How rich is too rich...

How rich is too rich? Like at a certain point you have more than enough money to survive the rest of your life and your family too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY
youtube.com/watch?v=KG8hAULqUOw
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Doing favors for people never becomes greed.

Till i own a Disneyland theme park on every planet of our solar system.

>How rich is too rich

Ask Seth Rich.

When you have so much money in the bank that no matter how much you reasonably spend, the interest ensures that you stay rich forever.

Well it begins at exactly $122.000.000

21 BTC

Cтo тиcяч гpивeнь

THHHIIICCCCCC

Being rich is a different world. Getting rich isn't like winning the lottery and using $100 bills as rolling papers. If you get rich, your responsibilities increase 10 fold, as do your expenses most likely. Being poor is like playing poker with $1 small blind and $2 big blind. Being rich is like playing with $100-200 blinds.

>OP, circa 100 000 BC
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough tubers and raw squirrel to have a full stomach once a week, and make sure you manage to raise a family too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?
>OP, circa 1300
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough corn gruel to have two small bowls of it every day, and make sure most of your family and kids survive the plague too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?
>OP, circa 1900
>How rich is too rich? At a certain point you have more than enough to own a house with actual gas lighting, and support your family's domestic needs and education too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?

This is why I fucking hate communists. Greed is good, you fuckers. If we'd listened to your type, we'd still be niggers scavenging for scraps on the plains of Africa

>too rich
u wot m8

Supposedly some psychological study was done on this and most people feel no additional happiness or fulfillment beyond $100,000

>At what point does it just begin to be greed
Once you have the basic necessities, like food, clothing, and shelter then it becomes greed.

I like you

>no additional happiness or fulfillment beyond $100,000

wat

Greed is just a way to casticise ppl that are working on their slef interest. There is no problem with that since we are all doing it.

But if you really want to know how much is too much, just think like this:

All the money anyone needs is the ammount enough to keep their life style of choise, plus what is needed for medical expenses in the future if there will be any, plus the money needed to keep the bill collectors away from your door.

ANything else is too much.

I think the key here is the life styke part. Are you a person that likes a simple, spartan life or you want a Pershing 150? Is all about what you want really.

...

Objectively 20 billion.
There is a difference between 10 million and 100 million. And 100 million and a billion, but what's the difference between 10 billion and 20 billion?
.BUT
A better way to look at is where did the money come from? Having 10 billion in stock because you created a succuessful retail company is much different than you have 20 billion in stock because you took pretend debt and raided a bunch of firms asset sheets. Also much different if it's because you gave millions in Campain funds and now you have special tax stautus

>How rich is too rich? Like at a certain point you have more than enough money to survive the rest of your life and your family too. At what point does it just begin to be greed?

Depends on what you do with your wealth.

Christianity teaches us that excess wealth should be given as charity to those less fortunate.

Is greed inherently bad? Is it immoral to be selfish?

>beyond $100,000

per week
per month
per year

>Greed is just a way to casticise ppl that are working on their slef interest
Bullshit fund from rich ideologies trying to get the middle class and poor to fight. I have no problem with people getting rich, but there is a point past which when it's clear threat of future basic economic functioning, or a clear example of corporate tyranny/broken system.

>How rich is too rich?

there is no too rich of a person

Name another country in the world that doesn't run on greed. There's nothing wrong at all with wanting more money and success for yourself. The same leftie-commies that cry about capitalism and greed being the ultimate evil are the ones that bitch that college isn't free. Well that's pretty greedy isn't it? Wanting to keep that college money for yourself? Seems pretty greedy. Why even want to go to college, if not to be qualified for a higher paying job?

This is why communism is so monumentally retarded. It runs on the idea that "greed is an evil motivation for everyone but me"

Wtf is this corporate tyranny you speak of?

Do you realize that ppl that has like 20 billions, don't actually have that money right? That money is reinvested in other companies making them grow in return.

All the problem starts when the companies and the State has a incestuous relationship. Companies per se are not bad, nor is someone with a bazzilion dollars in stocks from other companies.

