I have met plenty of wealthy people and their cheapness always astounds me. There are things they will spend on but they are often poor tippers, donate percentage-wise less of their money, and will always fight for a deal on anything. And don't get me started on the taxes.
I recently read Paul Vigna's book The Almightier, which talks about the idea of wealth as magnificence, that those with wealth have the duty to spend it in a way that benefits the greater populace. There is no longer a societal push to do anything with money other than hoard it for one's own benefit.
My small part in this is to periodically share something I heard a while back. I don’t think people realize just how much $1B really is, but most people do get how much $100K is. So, if you could spend $100K per day (!), it’d take over 27 years to spend $1B!
“The only thing that that amount of wealth is necessary for is the domination of others. In other words, at a certain point, wealth shifts from being something that enables freedom to something that can only be used to take freedom away from the public.”
That's a very important point you make, Hamilton. I'd like to see a ceiling on how much wealth people should be able to own.
"All of the stuff that you need more than a billion dollars to buy is stuff that it is bad for you to be able to buy. Stuff that we do not want you to be able to buy. Unfair power over other people. The ability to impose your will on others. The ability to override the democratic process. It is understandable that people think that fairness demands that people be allowed to achieve the American dream of getting rich and living a lavish lifestyle. Fine. But a billion dollars—or ten billion, or a hundred billion, or four hundred billion—are not necessary for that lavish lifestyle. The only thing that that amount of wealth is necessary for is the domination of others. In other words, at a certain point, wealth shifts from being something that enables freedom to something that can only be used to take freedom away from the public."
During my law studies, we read a case in which an aristocratic trust fund had been set up in perpetuity, which was challenged in court. The court limited the duration of the trust to 21 years. The reason for the limit was that, had the trust run its full course, within four generations the beneficiary could have bought Great Britain.
The issue is at the end of the day, people are social creatures and care more about status, esteem, and being widely loved than they do about material stuff. Marc Andreesen would barely notice if he lost a billion dollars, but he was radicalized because his self-conception as a genius was destabilized by the proles calling him rude names on twitter. As The Stone Roses said, "I wanna be adored"
A few years ago, I was discussing inheritance taxes with two quite affluent friends. I suggested that there should be a cap, say of $5 million per beneficiary and that any remaining amounts be very heavily taxed. This would mean that heirs, such as offspring would get an inheritance of $5 million plus a bit more. The response was outrage!
I think "aspirational marketing" has a lot to answer for. Killing two birds with one stone.
There's the obvious - explicit - aim, of getting people to part with their money for things they don't need. And thus, handing over hard-earned dollars to those that already have more than their fair share.
But there's also the, constant, underlying message that almost brainwashes people into believing wealth, (and it's associated paraphernalia) should be their raison d'être. When the consensus is: "wealth is good/essential", the wealthy are not challenged.
It's unfortunate, Steve, that even those who rail against our "inequality" euphemism, make a life all about money. The means has become an end excluding all else. The lavish life of the wealthy is invariably a cliche', a script and stage set of their unvarying banalities. I pity them. They are enslaved to their wealth as they are hopelessly identified with it and have no existence separate from the exigencies of wealth. No one honors them or even recognizes them apart from it, which completely eclipses their existence. They live in a frenzy of desperately filling a bottomless void. It must result in a profoundly lonely life,
at times leading to desperate abuses the likes of Epstein sought to cure.
Given that political money is the steering wheel that the rich use to drive the country, I wish we would focus on that. Everyone is focused on a thousand different personal favorite political issues, none of which is possible in a plutocracy.
Fight climate change? Forget it. Criminal justice reform? Not a chance. Tax reform? I laugh.
In a congressional primary, the candidate who spends the most money wins 90+% of the time. 80+% of that money is big donations from the 1%. A candidate who disagrees with the 1% isn't going to get those big donations and has a tiny chance of getting to the general election. We end up with an overwhelming wealth friendly majority in Congress.
We need to drop all our competing policy interests and reduce the political donation limit to something most people can afford. My suggestion is a day's wages at the federal minimum, $58 right now. That would give an Amazon warehouse worker equal clout to Jeff Bezos. Two warehouse workers could outspend him in any given race.
It would have to happen outside the parties. It would take complete focus and some toleration for policy differences. But really, why fight for tax reform when Congress is bought?
HJR-54. A Constitutional Amendment that neuters the twin concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech.
The only way to override the SCOTUS and its propensity for corporate-friendly precedent decisions, and get big monied interests/undue influence out of our elections.
