Comment on [deleted]
skydivekingair@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What does she claim her yearly income? Usually someone working hard enough to brush off a $3k fine doesn’t drive themselves around and is smart enough to know the safety of seatbelts. Something tells me her lifestyle isn’t based on her income.
I honestly doubt she's particularly rich.
I googled and a private helicopter from NYC to DC costs 10k.
But she shared a helicopter with other people. That can cost as little as 1.5k. It's the budget option.
Sure, that's not nothing, but it's the kind of thing even someone on a relatively average income could save up for.
LOL. Rich people still drive, who do you think buys those expensive sports cars? They don't buy them to get chauffeured around in it. Sure they get chauffeured in their Rolls Royce, but a Bentley or Aston Martin they drive themselves. Also why do you assume wealth is correlated to intelligence? Lot's of dumb people are insanely rich and lots of smart people are poor.
Bjornir@programming.dev 1 year ago
Rich people aren’t necessarily smart. These are two unrelated metrics. See Elon Musk for a counter example.
skydivekingair@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I should’ve been less subtle, what is Elon Musk’s salary? Couldn’t find his quickly but Zuckerburg’s is $1 a year and Bezos is $81,000. So how would an income-based fine work for those who can claim a very low yearly income and still live a lavish lifestyle? That’s the loophole that would be used.
Bjornir@programming.dev 1 year ago
That’s true, but that’s because of a different loophole : we only count poor people’s income as income. Meaning salary.
We simply have to consider all monetary gain, including non liquid assets as income, and the issue vanishes. So shares are counted for example.
skydivekingair@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree that would solve that issue, that a trust could sidestep. Main concern I have is those trying to evade paying their fair share will work faster than legislation to hide/loophole their assets.