I don't know, I have nothing against people who earned their riches, nor against those who inherited. But nevertheless at some point you gotta admit it's not normal some people have billions and billions while other starve
I don'tsomething where the rich automatically have to help those in need, because there are also many people who deserved to be deep in shit. But there are many injustices who could be made right with a small fractions of those billions, helping those who deserve it and still leaving absurdly rich people very rich

>what's the difference between 10 billion and 20 billion

one fully armed aircraft carrier and two fully armed aircraft carriers.

i guess my expenses would be higher than the average bullionaire's.

When you're so rich you have to keep stealing. Pic related.

The trouble is the jewdiciary system makes OP's mentality impossible.

The great Henry Ford had more than enough money for himself and his family. So he decided to sell his cars cheaper and pay his workers more but the Jews who owned a 10% stake in his company took him to court and won.

If someone has invested in your company (virtually all companies bigger than small) you are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to make as much profit as you are able. That's why the world is going down the tube!

>How rich is too rich?

50 million, once you have more than that the praetorian guard takes an interest in you and your life ends

((psychological study ))
Nonsense. Besides super capital players are nessary for new industries to get started. But there are limits to sense.
what the studies actully show is after a certain point happiness still goes up, but at a much slower rate. Like you might see a huge jump from 50,000 to 100,000 but barely anything after that, but it still goes up. But happiness studies are uselesss because self reported happiness/fulfillment marks are not very accurate or plotable. And even if self reporting mental goals worked, there aren't reallly enough billionaires to get good data.

>If I, a middle class worker with 103 IQ, make $100k, it's mine by right
>If this guy, a genius with an IQ of 150, creates a revolutionary invention, builds a massive company and makes $1 billion, REEEEEEEEEEEEEE BROKEN SYSTEM COMRADE BERNIE PLS GIBSMEDAT SHEEEEEEEIT

Really makes you think. Remember, if the system is a free market, then every dollar the genius (or you) makes represents his actual production, as he must have been paid for that production to get that money. He hasn't stolen it from you or anyone else - he made it himself.

There is no such thing OP. You can only be viewed as too rich in the eyes of commie scum.

/dnc

>At what point
When people stop giving you money

>implying im not going to pass on my money to my white offspring
There's no such thing as too much money

>too rich

isn't this synonymous with crooked or corrupt these days though?

youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY

20-30 million is fine, once you have enough cash, you can just buy a normal house in an upper middle class area and live out your life there. Most millionaires do not live in fancy mansions OP. As long as you are frugal with your wealth, you can make it last.

There should be a limit per individual as well as per family. Anything over that limit goes to a charity of your choice. You can eliminate welfare by doing this.

If you ask how much is too rich, I can tell you're too dumb.

tfw you will never breed this woman

just kill me now

physically remove yourself, S O T O S P E A K
Why should you decide how much I can keep of what I earn?

Lots of people will work for money they can't keep. Your genius!

...

This. We need a new Huey Lonh

>what is this corporate tyranny
Example would be when California started making 'readyreturn' system for tax filing. They just sent you a postcard and you signed it, or if you wanted filed the old way. The state already has all the data it needs for your taxes, employers have to report, investment brokers do too, health care, etc. a computer can figure it all out. There was a pilot program. Everyone loved it. But then tax filling companies paid millions in lobbying and campain funds and the program was dropped. Because they need a complex tax system to have a bussniss.
Another example is big timber lobbying for subsidies.
Another example is 80% of independent studies show bpd plastics are bad for you but 78% of Industry funded studies say they are safe, so they can lobby for no regulation and pretend there is conflicting data. There are 1000s of examples,

you posted a level 3 goldpill jew

Bask in the glory of my level 10 goldpill jew

Yeah, greed is great. It's why every civilization eventually collapses, too. When most people are poor in the United States, as the middle class continues to be gutted because of the policies of these greedy fucks, I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune.

This, greed/capitalism is fucking good and it works you retarded motherfuckers. I admit I'm greedy as fuck and I want to become rich
by creating my own companies/businesses and therefore creating more jobs and adding value to society. It's that fucking simple.

youtube.com/watch?v=KG8hAULqUOw

Don't cite fucking positivist-empirists. Read austrians for fuck sake.