This article made me start trying to make a list. It began with Bezos taking over Venice for his wedding. Then all the rest of the things that came to mind had this in common: they bought separation from other people, as in islands, giant yachts, etc. That's not how life works. I like your caption, "the faces of death."
As usual, very well said. Convincing people that no one benefits more than millionaires and billionaires from our democracy is problematic. They need to contribute more to the benefit of the democratic process. I don't think that anyone realizes that a permanent underclass will be detrimental to everyone including, the extremely rich. It's in everyone's best interest to pay down the massive debt, strengthen anti-monopoly laws and make it easier for every person to pursue happiness.
Society-distorting, wealth-concentrating, institutional capture - like Homer Simpson's take on alcohol - both the cause and the solution to all life's problems?
I made a tiktok about spending a billion dollars. It's really hard! TLDR is after buying everything I ever dreamed of (including an entire island!) I still had over 750 million left.
These rich assholes talk about charities and how they can help the poor. Excuse me but I am poor and I have never once seen a charity nor been offered a goddamn thing from these pigs except low wages, longer hours, and expensive insurance that does not pay when you make a claim. Maybe an insight into how these fucks got so rich. But all is well with the "The Working Families Tax Cuts Act." I just took a shit and I am calling it "Delicious Chocolate Cake."
Billionaires have wealth because they take it from workers and social institutions that enable them to generation of wealth. Taxing billionaires is necessary not to get the money but to stop it being stolen from the public in the first place. Society will be richer without these oligarchs.
They believed he had arrived to save them. The magic of advertising. The failure of education. the consequences of the messianic minds. The loss of any faith in democracy making any difference.
Personally, I would draw the line at $10 million. If you need to buy more than what $10 million can buy, you should go to therapy and get some help. But even $100 billion would be a great place to start. As long as there's a line.
I have met plenty of wealthy people and their cheapness always astounds me. There are things they will spend on but they are often poor tippers, donate percentage-wise less of their money, and will always fight for a deal on anything. And don't get me started on the taxes.
I recently read Paul Vigna's book The Almightier, which talks about the idea of wealth as magnificence, that those with wealth have the duty to spend it in a way that benefits the greater populace. There is no longer a societal push to do anything with money other than hoard it for one's own benefit.
A clear voice in the wilderness. Keep it up!
My small part in this is to periodically share something I heard a while back. I don’t think people realize just how much $1B really is, but most people do get how much $100K is. So, if you could spend $100K per day (!), it’d take over 27 years to spend $1B!
10/10
You do such a wonderful job at concisely framing the core issues we face in a digestible manner. Great piece, Hamno.
“The only thing that that amount of wealth is necessary for is the domination of others. In other words, at a certain point, wealth shifts from being something that enables freedom to something that can only be used to take freedom away from the public.”
Great writing, throughout this piece, HN.
Keep hammering away.
That's a very important point you make, Hamilton. I'd like to see a ceiling on how much wealth people should be able to own.
"All of the stuff that you need more than a billion dollars to buy is stuff that it is bad for you to be able to buy. Stuff that we do not want you to be able to buy. Unfair power over other people. The ability to impose your will on others. The ability to override the democratic process. It is understandable that people think that fairness demands that people be allowed to achieve the American dream of getting rich and living a lavish lifestyle. Fine. But a billion dollars—or ten billion, or a hundred billion, or four hundred billion—are not necessary for that lavish lifestyle. The only thing that that amount of wealth is necessary for is the domination of others. In other words, at a certain point, wealth shifts from being something that enables freedom to something that can only be used to take freedom away from the public."
During my law studies, we read a case in which an aristocratic trust fund had been set up in perpetuity, which was challenged in court. The court limited the duration of the trust to 21 years. The reason for the limit was that, had the trust run its full course, within four generations the beneficiary could have bought Great Britain.
Like America just got bought.
The issue is at the end of the day, people are social creatures and care more about status, esteem, and being widely loved than they do about material stuff. Marc Andreesen would barely notice if he lost a billion dollars, but he was radicalized because his self-conception as a genius was destabilized by the proles calling him rude names on twitter. As The Stone Roses said, "I wanna be adored"
A few years ago, I was discussing inheritance taxes with two quite affluent friends. I suggested that there should be a cap, say of $5 million per beneficiary and that any remaining amounts be very heavily taxed. This would mean that heirs, such as offspring would get an inheritance of $5 million plus a bit more. The response was outrage!
