Hacker News Reader

The whole point of borrowing against assets is that you can spend your money without selling stock.

It's worth setting up some tax optimizations once you get to ~$10M when it does make a difference so why turn it off later?

View on HN

True but that gives the question: what does this type of wealth (on the stock market but factually even in estates) even mean? They do have stocks worth let's say 50 Billion, but this is all on paper. If they wanted to realize this money they would have to sell those stocks but there are just that many rich people on Earth who could buy those stocks. So if ALL wanted (or had) to use that money (existing on paper) there would be nobody to buy the stocks, and they would be worth nothing (or much less) immediately. So part of the whole stay rich scheme surprisingly has to be the fact of being only this rich because you try to preserve your wealth. If all of these guys would have to pay now 5% of their wealth then all of these people would have to sell 5% of their shares. But who would buy those shares then? So their shares would suddenly drop in value and they would have that much less money (on paper). So this whole operation is basically self-supporting and even if it's morally wrong, to be honest this wealth wouldn't even exist if not for these people having to preserve it.

We'll see a test case of this when Warren Buffett dies and he wants his 15% stake in Berkshire Hathaway to be spent over ten years. This will create around $7B per year of selling pressure on the stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com