth’ is tied up in stocks, normally as part of the business they founded decades ago. Sure, a billionaire likely does have many millions sat in a bank account and the point is valid, but please stop suggesting rich people have their entire worth in cash because it makes them sound better than they really are. Just look at Trump, he feeds off this misconception. He ain’t got anywhere near a billion dollars in cash until he sells his golden toilets.
While I think there are limits to how much money anybody can reasonably spend, if someone works hard and makes money legally and ethically by virtue of their efforts then that’s their own business. It’s different of course if they made their money through crime or exploitation, and it’s easy to think of examples, but that isn’t the case for most people.
Also, if people perceive inequity then the answer is progressive taxation and other forms of financial remuneration to the state which can be dispersed as they see fit. If billionaires were hit with super taxes then they’d still be billionaires but it would pay for services that would raise the quality of life for everyone else.
I would argue that it’s difficult to attain that level of wealth ( hundreds of millions and/or billions) without someone being exploited.
Most commonly this is in the form of underpaying workers, essentially stealing their wages to bolster your own. This is incredibly common for any business owner, majority shareholder or CEO.
I would also remark that it’s especially common in tech. Where the only way to get any reasonable increase in salary is to change to a new job. Raises are basically non-existent in tech. They happen, but are frequently far below what should be given. The only “reasonable” raises I’ve ever seen were from Union positions, and tech jobs are notoriously non-Union.
No one can do a billion dollars worth of labor in a human lifetime. The only way to get a billion dollars is to exploit the labor of many, many others.
Define “exploit”. If I give you a job at a competitive rate and you do the thing and you are financially compensated and enjoy a decent standard of living then where is the exploitation?
There are a few big issues with that statement. First, Capitalism itself is exploitative, as ownership creates no Value yet entitles the Capitalist to all of the power. It is the case for all bourgeoisie.
Secondly, progressive taxation is a fantastic first start, but is absolutely not the solution, even with state reimbursement. The state is owned and run by the bourgeoisie, and as such they will pay as little as they can. It is only through revolutionary pressure, such as via vast grassroots movements like Unionization, that the bourgeoisie gives up any amount of power. Worse still, the exploitation of Capitalism remains!
The actual solution is replacing Capitalism with collective ownership of the Means of Production. True, Democratic control. This eliminates exploitation and creates more equitable outcomes, levels the playing field, and results in true liberation of the Proletariat.
Thanks for the Marxism 101 lesson which has never been demonstrated once in practice. Capitalism can and does work. Plenty of countries have capitalism, democracy and social services.
Are you saying workers have never successfully shared ownership of the Means of Production? That’s false, there are numerous examples, even Worker Co-operatives are more stable with higher employee satisfaction than Capitalist companies. You could take that same exact argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France and it would make just as much sense then as it does now.
Capitalism itself “works,” but it has numerous flaws that result in increasing disparity, enshittification, and exploitation. From the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, to the Boom/Bust cycle by which Capitalists acquire vast amounts of cheaper Capital, it certainly isn’t a good system.
