Correction, we’ll have 5 within the next 10 years…Ugghh.
It would take Brewster 2,740 years to spend that kind of cheddar.
In case you missed the song reference -
4 Likes
Yeah, I know. The world has too many creative entrepreneurs building stuff that people want.
DB2
5 Likes
Yeah, I know. We should tax them at the same rate as a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or janitor.
12 Likes
I’m not a billionaire, but I will say that I was astonished at how little I paid in taxes once I early retired and moved from the wage & salary taxation regime to the low tax rates enjoyed by the Leisure Class.
intercst
7 Likes
However, the linked article was not about taxes; it was about wealth inequality.
DB2
2 Likes
You have to read, or maybe have someone else read the whole article to you. It mentions taxing the rich in two separate paragraphs.
6 Likes
Ayup. For the halibut, I did not take a distribution from my IRA one year. iirc, I ended up with some $40,000 in income, and my Federal tax was zero.
Steve
1 Like
Wealth concentration was always the stated intent of “supply side economics”. The policy has been a roaring success.
Steve
3 Likes
Early on we read “Oxfam International, in its latest assessment of global inequality…”
And, yes, the article does mention taxation in paragraph 14 and in the very last paragraph (21).
DB2
1 Like
I understand what you’re pointing out, the article’s focus isn’t strictly on taxing the rich. That said, extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth should be concerning to all of us.
Taxation is one way to redistribute wealth. We can debate over whether or not it’s effective. Something has to be done, the status quo isn’t working.
History has shown us numerous examples of how extreme wealth gaps play out in societies. Social unrest, violence, dogs and cats living together…it won’t be pretty.
4 Likes
Poorer people can work hard and smart and climb the ladder.
Millions are getting rich with RSUs and helping society.
1 Like
Ya, because it is the fact that they are not trillionaires that they have struggled to be successful.
2 Likes
Get real. Full transparency, I’m only liking your comment to boost my post’s likes so others will read it, including your silly comment. You’re welcome. It’s called trickle down likes.
2 Likes
Poor is relative. A CAGR of 7% over decades won’t leave you poor.
It may be that because of the huge capex requirements in the industry there is only room for one very large player. That, of course, would be TSMC (which has a much better long-term CAGR of 15%.
DB2
1 Like
Tariffs or austerity and it all comes crashing down.
Putzes.
1 Like
Poor is always relative. There are good reasons to invest in companies with lower CAGR, I’m not disputing that. Capital preservation is one of them. My point is that you get the highest CAGR from businesses that have Increasing Returns, an economic concept that is quite new, Maybe 50 years old, less than 100 years. Coal and steam increased productivity kick starting the Industrial Revolution. High tech kick started Increasing Returns. When you hear people saying this rate of growth is unsustainable, they are ignoring Increasing Returns. There is a new sherif in town, AI, which will accelerate the economy even more.
Tony Seba’s “S” curves
And Tony posits that S curves are getting steeper, with saturation points reached in years not decades as shown by the almost vertical lines for the most recent technology adoptions.
The Captain
2 Likes
Rich is also relative, especially when compared to dudes worth a trillion.
While I appreciate the advice on stocks with long-term upside, investing doesn’t address the societal downside of extreme wealth inequality.
2 Likes
True enough, although it should be noted there isn’t anyone with a net worth of $1 trillion.
DB2
1 Like
Which would BBQ better? A millionaire, billionaire, trillionaire, or someone with REAL money/assets?