what are you talking about????????? 100 million is a fortune, and only people in the SF bubble could even consider that a drop that is pissed into the wind. I would say that you need to take a serious step back and actually contemplate life around you. 100 million is a fortune, and no one actually NEED that much money, if they do, then they have lost touch with reality.
In California that's only 100 homes. That's what's normal for us. Increased market efficiency should actually be lowering taxes, not increasing them just to make you feel good about yourself.
It's normal for someone to want 100 homes?
Elon spent less than that to fund SpaceX and Tesla which are now bringing in money from abroad and therefore paying a lot more in taxes than whatever you would have collected from that 100 million. Now you can be a commie and seize more or of it to fund your healthcare or whatever but that person that is capable of earning 100 million will simply exit your tax jurisdiction and then you'll be poor. See Europe for the example.
> Elon spent less than that to fund SpaceX and Tesla...
So 100 million is enough to do quite a bit with?
> that person that is capable of earning 100 million will simply exit your tax jurisdiction
There are plenty of lower tax jurisdictions than Silicon Valley. Is it possible there's more to a jurisdiction than the raw marginal tax percentage it applies to one's paycheck?
It's not enough to build a data center these days. Or even run the government for a day these days it seems. Or are you saying salaries need to come down?
The amount it costs to build a datacenter or run the government for a day is an unimaginable level of personal wealth to virtually every person on the planet.
My own wealth now would be unimaginable to myself when I lived in the USSR. Maybe don't look at the bottom for what should be. There's never any imagination there. I know better than most.
> Maybe don't look at the bottom for what should be.
The people at the top should look at the bottom for what should not be.
> My own wealth now would be unimaginable to myself when I lived in the USSR.
Good! But apparently $100M isn't enough?
Enough is not for you to define. Or anyone. Please internalize that. It's part of something called freedom.
> Enough is not for you to define. Or anyone.
You might look at history for how the "let them eat cake" approach goes.
> It's part of something called freedom.
Freedom is more complicated than you make it out to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
One of the early things toddlers have to learn, in fact, is that their personal freedoms may be in conflict from the very legitimate freedoms of others.
> "You might look at history for how the "let them eat cake" approach goes."
It went rather badly for the revolutionaries: the vast majority of the nobility escaped, most of those executed were commoners, Robespierre himself was guillotined (nice own goal there) as a result of political infighting, and the First Republic gave way in only 10 years to the reign of Napoleon as emperor.
Those who invoke the French Revolution of 1789 are self-identifying as future failures. For pity's sake, at least use a historical example that lasted longer.
It went badly for everyone, including the people hoarding all the cake.
Few invoking the French Revolution think it'd be good. I'd just like to avoid a repeat.
A 21st century repeat would accomplish even less. Global air travel is effortless and moving wealth across borders is done electronically.
[flagged]
This would sting more if the poster posting it thought the Census hadn’t heard of retirement accounts.
The average person in my area makes like 250-350k between two professionals being a couple. They will have 25 peak earning years where they earn like 240k after taxes but only spend 100k so that extra 140k goes into IRA/401k, and other investments, plus discretionary spend. They have 1 million in those accounts within 10 years and 3 million by the time they are in their 50s. That 40k per year you keep citing at that point is less than 2%. None of these people will vote for higher taxes and they keep winning elections. This isn't France and you're not gonna do shit.
> The average person in my area makes like 250-350k between two professionals being a couple.
Even in SF that's about double reality. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...
> They will have 25 peak earning years where they earn like 240k after taxes but only spend 100k so that extra 140k goes into IRA/401k, and other investments, plus discretionary spend.
Talking about an extra $140k a year for decades straight to put into savings as if it's the American norm illustrates just how deeply out of touch you are here.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...
"Median household income was $83,730 in 2024"
> This isn't France and you're not gonna do shit.
Yeah, Louis XVI thought the same.
You don't understand how incomes and the census data even works. When you set aside 401k and IRA money it doesn't show up as income. It actually lowers your taxable income for that year so instead of seeing 180k earned you might instead have 150k earned. It's what the IRS calls "tax deferred" which means the money is sitting in an account you own and contributes to your net worth but it's pre-income-tax money. That means someone who has 3 million in an IRA will only show "income" on money they take out of the tax deferred account which may only be 50k in a fiscal year. Income basically tells you nothing and it's a dumb statistic to cite.
Someone doesn't understand it, but it's not me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
"A household's income can be calculated in various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including pre-tax wages and salaries, along with any pre-tax personal business, investment, or other recurring sources of income, as well as any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, social security, disability payments or child support payments received."
> That means someone who has 3 million in an IRA will only show "income" on money they take out of the tax deferred account which may only be 50k in a fiscal year.
We're talking about putting in, not taking out.
No one is revolting over even 80k. It's actually funny you would even suggest it. Good luck. I am not rooting for you.
> No one is revolting over even 80k.
Define median for me?
Yeah, sure, Elon will leave US if he is taxed. Where will he go? EU - even higher taxes. Russia? China? Elon cannot even cross the street in those countries without Putin’s/Xi Ping’s approval.
He already moved to Texas because of taxes - I think this is as good as it gets for him. If US Federal Government taxes his wealth (not something remotely possible) he will still stay in Texas.
You misunderstand. He never would have done it here in the first place. And we would all be poorer for it. Whether he would have been successful elsewhere or not is entirely irrelevant. He could have retired like any one of us normies would have.
Why did he pick one of the highest tax jurisdictions in the country to do it "in the first place", then?
Taxes in California are quite low. That's why I moved here and purchased property.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-income-tax-ra...
> Top marginal rates span from 2.5 percent in Arizona and North Dakota to 13.3 percent in California. (California also imposes a 1.1 percent payroll tax on wage income, bringing the all-in top rate to 14.4 percent as of 2024.)
Am I missing something?
> Am I missing something?
Yes. Literally an entire lifetime of context.
I'm not sure any amount of context is going to make your assertions that average Americans can put $140k in savings annually, that the Census doesn't account for pre-tax income, that Musk moved to CA for its low taxes etc. make any sense.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Market efficiency as most people in the US mean requires the presence of things like roads in decent condition and regulation of RF spectrum use. Both of those are funded via taxes. Reasonable tax rates and uses of tax revenue are required for most non-trivial-sized markets to function efficiently.