Pollution the planet on that scale isn't cheap
Comment on Fact
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 7 months ago
The only surprising thing here really is that Swift isn’t worth substantially more. She’s been the top pop music act for a decade now and has been uncommonly business savvy so I was really expecting that figure to be at least the double.
BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 7 months ago
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
She gives away a lot. Food banks everywhere she goes, Tennessee tornado relief, a wide variety of gofundmes, etc.
polygon6121@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That has probably only ever helped her gain more. There is a good reason why rich people like to start charities and give money. It’s for publicity and as a tax write-off.
USA is the perfect country for getting rich and staying rich and getting richer. She could never have that kind of networth in any other country in the world as a pop act.
Serinus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
as a tax write-off.
People DO understand that the top marginal rate is 37%, right? So when she donates to charity she pays 63% of that charity and gets $0 back directly. It’s still spending money.
Unless she’s getting a ~70% kickback of the money from the charity. But that’s highly illegal. You have to be president to get away with something like that.
li10@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
It’s probably not for tax reasons, but is 100% publicity. That’s all Taylor Swift™️ is.
She is essentially just a business that makes some decent commercial music, uses PR to develop a strong following and then monetizes the product.
I think her whole thing is fake and she just likes being the center of attention, not far off the Kardashians.
raynethackery@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The top marginal tax rate in 1947 was 91%. That was for incomes over $200,000. We have been led down the garden path.
theneverfox@pawb.social 7 months ago
She might even be doing it to genuinely help, but… Even if I believe she does set the direction with a lot of what she does, there’s more to it
Billionaires aren’t people, they’re basically a company themselves. They all have teams to manage what is too much to keep track of as an individual, including publicists and accountants - and Taylor Swift has a great publicist(s). Her accountant might also encourage it for tax writeoffs
For example, Bill Gates - he likes coming off as a tech guy who retired into philanthropy, but his charities are often used to accomplish political goals and move money around. Even the amounts he’s very publicly decided to give away upon his death are still going to stay in the control of his family. Same with the REI guy.
Jeff bezos likes to come off like a socially awkward sorta cowboy who fell into an obscene amount of money. Mark Zuckerberg likes to come off like a tech bro. The founder of Walmart drove around in a work truck and wore jeans
Even Elon musk, who likes to go off script, goes through great lengths to come off like a futurist. He “officially” lives in a tiny home that he bought and slapped “Tesla” onto. He’s been living in a mansion owned by someone else
Hilariously, Trump used to pose as a member of his own team, and called up newspapers and magazines to brag about himself and to get Forbes to just himself as a billionaire.
So how much is real? Who knows. But whether there’s any truth to it or not, it’s carefully cultivated. I’m inclined to think Swift is closer to genuine than most of them, but her publicist is amazing, so who knows. She’s also a performer, so it’s probably much more important to keep her image pristine than it is for most billionaires
polygon6121@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You do understand how large of a number a billion is? To work only for a decade and have that kind of networth is insane.
Relevant Tom Scott video youtu.be/8YUWDrLazCg?si=EawoESj6ftACGnHN
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 7 months ago
Sure, if we’re talking work as in compensation per hour. But we aren’t here. She’s a product (as in Taylor Swift the artist is, not Taylor Swift the person naturally) and thus can be sold in quantities only limited by the amount of people on our planet that can afford to buy her music/merch/tickets etc. For me as a consultant to make a billion just isn’t possible, but if I start a company selling something which isn’t limited like the amount of hours in a day then… Yeah no, I don’t have it in me to become a billionaire. But you get the picture I hope.
polygon6121@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yes, I understand how it seems like I refered to the person and not the artist.
I still don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that the net worth should be at least double? Based on what? My point is that it is extremely impressive to have a billion dollar company as is, in only a decade
crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Her net worth could be considered or much more if you think of her like a company because her billion now is already earned cash and assets. But her brand and intellectual property will last decades automatically generating revenue basically forever.
IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 7 months ago
You can’t buy Taylor Swift stock on the exchange. Those publicly known double digit billionaires are that wealthy because they put their company public on the exchange. That company stock is sold at a premium because of high demand. Which means that it’s listed for more than the book value of that company often for 20x more. This is how even founders of companies that have never made a profit become billionaires.
Taylor Swift’s net worth is probably from real dollar profits. If she puts her company trough an IPO she will probably be worth way more than $1.1 billion.
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 7 months ago
Valid point. Unlike other billionaires with public companies connected to them Taylor Swift’s net worth is here value up until this point, what she has generated. There is no pricing in of future potential like what made the Tesla and Nvidia stock absolutely explode (and by that their respective stakeholders net worth). I hadn’t thought of that.