Post B0e7OLau22ntPoIl6W by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
 (DIR) More posts by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
 (DIR) Post #B0e7OK3XkaWce3gbT6 by dlakelan@mastodon.sdf.org
       2025-11-25T18:10:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       The difference between someone with a Billion dollars and 10 million dollars is a billion dollars, to round off error. When we are fighting against the rich, what's the point at which people shouldn't be able to get more rich? The answer is the point at which their labor is irrelevant to their wealth. That'd be the point at which a person who does no work, spends much more than average, still has growing assets.
       
 (DIR) Post #B0e7OLau22ntPoIl6W by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
       2025-11-26T17:02:48Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dlakelan Actually good point on clarity. That could be a defined limit, updated every 5 years; the number above which growth is (more or less) self sustaining. Even averagely managed, you won't ever have less than X millions of dollars. What is that now, 10 to 100?
       
 (DIR) Post #B0e7OP6D06d0HlyIoi by dlakelan@mastodon.sdf.org
       2025-11-25T18:10:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       r W/h = 10 G/P is not a bad start with r being typical return on investment W being wealth, h being household size, G being GDP and P being population. We can make this dimensionlessrWP/Gh = 10Substituting GDP/P =90k, h=2.5, r=0.08 we get W about $28M for a typical sized household.This formula should be the starting basis for our tax system.