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of cash as long as you spend it and spread it around; if it sits in a bank generating interest, it does nobody any good. But a lot of good can be done by a rich individual (see Bill Gates, the obvious example); even spending that money on self-interest can be generally beneficial - see Zucc providing internet to 3rd world regions. Yes, he profits and gets to run JewBook, but there is also ample evidence that the internet is good for the economy.

Short answer: not about how much, it's about what you do with it.

3000 euro per month. Any more than that and people are just gonna waste it on frivolous shit.

100 million to a billion. at some point you can start influencing government and this shouldn't be possible imo

Whats Jewish about it.

>Greed is good
Enjoy hell :)

Jews earn every stereotype they have. They are the most greedy, selfish people I have ever met.

I think something could be said for wanting more than enough though. At some point it's gotta be enough. If you caught Bill Gates demanding to get a discount on a pair of fucking pants or whatever you would probably shake your head.

I go to college to become an engineer, but I'm not fooling myself into thinknig that I'm doing it soley for the pay. I want to have a challenging and meaningful occupation one day, that's why. The money doesn't hurt, but it's not the main reason.

Like with everything else, there's a grey-zone here. In Sweden we'd say you should aim for a just a little bit more than a 'lagom' amount of money.

State greed.

Money is a tool that enables power. If you are an entrepreneurial individual who has dreams and aspirations to improve the world around you, having as much money as possible is absolutely vital. Otherwise, if you are a person who just carries on over the days like they all the same, acquiring wealth becomes nothing but a pointless exercise of greed.

Pretty much justifying jewish greed

>Bill Gates
>Good
He's saving africans and exploding their population to unsustainable levels this causes famine there and refugees here. It's a loss for all. Do you want sub 100IQ savages in your continent, no, they have their own for that.

This, one of the people I worked with said he saw a Turbo-Shekel Sniffer in a soup kitchen during the time he was dependent on those places. Her behavior was also atrocious according to that individual who had that run in with her. (Cut in line, etc)

No free market civilization has ever collapsed. Free market economies are stable, and even if inequality increases, it literally doesn't matter because:
a) In a free market, inequality is caused by differences in productive ability, not force, taxation, and slavery as in feudalism, tribalism or communism,
b) In a free market, nobody gets rich except by offering products or services which are in demand from others - the only way to gain wealth is actually to work for what others are willing to pay for. Thus, if I get rich, I've only done it by making every one of those I deal with richer too. Everyone gets richer.

However, there are countless examples, from ancient Rome to modern post-colonial Africa, of societies that collapsed when they abandoned free market principles. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh come off it. 8'm fine with someone making 10 billion. But stop pretending one mid level person is worth 100000000000x times what another person is worth. There is some point where there is something wrong if some people at a company are making not 10x not 50x but 999999999x what someone else at the same company is making.
Friendly reminder that without checks on capitalism you'd all be augmented slaves working 22 hour days in a neofeudal system.
I love when I say, hey maybe there is some limit, you retards have to go, " nah aaa, why should 150iq worker not get more than lazy 90iq worker you stupid commiusmit ".
Well yeah, he should get more. Stop strawmannirg

Nope, it is natural to be selfish, but there is a point of when you have to stop for long term reasons.

Be selfish, but only within reason. Do not uproot the entire system to fuel that greed.

altough i find anarcho-memeism tedious, you are right, good sir.

There is no cutoff point. It is all relative. Rich to some nigger tribe member in Africa has a different ceiling to somebody living in a castle.

I'm not too fond when people and corporations become so rich they can challenge the authority of powerful countries.

But besides that I don't see a big deal with people becoming hyper rich, so long as they are effectively investing their capital in the free markets, making everyone in society better off as a result.

Spending billions and billions on vanity projects is kinda wasteful though I think.

non of your business nigga

As soon as you have something you can share and You don't..you feed Mammon

>How thicc is too thicc?

There is a point were having toomuch money mesaans you have a responsibility to use it to better your community (investing or wat not) otherwise you are actively hurting the economy.

They have done studies here that show if you make more than 90k USD, you are less happy than if you just made 90k.

