[robocat]

Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion? Makes me think of a inverted Zeno's paradox.

Why do you need an extra dollar?

I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government.

The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop.

[A] via capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. Also one needs an excessive amount more to handle progressive taxation and means testing.

[KaiserPro]

> I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].

New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.

Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.

[robocat]

CGT is fine.

I wasn't trolling, but I have unfortunately deviated from the topic.

What isn't fine is my belief that I'm going to be rug-pulled by my government. From multiple sources I believe New Zealand will tax most savings to smithereens. The lie is that I should save for retirement; when any savings will be taken from me over time via a variety of mechanisms including taxes.

Both our Labour (leftish) and National parties will screw me.

The underlying issue is that our demographics leave little choice to the government. The majority of voters are naturally happy to take everything from everyone who has more than them. Voters are selfish.

Attacking the successful is called the tall-poppy syndrome down here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome (I'm nowhere near successful enough for much backlash - but I do fear it).

I was trying to make a argument based on marginal economics. NZ should be encouraging me to increase my income from export earnings: instead it drastically discourages me. I helped found a startup, so I deeply understand the multiple ways our government discourages us from earning export income. My marginal utility from an extra dollar is already drastically diminished because I already have enough to enjoy my life. The >40% taxation on top (incl GST) reduces my motivation to earn money for NZ to nearly zero. I am not a money chaser and I dislike investing.

After some threshold, money as a marginal value becomes meaningless because other non-monetary factors like politics dominate. It seems like nobody cares how much society profits from you - they only care about their own selfish goals.

[ericmay]

It’s also not the end of the world to not have capital gains tax.

[awesome_dude]

Why did you turn that into a whine about a tax that exists in 31 of 38 OECD economies?

Go to Australia where you pay a stamp duty for buying (to pay for infra) and a CGT for selling

Edit: Changed stamp tax to stamp duty

[abustamam]

I want extra money so I can pay for simple things like food and pay my mortgage and send my kid to a school, and help family members out.

Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life.

If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.

[scottyah]

That's the difference between builders and consumers. People who are mostly consumers have a realistic number where they could stop contributing to society. Smalltime builders can imagine a lot of wealth, but at a certain point don't want to get too big. Big Dreamers are only limited by what they can imagine and make happen, and only infinite capital, labor, and time could achieve their dreams. Once you surround yourself with people dreaming of humans as multiplanetary, earthly levels of labor and wealth are obviously not going to make it happen.

[mc3301]

Hmm... I think I could be set for life with, like, $1m.

Obviously age, family, lifestyle and current savings matter.

[Danox]

As long as all the basics are paid for house, car, know how to cook maybe have a small garden and no other debt you probably can.

[robocat]

I used to think that. A simple home. Plus a basic middle class income - to cover necessities and a some extra disposableincome. I figured 1 million for a home and 1 million for investments. Nothing too flash, just cover the basics.

The National NZ median house price is about NZD800k, and the Christchurch average estimated value is about NZD800k. That's about how much I spent in a less desirable suburb (Brighton). And I will have to downsize when I reach 65 because otherwise progressive council taxes (rates) and insurance will drawdown my savings too quickly.

We don't have social security in New Zealand: the government takes our taxes and has paid past retirees superannuation (NZD500 per week). But I'm unlikely to receive that: our government must renege on the expectation because the demographics are unaffordable (tweaking multiple constraints to fuck me - e.g. introducing means testing so that if you save you lose).

In theory we could grow our economy. But our government doesn't understand how to create economic growth via good incentives. I know that because my personal incentives are totally out of economic whack (I'm the perfect demographic for a second startup). I have acquaintances who are living in cars, and their incentives are also completely fucked.

You simply can't look at what your retirees do now and make any projection based on that: governments have to pull the rug on you.

House prices depend on the next generation signing up for ever bigger mortgages (such that their interest payments eat the majority of their income). When the music stops, homeowner's expectations will be screwed.

In New Zealand we prop up our economy using immigrants: but that is an unsustainable engine.

New Zealand is increasing taxes faster than investments accrue. We have a 5% wealth tax on owning overseas shares worth more than NZD50000 in total. Investment gains are taxed at 30% or more - e.g. dividends or investment funds.

We currently have a partial CGT on property, and the CGT will take more and more of property gains (perhaps a good thing to discourage property investors?).

In the past in Christchurch residential property generally stayed ahead of inflation by about 1.5%–3% per year in real terms. A CGT of ~30% could easily make that return nothing. That's the norm in New Zealand: work hard, take risks, get no reward. Need luck.

Individually the taxes (and costs such as insurance) appear reasonable, but they screw any hope of using compounding to maintain a reasonable drawdown. A 4% drawdown could absolutely fuck you if you have the bad luck to live a little longer. See https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html

Getting taxed at an unsustainable rate is probably unavoidable without radically changing one's life or taking extreme risks. I had thought 1 million savings would be enough with compounding, but it is clear our government wants to take a massive bite of any investment gains such that you have wasted time and effort, and your investment risks may have no gains.

We have socialised healthcare, but I think we are heading towards the same reality as the US where you likely have to make yourself broke before getting any help (and the help will be more constrained).

The current retirees get financial and healthcare benefits that I will never ever get. Even though many retirees live on extremely meagre means.

It doesn't matter how much I give to the NZ economy: I believe my politicians when they propose measures to take my rewards from me. I use my engineering to be realistic. I'm not yet a hardened cynic (although perhaps I'm slowly being trained to believe that world view).

I understand the economics of my country better than most.

Most people don't want to see reality. Most people look at what current retirees get, and then assume they will get the same... We aren't being lied to. It is just collectively we all hope too much and trust too much.

[danaris]

Yeah, no, this is bullshit.

You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively, an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0].

The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money unquestionably improves your quality of life, and an area above it where it unquestionably doesn't.

[0] unless "your lifestyle" involves manipulating major governments and controlling the way people the world over think, which I wouldn't consider a legitimate part of "lifestyle"

[drob518]

Right. But why does everyone assume that a billionaire continues to work for the money? Besides, he doesn’t “work” for the money. He’s the primary shareholder in companies that he founded and funded. He gets another billion and another billion when everyone else puts an increasing value on his shares. Even if Elon “retired,” he’d still continue to get richer.

[rolph]

"Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion"

because thats another 250 billion less for a competitor to use against you.

[robocat]

That is zero-sum thinking.

I'm not sure how one can learn to see the world in a more positive light...

[jfyi]

I'd argue that if we don't abstract away resource usage behind currency, we are pretty firmly in negative-sum territory and zero-sum is a pretty rose colored glasses way of looking at things that is currently obscuring us from pending horrors.

These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.

Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.

[jamiek88]

> Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion?

Because billionaires are mentally unwell.