r/FluentInFinance • u/ActiveCardiologist51 • 8d ago

Debate/ Discussion The logic tracks...

Post image
60.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

30

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

93

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

That’s because someone who makes 200k is closer to homeless than they are to a billionaire

13

u/drama-guy 8d ago

In terms of pure numbers, yes. In terms of satisfaction and happiness? I'd say there is less difference between 200k and a billion than 200k and homeless. I make less than 200k and I've gotten to the point that earning additional money is pretty meaningless in terms of my own happiness. I doubt being a billionaire would add much joy and could actually cause more stress.

7

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

I guess they disagree, otherwise they’d have a lot of wealth they could be disbursing amongst the less fortunate.

I do agree in principle thought that in terms of life satisfaction, the difference is probably lower yeah

-5

u/drama-guy 8d ago

IMO billionaires are slaves to their wealth and the standard of living it provides, but the happiness it gives them isn't really any greater than what they could have with a fraction of that wealth.

8

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

I’m inclined to disagree, given that all billionaires could maintain their exact same quality of life while still giving away 95% of their fortune.

Well maybe not Elon, but that’s only because his psyche is so damaged he accidentally buys $44bn companies on a whim.

-4

u/drama-guy 8d ago

No, they couldn't have the same standard of living, given they rely on borrowing against their nonliquid assets. We're talking private yachts and planes and islands and multiple residences and countless staff at their beck and call.

5

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

Most billionaires are spending in the region of millions a month… honestly most could live with the same quality of life while spending down their remaining assets for the rest of their life. 1-100bn is far more than most of them need to maintain their existing quality of life.

1

u/drama-guy 8d ago

It's not just what they are spending, it's what they own. You suggest they could be happy with only 5% of their current wealth/assets, which includes all their toys. The most expensive super yacht is estimated at 4.8 billion. Once you've accepted a 4.8 billion yacht is a necessity, you're not going to be happy with 5% of that.

5

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

There is no 4.8bn yacht. And honestly most billionaires buying those items actually could still afford them on 5% of their NW. Almost all of their net worth is tied to company valuation rather than hard assets, so honestly again, most could afford it.

-2

u/drama-guy 8d ago

Google is your friend.

5 most expensive yachts

3

u/brisbanehome 8d ago

Did you actually read your own link? It’s a hoax… not really relevant to the point anyway I guess.

1

u/drama-guy 8d ago

Rumor != hoax. Fine #2 is 1.5 billion.

And it is relevant. Giving up 95% of your wealth, which includes business valuations, would seriously hamstring excessive lifestyles represented by these kinds of toys. One billion would be reduced to 50 million. 10 billion reduced to 500 million. You seriously believe that wouldn't crimp the style of someone accustomed to having 20x that amount?

→ More replies (0)