That is probably because over-worked doctors/surgeons/finance people etc. fall into that category though.

"Just greed" is when you sacrifice happiness for money.

I love you retards.
Protip: there has never been a true free market industrial society because every one needed government support to get started at a large enough scale to make big enough industy to be effeienct enough to compete.
Your dream world has never exsisted and will never exsist. Every country that industrialized needed government money to get started, the smart ones just let than go independent after they were established

Yes, it's called corporate welfare.

>>greed is good
If it causes no suffering you moron, everything in moderation.

You are probably the type who would cry about abortion while simultaneously saying the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare. Fuck off 13 y.o edgelord

>Lolbertarians actually exist

"Are they really worth 100 of us?" editorialists ask. Depends on what you mean by worth. If you mean worth in the sense of what people will pay for their skills, the answer is yes, apparently. A few CEOs' incomes reflect some kind of wrongdoing. But are there not others whose incomes really do reflect the wealth they generate? Steve Jobs saved a company that was in a terminal decline. And not merely in the way a turnaround specialist does, by cutting costs; he had to decide what Apple's next products should be. Few others could have done it. And regardless of the case with CEOs, it's hard to see how anyone could argue that the salaries of professional basketball players don't reflect supply and demand. It may seem unlikely in principle that one individual could really generate so much more wealth than another. The key to this mystery is to revisit that question, are they really worth 100 of us? Would a basketball team trade one of their players for 100 random people? What would Apple's next product look like if you replaced Steve Jobs with a committee of 100 random people? [6] These things don't scale linearly. Perhaps the CEO or the professional athlete has only ten times (whatever that means) the skill and determination of an ordinary person. But it makes all the difference that it's concentrated in one individual.

When we say that one kind of work is overpaid and another underpaid, what are we really saying? In a free market, prices are determined by what buyers want. People like baseball more than poetry, so baseball players make more than poets. To say that a certain kind of work is underpaid is thus identical with saying that people want the wrong things. Well, of course people want the wrong things. It seems odd to be surprised by that. And it seems even odder to say that it's unjust that certain kinds of work are underpaid. [7] Then you're saying that it's unjust that people want the wrong things. It's lamentable that people prefer reality TV and corndogs to Shakespeare and steamed vegetables, but unjust? That seems like saying that blue is heavy, or that up is circular. The appearance of the word "unjust" here is the unmistakable spectral signature of the Daddy Model. Why else would this idea occur in this odd context? Whereas if the speaker were still operating on the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that flowed from a common source and had to be shared out, rather than something generated by doing what other people wanted, this is exactly what you'd get on noticing that some people made much more than others. When we talk about "unequal distribution of income," we should also ask, where does that income come from? [8] Who made the wealth it represents? Because to the extent that income varies simply according to how much wealth people create, the distribution may be unequal, but it's hardly unjust.

>ancient Rome
>societies that collapsed when they abandoned free market principles
WE WUZ

>But stop pretending one mid level person is worth 100000000000x times what another person is worth
Think of it this way. If you were to remove the top 1% most intelligent people from society, where do you think we'd be?
No Aristotle, no Newton, no Beethoven, no Edison, no Henry Ford... Do you honestly think we'd be anywhere near the level of advancement we're at now if it weren't for those at the very top of the human pyramid?
Intelligence doesn't scale linearly. When it comes to ideas, a single independent high intelligence is worth more than a million average men. All progress comes ultimately from that minute proportion of top brains which create and discover the new in the realm of ideas; ideas which than then be copied and adapted by lesser minds. The lesser mind is dependent on the genius, not the other way around.

Read the thread first. No one cares about someone making 100,000 vs someone making 350,000. We are talking about the hyper rich here. Wen someone who only employs 200 people is worth 40 billion because of wallstreet connections, we are asking if that makes sense. And would it really be so bad if they were worth 20 billion instead.

