It's immaterial to them. Falling asset prices hurt the middle class far more than they hurt the wealthy. Every time asset values fall, the wealthy scoop them up, furthering inequality.
If Elon Musk lost 90% of his net worth, he'd still have $34 billion. What would you have if you lost 90% of your net worth (assuming you have a positive net worth to begin with)?
> Falling asset prices hurt the middle class far more than they hurt the wealthy.
For that to be true, the wealthy would have to have a lower percentage of their net worth in non-cash assets than the middle class. That sure doesn’t seem true. Is it?
> Every time asset values fall, the wealthy scoop them up
How do they pay for them? If they are buying depreciated assets with depreciated assets, that’s a wash. If they are buying depreciated assets with cash … what percentage of his net worth do you think a wealthy man has in cash? This goes back to the earlier point.
> If Elon Musk lost 90% of his net worth, he'd still have $34 billion.
Sure, but that’s a different effect than the one you posit earlier in your post. Yes, a rich man can lose more and remain rich.
> For that to be true, the wealthy would have to have a lower percentage of their net worth in non-cash assets than the middle class. That sure doesn’t seem true. Is it?
It’s not about percentage it’s about real dollars. Your question is exactly why I included the bit about Elon’s net worth vs yours. If you lose 90% you’re destitute. If Elon loses 90% he’s still poised to win. Don’t forget the wealthy have an easy time borrowing against their non liquid assets.
I don't think billionaires measure their wealth by the amount of assets they can buy. If they did, they would probably lose interest in increasing their wealth after the first $1B. Afterall, what can you buy with $2B than you can't buy with $1B? No, it is all about status and keeping score. It is not enough that I $xB, I need to have more than all the other billionaries. That is why they can never have enough.
I completely agree, this is why I've always gotten annoyed at the libertarian proposition of "only have sales tax", I think usually called the "fair" tax, by eliminating all other taxes and setting sales tax to 10%.
A tax like that would disproportionately hurt the poor. Poor people spend roughly 100% of their income, meaning that their effective tax rate would be, you know, about 10%. A billionaire almost certainly does not spend anywhere near their entire income. If they spend 10% of their income, then their effective tax rate would be 1%.
This is also what annoys me about the stupid tariffs that are happening right now. The republicans are saying that the tariff income is going to be used to lower taxes. Since the consumers of the products are the ones who end up paying the tariffs one way or another, this means that these tax cuts are going to be mostly covered by spenders, likely a lot of poor people.
I mean, for the most part does this actually matter? I think most of their wealth is in the form of stock in their respective companies isn't it? You only "lose" money with stock if you materialize it by selling at a loss.
They've done a good job bribing their way into presidential circles, the stock prices will probably bounce back.
Well, they fund their lifestyles by borrowing against their immense paper wealth. At this rate, they might have to live within their means and buy one less island!
