[ SECRET POST #7027 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7027 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.




__________________________________________________



06.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 06 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1003.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

If there's no such thing as an ethical billionaire, what do you think is the maximum amount of money* one can have and still be ethical?

*Assuming money = 'net worth' not spending money, like a retiree with a pension who owns a house could technically be a millionaire on paper and not live anything like someone making a million a year

[(Anonymous)]

$299 mil. I believe that's the number studies have shown that, when crossed, you stop thinking of the world as anything other than a playground for your amusement.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd ake ot 300 just because even numbers please me, but yup.

[(Anonymous)]

Man, I don't know. It would depend on how you got that money and what you do with it more than the specific dollar amount, I'd say. People say there are no ethical billionaires because you usually can't get that amount of money without some kind of shenanigans going on, or inheriting it from someone who did said shenanigans.

[(Anonymous)]

Right, so what would be the amount of money, to you, where that "you can't get that amount without some kind of exploitation" starts or ends? Can you get 10mil without exploitation? 100mil? 300mil?

[(Anonymous)]

It depends on whether or not you call winning the lottery exploitation. Within the past few years, some guy won two billion in the Powerball, but the takehome was in the neighborhood of 900+million. If there was any exploitation involved, it was Powerball doing it to the people who buy tickets, not the winner himself, so... I guess that's not the same kind of unethical?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe? I dunno, if someone won 900 million and didn't give a single cent of it to anyone else in need, I wouldn't be like "yeah that guy's an ethical dude"

[(Anonymous)]

I could see that, yeah. (Don't know if he's made charitable donations or not.)

[(Anonymous)]

After like 10 million I think it gets pretty unethical to not start just giving it away.

Maybe an exception if all of it is tied up in one company that you own or work for, or it's the valuation of your music or art or something.

10 mil in liquid assets?

[(Anonymous)]

Is it being offered in cash or cheque?

[(Anonymous)]

It's said that around 300M USD people start losing touch with reality and leaning into the dehumanization of others, so it would definitely be below that.

I'd like to say... depending on your region, the low end is 5M and the high end is 25M. But basically, if over 90% of the population around you (I really want to say over 95% but maybe that's optimistic) is getting their basic needs met without needing to take on an extra job or apply for food stamps/govt assistance and can even pursue some interests or take 1-2 vacations a year, you're probably okay.

But this also assumes you're not doing anything that might harm other humans or the planet, such as owning a private jet you take anywhere on a whim, or doing creepy Epstein things.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm willing to put the line at 100 million, but I could be argued down to 20 or up to 300. I'm not super invested in a hard line below a billion.

Something about having so much wealth rots the brain. You lose track of other humans and their lives and feelings and needs and value. If you have "going to space money" or even just "get away with crime with no consequences" money I don't think it's possible to be a good person.

I'd like to read studies on the topic honestly.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. There's a malleable point above maybe 10mil where I could see it being tied up in a business, put into trust for retirement, or a nice buffer fund for throwing charitable donations out left and right, but there has to be a top limit. Is it 100 or 200 or 300? Dunno, show me the studies.

I only need about 3mil to live comfortably without working at all for the rest of my life. 10mil would mean buying land, building a dream home, and then living off the grid in that for the rest of my life. And that's just on hand, zero annual income. To have more than that, and spend it constantly on food, luxury goods, vacations, etc, is bizarre to me. People who can do that edge into the "so rich they can't even conceive of poor people struggles" and once you're unironically buying yachts I think ethics almost immediately goes out the window.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone with 10 million could be a wildly out of touch asshole. But that could also be a nice house, a vacation house, and expensive hobby (horses?), a college fund for your kids and a retirement fund.

That person could be normal. That person could tip well and hold conversations with strangers and never order a course of action that kills people.

We know that kings are a bad idea but mayors can be fine.

Anyways yeah it's fun thinking about!

[(Anonymous)]

IDK, 10 million would be a stretch for a lot of that if you're counting on paying taxes on two properties for a long retirement and possible eldercare.

I could certainly make it work, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Only Gomez Addams.

[(Anonymous)]

It's going to depend where you live. Like, I have a below average income due to various long-term illnesses, but I live in a cheap area in a country with a solid health system and I do okay. If I was in the same situation in the US (or even the UK with the chronic starving of the NHS) I would be really struggling and possibly destitute.

And even then, someone who owns a home might be relatively cash poor but is in a much more secure situation than someone with the same income who is renting.

[(Anonymous)]

Depends on what kind of money tbh. Like you mentioned, "net worth" isn't really correlated to anything real, and nobody with more than a few dozen million actually has that much in real spendable money, rather than just having access to an elaborate shell game of access, power, and debt. Someone could have that much wealth on paper - a large family farm in an area where real estate recently shot up, an inheritance - but no ability to actually spend it, and also make no attempts to play the game and be mostly fine as a person, I think. Somebody can have almost no wealth even on paper but manage to con themself into the game anyway (I name no names but you have also seen the news lately) and be just as bad as any billionaire.