• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Norway, Sweden, and Israel all have more billionaires per capita than the United States. Germany, Finland, Australia, Denmark, and Canada aren’t far off.

    I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.

    The actual threshold is $120,000, which in the context of Switzerland, the case that will potentially be relevant for me in the future, is low enough that one in four residents exceed it. Costs of living there are consequentially very high, as you’d expect. There’s something to be said about managing the fortunes of billionaires that will hide their wealth across a bunch of countries in elaborate schemes, but that’s a very different matter than taxing engineers, tech workers, and doctors.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m gonna take a wild guess that your definition of the rich for whom all taxes are good is precisely your income + $1.

      Man, if that was true, everyone above the poverty line is rich. I was thinking more “An individual income that is literally over double the median household income where I live”

      • ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure where you are or what that amounts to but In the US I would consider double the median income middle class or upper middle class, still far from rich.

        I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

        I kinda like Chris Rock’s definition as well… something like: “you can lose rich if you pick up a drug habit… but if you’re wealthy, you can’t lose wealth… you can afford to do cocaine for the rest of your life if you’re wealthy”.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          An INDIVIDUAL income that’s double the median HOUSEHOLD income is pretty damn well off. This isn’t the 1950s. Single-provider households are not the norm.

          ‘Rich’ is income in considerable excess of the average. The idea that ‘middle class’ is actually considerably above the middle shows the obsession we, as a society, have with being midde class - aped from both above and below that status.

          I think of “rich” as someone who can quit working right now and be able to live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their life. If they still need to work, that’s below the “rich” line.

          So ‘rich’ is money management to you?