this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
49 points (86.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44962 readers
648 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I think that, somewhere north of $1 ~ $5 million is life-changing on its own. There's no need for someone to have tens of millions or hundreds of millions. Tens of millions is like, changing multiple lives in a family with how much that can stretch.

Whenever someone has billions to their name, it is boggling to think about. That it becomes just 'fuck you' money at that point because more often than not, not a lot of billionaires out there being charitable. When they know they're set for a few lifetimes just by a single billion alone.

No single person should ever have that amount of gross wealth.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Billionaires don't have billions in their bank accounts. That's not how wealth works. It's not like they're sitting on a pile of cash and just want more. The vast majority of it is tied to property and businesses. Thinking that just because one could comfortably retire that they should is kind of like telling a runner to stop running after having completed their first marathon. They're a runner - runners run. A person who became a billionaire views making money the same way. It's what they do. It's what they're good at and derive meaning from.

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Billionaires don't have billions in their bank accounts. That's not how wealth works.

This is a strawman argument used by dishonest business types who think everybody else is dumb about how wealth works. Nobody is saying billionaires have billions in their bank accounts.

The vast majority of it is tied to property and businesses

Right you are on the same page as the rest of the people arguing against the existence of billionaires.

The number of properties held by a person should be limited to one. Ideally having a clause saying that it has to be on rent for a regulated price. And individuals cannot own a majority of business unless it's a one man job. I would like the world to head towards worker owned cooperatives instead of 0.01% hoarding 90% of the wealth.

Thinking that just because one could comfortably retire that they should is kind of like telling a runner to stop running after having completed their first marathon. They're a runner - runners run.

So the entire neo-liberal thesis is that we should reward psychopaths. That's kind of a non-starter for sustainable living.

A person who became a billionaire views making money the same way. It's what they do. It's what they're good at and derive meaning from.

I can't begin to tell you the enormous amount of problems with this statement with regards to somebody's mental health. You can't be a billionaire without causing suffering to other people. Without leaving somebody else with the short end of the stick. Kindness is alien to people who think this is okay and should be encouraged. This level of worship of money is quite deviant because civilization evolved and thrives on cooperation, not on some misconstrued notion that a single person can derive so much "value" such that they can demand 99% or more of wealth.>

[–] LettyWhiterock@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Means the only solution is the guillotine sadly.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

I think 5 million is ok number as a top. As long as it has been earned working.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago

$5 million is the threshold where you start to not need to work full time if you’re not old age. Like, you can basically have 40 working years of your life back and not sacrifice on milestones like owing a home, having a family, security in your elder years, and a comfortable life..

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

But the yachts. How would you get yachts with a mere $1M - $5M? And jets?

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 9 points 12 hours ago

Enough to cover their needs: from shelter and food, to enriching experiences and opportunities. We could all have this if we taxed the rich and corporations adequately as we once did.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 42 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Agree. Billionaires shouldn't exist.

Personally, every penny you have in money/assets/stocks over £1b is taxed at 100% in exchange you get a medal that says "I beat capitalism" and a statue.

[–] Townlately@feddit.nl 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Its a compromise. You can have 999 mil as long as you invest back 100% into society thereafter...though, no one ever needs 999 mil either.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 14 points 18 hours ago

as long as you invest back 100% into society

Taxes

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Getting to direct where every dollar goes above a billion is a huge amount of power. A single person deciding how to spend millions or billions of dollars to do what they deem to be improving society? They may do some good things, but a democratic process would probably do better overall.

[–] Townlately@feddit.nl 3 points 14 hours ago
[–] Sequentialsilence@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

I think it should be percentage based, not fiscally based. That way it can adapt and grow with the times. I also think all income should be taxed, as it stands only certain types of income are taxed, and at different rates. Not surprisingly your W-2 taxes (taxes taken out of your paycheck) are one of the highest tax rates you can have on income. I also think tax breaks shouldn’t be a thing at all either. If the government wants to promote something they can offer a rebate so there’s a cap on how much they promote it, and it’s not an endless give away. Finally, expenses are the cost of doing business, and you shouldn’t be able to hide income because you paid money to make money.

The fact that I can buy a property, get a tax break because I’m paying interest on a mortgage, rent the property out for more than my mortgage, claim that as a business, then claim the mortgage as an expense for said business, and end up not paying any taxes on charging someone else to pay for my mortgage, is insane.

In my ideal world there would be no tax breaks period, you pay what is owed end of story. Anything below the median income (50%) isn’t taxed, anything above the median is taxed at 1.5% for each percentage point above the median. If you are in the top 10% and make more than 90% of the nation, you get taxed at 60% above the median and can take home 40% of that additional income after the median. In the USA this would be ($251,036-$80,610) x .4 + $80,610 or $148,780.4. If you are in the top 1% ($731,492) that would be a take home of $253,093.73. If you’re Elon Musk (est $400,000,000,000 last year alone) that would be “only” $100,000,000,000. Keep in mind in 2024 he didn’t pay any taxes, and in 2021, he was the highest tax paying individual in US history at $11 billion. Yes he would still be ultra rich, but there would be $300 billion going to taxes last year alone, or roughly 7.5% of all tax income.

