For most people, passive income is a bit of extra pocket change that requires minimal effort to earn to supplement a main source of income. For Steve Ballmer, it’s $1 billion.
That's 100k for those in the back. Really puts this greed into perspective, there is absolutely no reason for any individual to be hoarding this much money. For many people that would literally be life changing
50% for 20 million sounds insane to me. I'd be clamoring for 75% or more. I'm in Ontario and people making something like 250000 CAD already have a marginal rate above 50% IIRC. Before anyone calls me a lazy commie, my marginal rate is in the mid 40s already, and I'm happy to do my part.
Oh honey, that's so much more conservative than I'd tax. 100% over a million, easy.
They don't deserve huge bonuses so I'm not interested in letting them keep anything that insane. There should be a cap on income based upon the median wage or something IMO.
Anybody else think there should be a money limit? Like at a certain point you get a message: Congratulations, you completed capitalism. Now every additional cent you make is going to be taxed at 100%
But giving someone at the bare minimum support from the state is apparently setting the wrong incentive. They say free money for doing nothing is communism and makes people lazy while giving a billinaire billlions for doing nothing is late capitalist doublespeak.
I hope he suffocates on it.
This is free money in the way that it's a return on his investment. This has nothing to do with the state other than they will collect tax revenue on this distribution annually.
This should be a motivational post to get people investing. heck of a retirement payout this guy's getting.
To put it into perspective: If you would earn 5000$ every day (not per month, per day) and you had started with that when Columbus discovered America, you still had not 1 billion!
If you made $61k per day for a 45 year career, you would make ~$1bn.
So, that's like a decent yearly salary PER DAY, from the age of 20 to the age of 65.
If $61k per year can support someone for a year, that career would support 365 people for 45 years.
And that's just $1bn over a full career.
If you earned $1bn per year, that could support 16,425 per year on a $61k salary.
Thats a town of people.
We apologize, but your web browser is configured in such a way that it is preventing this site from implementing required components that protect your privacy and allow you to view and change your privacy settings. This functionality is required for privacy legislation in your region.
We recommend you use a different browser or disable the “EasyList Cookie” filter from your “Content Filtering” settings (found under “Settings” -> “Shields” in the Brave Browser
It doesn't say anything about what he is doing now? Seems like he was sorry about previous donations and wanted to fix it? Is he still up to the same shit?
ITT: a bunch of people who don't understand how dividends work on stock ownership. He's not collecting a salary, Microsoft is not actively paying him, he's just an investor who owns a shit ton of stock.
It is supposed to be a tool that allows people to support promising ventures that they believe in, and allows them to profit from the venture if it is successful.
Instead it's a race to the bottom, where companies have a feduciary duty to their investors to make them as much profit as possible. This is the ultimate driver of enshittification.
Adam Smith was a smart guy, but he never saw Milton Friedman coming.
Apparently no one realizes this but if we want to stop this particular type of income we basically have to destroy how everyone's long term and retirement savings work. He's getting it from his share's dividend income.
So at what amount do we guillotine someone? When they have accrued 1 million and are safely withdrawing 90k a year from their stocks/dividends? Are they allowed to do nothing and get income?
See this is the problem here. We have these insane examples of wealth that should really have been fixed with a 100% tax rate over something reasonable. But since we didn't do that we have the other extremes, calling for tearing down other streams of income or demanding you should work the rest of your life for a wage vs investments. Neither of these positions offer much value here. Really we should be pushing for voters to turn out and create a reasonable tax rate. Take WA for example and how they created a 7% tax on over 250k annual for capital gains. Could that be more? Maybe. Could it be a sliding scale up? Sadly no due to the state constitution atm. As an engineer there I might be in a position that pays that, which I'm OK with, but no way I could buy a house here or live comfortably without working if there's no investment income allowed. And I don't really want to spend the rest of my life working for shitty tech companies.
Um.... This article is clickbait. It's like If I invested super early at AAPL(Apple) and now have a billion dollars in Apple shares. Sure, I'm a billionaire, it doesn't mean I didn't do anything to get it.
Ah yes the classic "providing capital doesn't count"
How do you imagine businesses should get initial funding if not via investors? And how much should a person/corporation be allowed to profit from that initial funding?
I am shocked that an OG Silicon Valley business owner and right hand man of the creator of the most popular software on the planet is till taking his cut of the shares. SHOCKED!
Labor keeps the world running. Labor makes the discoveries. Labor invents.
Capitalism just holds the resources hostage from labor, allowing access to ill gotten resources in exchange for almost everything they produce, rinse and repeat.
One can judge the utility of such ventures, but it’s undeniable that capital is being used (not held hostage) and jobs being created. It takes a lot of people to build a stadium.