I think "aspirational marketing" has a lot to answer for. Killing two birds with one stone.
There's the obvious - explicit - aim, of getting people to part with their money for things they don't need. And thus, handing over hard-earned dollars to those that already have more than their fair share.
But there's also the, constant, underlying message that almost brainwashes people into believing wealth, (and it's associated paraphernalia) should be their raison d'être. When the consensus is: "wealth is good/essential", the wealthy are not challenged.
It's unfortunate, Steve, that even those who rail against our "inequality" euphemism, make a life all about money. The means has become an end excluding all else. The lavish life of the wealthy is invariably a cliche', a script and stage set of their unvarying banalities. I pity them. They are enslaved to their wealth as they are hopelessly identified with it and have no existence separate from the exigencies of wealth. No one honors them or even recognizes them apart from it, which completely eclipses their existence. They live in a frenzy of desperately filling a bottomless void. It must result in a profoundly lonely life,
at times leading to desperate abuses the likes of Epstein sought to cure.
Given that political money is the steering wheel that the rich use to drive the country, I wish we would focus on that. Everyone is focused on a thousand different personal favorite political issues, none of which is possible in a plutocracy.
Fight climate change? Forget it. Criminal justice reform? Not a chance. Tax reform? I laugh.
In a congressional primary, the candidate who spends the most money wins 90+% of the time. 80+% of that money is big donations from the 1%. A candidate who disagrees with the 1% isn't going to get those big donations and has a tiny chance of getting to the general election. We end up with an overwhelming wealth friendly majority in Congress.
We need to drop all our competing policy interests and reduce the political donation limit to something most people can afford. My suggestion is a day's wages at the federal minimum, $58 right now. That would give an Amazon warehouse worker equal clout to Jeff Bezos. Two warehouse workers could outspend him in any given race.
It would have to happen outside the parties. It would take complete focus and some toleration for policy differences. But really, why fight for tax reform when Congress is bought?
MoveToAmend.org
HJR-54. A Constitutional Amendment that neuters the twin concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech.
The only way to override the SCOTUS and its propensity for corporate-friendly precedent decisions, and get big monied interests/undue influence out of our elections.
This article made me start trying to make a list. It began with Bezos taking over Venice for his wedding. Then all the rest of the things that came to mind had this in common: they bought separation from other people, as in islands, giant yachts, etc. That's not how life works. I like your caption, "the faces of death."
As usual, very well said. Convincing people that no one benefits more than millionaires and billionaires from our democracy is problematic. They need to contribute more to the benefit of the democratic process. I don't think that anyone realizes that a permanent underclass will be detrimental to everyone including, the extremely rich. It's in everyone's best interest to pay down the massive debt, strengthen anti-monopoly laws and make it easier for every person to pursue happiness.
Society-distorting, wealth-concentrating, institutional capture - like Homer Simpson's take on alcohol - both the cause and the solution to all life's problems?
I made a tiktok about spending a billion dollars. It's really hard! TLDR is after buying everything I ever dreamed of (including an entire island!) I still had over 750 million left.
https://www.tiktok.com/@lexkrasny/video/7535638573567986999?_r=1&_t=ZT-8ypFWypPmP1
And for anyone else reading, after buying everything I ever wanted and having 750m left.
If I made only 1% interest on that money it would earn me 7.5m annually
If that annual "income" was taxed at 90% I would still earn 750,000 annually!
Thats without doing any work!
What a world.
These rich assholes talk about charities and how they can help the poor. Excuse me but I am poor and I have never once seen a charity nor been offered a goddamn thing from these pigs except low wages, longer hours, and expensive insurance that does not pay when you make a claim. Maybe an insight into how these fucks got so rich. But all is well with the "The Working Families Tax Cuts Act." I just took a shit and I am calling it "Delicious Chocolate Cake."
Billionaires have wealth because they take it from workers and social institutions that enable them to generation of wealth. Taxing billionaires is necessary not to get the money but to stop it being stolen from the public in the first place. Society will be richer without these oligarchs.
And yet …. ~49% of voters who own just 2.5% of the country’s wealth voted for Trump.
Why is our messaging failing so poorly?
They believed he had arrived to save them. The magic of advertising. The failure of education. the consequences of the messianic minds. The loss of any faith in democracy making any difference.
Personally, I would draw the line at $10 million. If you need to buy more than what $10 million can buy, you should go to therapy and get some help. But even $100 billion would be a great place to start. As long as there's a line.