This means rich people can still enjoy their money, while still paying their fair share, and if you’re just trying to get by, don’t worry about it, we got you.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 15 points 17 hours ago

This is a difficult question because we don't have an agreed upon baseline of what "living" looks like worldwide.

Some countries may say, "living a long life." Other countries may say, "And a roof over your head." And Other countries may say, "That and a yearly vacation."

Also, it's sad to say that million dollars isn't even "dick around" money anymore. My wife's retired grandparents retired on a million at age 70. They're living okay, very modestly at age 90. Medicine is fucking expensive, hip surgeries, paying for physical therapy, etc. No brand new cars or fancy trips. Just coupon clipping and finding lunch deals.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 21 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

They're in the trillions now. It's like a disease.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

No they aren't. Musk is only around 700-800B as of the end of 2025.

[–] TeamAssimilation 1 points 2 hours ago

Oh, Ok. I was worried.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

sounds too cool

cancer is a better term is imo

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

wealth addiction

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Can you explain in a rational way how getting rid of money helps?

[–] dogdeanafternoon@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Spoiler: He can’t.

[–] CoyoteFacts@piefed.ca 14 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

A simple estimation based on investing that amount of money into a total world stock market index fund (e.g. VTWAX) would be your yearly expenses divided by 3.25% (pretty conservative rate). The idea is that you withdraw 3.25% of your wealth from the stock market every year, and you'll be able to withdraw that much purchasing power every year forever due to compound interest pushing the number up as you withdraw. Realistically if you're not withdrawing the full amount blindly during market downturns you can kick that number up to 4% or even more, but 3.25-3.5% is basically impossible to go broke with, and most likely will quickly increase your nest egg to double/triple/etc in most universes.

So, if my expenses were 50k/year in post-tax money, I would need to invest ~1.5 million in order to withdraw 50k of "free" money per year forever, inflation-adjusted. You can do the rest of the math on how many post-tax expenses a normal person/family has and will quickly reach the conclusion that hey, a billion dollars is kinda fucking crazy.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 3 points 18 hours ago

This right here is why everything is so fucked up.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 11 points 18 hours ago

I'm cautious about using the word "need". No one needs almost anything. That is not the standard we should be judging things. Anyone can point to anything you love and say you don't need it. It can get miserable quickly.

Excessive wealth does corrupt, in many ways so a limit on personal wealth is easily justifiable.

Without writing an essay, a somewhat arbitrary 100 milion seems like a reasonable upper limit if there are some appropriate checks in place. For example, fines need to be proportionate to wealth. A speeding ticket serves a social purpose, but extreme wealth defeats the purpose. Proportionality, so it hurts the rich the same way it hurts the working man making a $200 speeding ticket becomes a $10,000 speeding ticket for the hundred-millionaire. Similarly taxes need to be progressive and at the limit, become 100%.

The key is to never allow personal wealth grow to where it can corrupt the state. Buying up media companies, funding political orgs, buying politicians etc, is a key goal of the wealth limit.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Like why the fuck do we need money anyway? We just use it to get other stuff. Cut out the middleman and just give me the stuff I was getting with money.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago

Because the guy you want wool clothes from wants beef instead of the lentils you chose to grow, and the person who wants your lentils only has chickens, and the guy who wants chickens has cabbage, and the guy who wants cabbage builds houses, and the guy who wants a house has pork.

Money exists to make transactions easier. Barter sucks as a primary trade mechanism unless everyone already makes almost all of what they need themselves and the barter is just on the side to spice things up a bit.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 3 points 15 hours ago

If you have more accessible money right now than the poorest person in your country would ever need to survive to the age of country's life expectancy, then you have too much money.

If you think of: the maximum fines leviable by your government for committing a crime; as mere inconvenience - rather than a life-ruining financial burden - then you also have too much money. (Weird punctuation for easier parsing).

These two things may not be mutually exclusive.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

My number is between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. It's enough to live off investment income in a 4% down market, and that's all I will realistically need to have a comfortable life without having to touch the nest egg itself. Psychologically, there is no difference between having $10,000,000 and a billion, so it would seem to me that the upper limit of need is $10,000,000.

As soon as I hit 2-3 million I will retire, no matter how old I am.

As far as 'life changing' goes, I was fortunate to have a few thousand to invest when the market tanked in 2020. Those few thousand turned into $35,000 when the market recovered a few years later, which I used to pay off my student loans and put a down payment on a condo. It wasn't fuck you money, but definitely life changing.

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Impossible question to answer:

Costs are so out of whack right now because wealth concentrate at the top.

At the end of the day we’d need a lot less money if money was more aligned with how much work we put in, instead of this “trickle up” society we’ve designed.

load more comments
view more: next ›