“Every man is free to rise as far as he’s able or willing, but it’s only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which he’ll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value, neither for himself nor others. But the man who produces an idea in any field of rational endeavor—the man who discovers new knowledge—is the permanent benefactor of humanity. Material products can’t be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it is only the value of an idea that can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all sharers richer at no one’s sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform. It is the value of his own time that the strong of the intellect transfers to the weak, letting them work on the jobs he discovered, while devoting his time to further discoveries. This is mutual trade to mutual advantage; the interests of the mind are one, no matter what the degree of intelligence, among men who desire to work and don’t seek or expect the unearned.

“In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ’.exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong."
(Atlas Shrugged)

Brilliantly put.

Capital accumulation is a prerequisite for civilization and scientific advancement.

Anyone that calls someone greedy is displaying the fact that they are an envious, hateful POS that resents the ability of someone else to out-earn them. And don't think this hatred is reserved for multi-millionaires: I work in a factory and make a decent bit of money after 30 years of labor and study. I have been subjected to some snide remarks about being "rich" from people who won't get up before noon or keep a job for more than two weeks.

Personally I think anything over 10-20 mil is excessively wealthy.

over 80k usd per annum

I was answering the question OP asked; "How rich is too rich" and "when is it just greed".

How fair it is, is another question.

At that point that would be several milions, and so, with 5-6 mils in the bank and another 1mil coming clean every year, you are secure for sure.

But as anti communist myself, I imagine having this moneys and doing research on scientific stuff, hiring engineers and other ppl that don't work for free and have spend their 1/2 life dedicating in this specific science area. That being said, I most probably will make a business that will keep the cash flow around so I dont bankrupt in 5 years.
After that I will help the humanity (since all the research and new tech will be open source) to advance better and easier into the future.

But, if you are fucking commie, you will give all your money to the poor. Or if you are brain manlet you will have bling and expensive shit etc.

The point is, if you are pleb, even rich, you stay pleb, and if you are commie pleb that redistribute the wealth you are only breeding plebs times

If 'greed' is taken in this context to mean greed for the earned, rather than the unearned (which would necessitate exploitation), and if greed is the desire for values, then how could greed ever lead to suffering? If greed is the desire for values, material or spiritual, then according to what standard are we to judge what constitutes a breach of moderation?

Money is power.

You can never have too much capacity to protect yourself and influence your surroundings, from a purely self interested perspective.
If your morality/ethics align ideally with my own, then you cannot possess too much much power.
If they do not, I wish for you to have none.

Strawmanning again.
I clearly said in the post you linked someone making 100x someone else is fine, I'm asking at what limit is here, I'm asking about the people worth 999999999x someone else in the same country working at the same company.
And before you say it, yes of course referencing African bushmans net worth is pointless, that's why I said same country and same company.
And just to make it crystal clear, once again, not talking about someone making 100x but someone making 9999999x someone else in same company . It some point there is a clear breakdown of the system

You realize that most banks have an interest cap to prevent that from happening, you'd have to deposit at like 100 banks at the same time to be able to live a rich life from interest.

Every single billionaire is a crime against humanity.
Unlike commie OP I want people to be millionaires because millionaires are useful to society whilst billionaires destroy society for their own greed.
Each billionaires money could create up to thousands of nice useful millionaires.

Gee Brazil, I wonder why every religion on earth warns about greed. Your country is a prime example of greed gone wrong, or did you think hordes of kids sleeping in the street was normal?

Exactly

>t. brainlet
Admittedly, the turn towards economic statism was not the only factor behind the fall of Rome. But it was a major factor. At the height of the Roman Empire, you had to work only 3 days out of the year to pay your taxes, and relatively free trade flourished throughout the empire. When it was collapsing, the 'bread and circuses' welfare state was destroying its wealth. Economic freedom has been a characteristic of long-lived and successful empires, such as the British Empire as well. Listen to molymeme:
youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

Typical middleclass lack of connection with reality

Your hypotetical high iq genious producing a revolutionary invention benefiting all society is in all cases in fact a scheming kike earning those billions.

Highly qualified workforce is the number one excuse to lower taxes on loaded kikes.

Get your romantic facts straight.

There is no "Hordes of kids".

The few kids that are indeed out in the streets are there because of broken families. Also, most of them are addicted to drugs. Nothing to do wtith money desu.

Relevant.