7 ms·

Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not

Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.

pm90 8y ago
Quite refreshing to see this after the fb brouhaha
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Somehow another group of political actives using such tactics is much more frightening than refreshing to me because of what it seems to suggest lies ahead.
fake-name 8y ago
> Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. If you have that problem, you have too much money. I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable. (Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)
- icelancer 8y ago
  Can corporations have unlimited money? 10 million barely makes payroll for some medium-large businesses. And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
  - fake-name 8y ago
    I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever). Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure. It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Sure, as long as they aren't using massive tax avoidance schemes to not pay the taxes. Also they aren't persons.
- abapologist 8y ago
  Don’t you think this would have an impact on innovation? The chance at getting mega rich drives people to take big risks.
  - fake-name 8y ago
    No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      > No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... > Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
      - fake-name 8y ago
        > This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time? ------ The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large. Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
- tw04 8y ago
  That was literally tax law in the 1950s.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.
icelancer 8y ago
Your first line is a very uncharitable way of discussing the issue at hand. Reid Hoffman supported a group who he probably did not think was going to use Republican-style disinformation tactics, they did, he found out through reporting, and he stopped. How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.

Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. A good problem to have, but clearly he recognized this was a big screwup and he fessed up. Not more one can ask for.

pm90 8y ago

Quite refreshing to see this after the fb brouhaha

stochastic_monk 8y ago
Somehow another group of political actives using such tactics is much more frightening than refreshing to me because of what it seems to suggest lies ahead.

fake-name 8y ago

> Basically, he’s too rich to know where he’s spending his money. If you have that problem, you have too much money. I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. I think if we limited people to a maximum wealth, after which taxes were 90+%, it'd go a fair way to fixing a lot of the issues with the world. Something like 10 million dollars seems reasonable. (Note: this ignores all the ways people would weasel around any real-world legislation. Please don't argue about that, it's a thought experiment.)

icelancer 8y ago
Can corporations have unlimited money? 10 million barely makes payroll for some medium-large businesses. And a thought experiment isn't not subject to discussion... otherwise why post it?
- fake-name 8y ago
  I'm open to discussion, just not "this is stupid because people would hire tax lawyers which would ruin it". I know that, but it's a fanciful idea. Anyways, a limit on personal wealth would need to be accompanied by a limit on corporate wealth (or corporate size, or some other lever). Really, the thing that it all would require to make work would be the ability to make things illegal on the basis of intent (e.g. intent to circumvent), which gets sufficiently close to thought-crime that makes me uncomfortable (and realistically makes the idea nothing but a pipe-dream). However, without some mechanism for preemptively dealing with rule-lawyering and such, I can't see any way to actively improve society with such a measure. It'd be nice if there was a sort of duck-typing for laws. If it quacks like a tax haven, and walks like a tax haven, the technical definition of it is irrelevant, and it should be treated as a tax haven/whatever mechanism for tax avoidance. Unfortunately, that sort of rule-of-law requires a significant value-judgement by the judiciary that is untenable given the current legal structure, at least in the US.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Sure, as long as they aren't using massive tax avoidance schemes to not pay the taxes. Also they aren't persons.
abapologist 8y ago
Don’t you think this would have an impact on innovation? The chance at getting mega rich drives people to take big risks.
- fake-name 8y ago
  No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" (or whatever the bullshit flavor term-of-the-week is) to try to make mega-millions who's someone I actually think would make decent decisions with those mega-millions. Everyone I've met who I think would actually make decent choices just wants a comfortable life, maybe a bigger house and a few more vacations a year, and to do something interesting for the sake of it being interesting.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    > No, I don't primarily because you have a similar chance to getting hit and killed by a car. Does that have an impact on innovation? This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... > Really, I've never met anyone who is actively "hustling" Have you considered that maybe some of the very rich ended up being worth quite a bit of money without that being their explicit goal? I ended up being very successful in my niche without ever dreaming of my company turning into what it is today, or what it may become tomorrow, and I live extremely modestly in a cheap townhome and drive old used cars.
    - fake-name 8y ago
      > This is... not a very good comparison for a multitude of reasons. Not the least of which being that not everyone has the same chance of being hit and killed by a car, of course... That's also true for the chances of becoming mega-rich. Can you name any actually successful person who got into the business they're in because they wanted to be come rich, rather then because they were doing something that interested them, and were in the right place a the right time? ------ The point is not that seeking to work in a niche where you are successful isn't valid, it's that there is a point at which point people accruing more money is basically ridiculous. 10 million dollars is a 100 thousand dollars a year for more then my entire lifetime. I live in a ridiculously expensive west-coast town and I'd be more then comfortable on that income. Having more money then that basically serves no purpose for the economy, or civilization at large. Scaling the limit up just becomes more transparently ludicrous. What reasonable lifestyle can consume more then 10 thousand dollars a month!
tw04 8y ago
That was literally tax law in the 1950s.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I've periodically considered a limit on the money people can have. Same here, in a similar way, too, much like air friction works -- the faster you're already going, the more energy you need to expend to go even faster (i.e. going from 200 mph to 300 mph requires MUCH less additional than going from 9900 to 10000). But there needn't (and IMO shouldn't) be a hard cutoff.

icelancer 8y ago

Your first line is a very uncharitable way of discussing the issue at hand. Reid Hoffman supported a group who he probably did not think was going to use Republican-style disinformation tactics, they did, he found out through reporting, and he stopped. How many businesses do you shop at / organizations do you support that potentially do underhanded things that you aren't tracking because you are busy living your life? I'd guarantee there's at least one doing something ridiculous you are supporting with no knowledge, but because you (or I, or anyone common) aren't among the top 100 richest people in the United States, no one cares what we're up to.