The Koningshavenbrug, or 'De Hef', in Rotterdam has to be dismantled, because otherwise Jeff Bezos' new yacht cannot sail under it. The municipality of Rotterdam thus breaks its promise that the bridge would never be dismantled again.

Bezos, former CEO of Amazon and one of the richest people in the world, has had a mega yacht built at yacht building company Oceanco in Alblasserdam. The boat is said to cost 430 million euros.

Now there is a problem: the Koningshavenbrug has a clearance height of 40 meters and therefore the yacht cannot sail under it. That is why the shipbuilder has asked the municipality of Rotterdam to dismantle the bridge.

The middle part of the bridge has to come out. Oceanco and Bezos will reimburse the expenses, Rijnmond reports. The municipality will decide in the summer of this year when the renovation will take place, says a spokesperson for Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam.

Image from Rotterdam.nl

Link in Dutch

This is becoming a pandemic in its own right. Apparently the Dutch are quite famous for building large yachts for the ultra-rich and famous. Those yachts are becoming ridiculously big, so big that they are almost impossible to move around the Netherlands.

Another example:


Image from Nos.nl

Or this one:


Picture from here

Some more pictures to be found: Link

It kind of made me laugh that these kinds of problems exist.

Well the main issue is the location of the dry docks (or just land, sometimes) where these ships are built. Invest in the correct facilities, if these yachts are so profitable they should pay for the investment.

You have to figure that if the companies are getting this much money to build the yachts, they would come up with a solution to the bridge issue( AKA trunnels)?

I'm curious what the cost is for dissembling and reassembling the bridge on multiple occasions is vs the cost of building a new yacht assembly facility in a location that doesn't require getting through a bridge. And if possible, factor in the cost of the traffic flow disruptions caused by the temporary disabling of the bridge.

You’d think the wharf would know by now which rivers/canals are available to them, and how tall the bridges are. Don’t sell a boat if it won’t fit or can’t be made to fit by for instance removing a mast or funnel.

By the way, the second photo was taken at high tide. The next day that vessel could pass at low tide.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'm curious what the cost is for dissembling and reassembling the bridge on multiple occasions is vs the cost of building a new yacht assembly facility in a location that doesn't require getting through a bridge. And if possible, factor in the cost of the traffic flow disruptions caused by the temporary disabling of the bridge.

Apparently, Jeff Bezos is happy to pay for it. His yacht cost north of 450milion. The bridge itself has an interesting history. Rotterdam was bombed at the beginning of the second-word war, this bridge is pre-WW2, so it has some historic significance for the citizens of Rotterdam. The bridge is an old railway bridge, the railroad itself has been put underground. So no traffic disruption. No idea what it will cost to disassemble and reassemble the bridge. It will not be cheap, though. But hey, Bezos can afford it.

Aesma wrote:

Well the main issue is the location of the dry docks (or just land, sometimes) where these ships are built. Invest in the correct facilities, if these yachts are so profitable they should pay for the investment.

That’s been an issue for Dutch shipbuilders for a long time, many of them are in daft locations. Many should relocate, it really does limit the maximum size they can build.

The excuse of not being able to step the masts in another location is a bit weak. Before Alloy Yachts bankrupted there shipyard in Auckland was on the inner harbour side of the harbour bridge, clearance for the bridge is 43m, many of the masts were well over this, so they were installed on the other side of the harbour bridge.

Jeff Bezos can't get his $450M yacht under a Dutch bridge? Every day I discover something new that I care less about than anything else in the world...but today's discovery might last the whole year...unless, UNLESS..there was any possibility that he'd smash that goofy face of his against the bridge while sailing this grotesque display of wealth under it. Now that I would care very much about and would go stand on the bridge just for the odd chance of seeing it happen.

wingman wrote:

Jeff Bezos can't get his $450M yacht under a Dutch bridge? Every day I discover something new that I care less about than anything else in the world...but today's discovery might last the whole year...unless, UNLESS..there was any possibility that he'd smash that goofy face of his against the bridge while sailing this grotesque display of wealth under it. Now that I would care very much about and would go stand on the bridge just for the odd chance of seeing it happen.

Funny thing is, until recently he was being chastised for not spending much of his considerable wealth.

I have to wonder how usable yachts this massive actually are. The crewing and fuel requirements must be tremendous, and past a certain size can you even fit the thing in any of the harbors you want to take it to? Dunno man, I'm not a yacht owner.

Today on First World Problems of the Ridiculously Wealthy...

Aesma wrote:

Well the main issue is the location of the dry docks (or just land, sometimes) where these ships are built. Invest in the correct facilities, if these yachts are so profitable they should pay for the investment.

Apologies if this is off-topic (if so, please delete), but I agree that surely shipbuilders or docks that expect to have these larger ships coming in surely should coordinate with the city to have appropriate bridges in place that open and close so the vessels can pass through. We have those kinds of bridges in Sydney for a long time, how difficult can it be?

Aesma wrote:

Well the main issue is the location of the dry docks (or just land, sometimes) where these ships are built. Invest in the correct facilities, if these yachts are so profitable they should pay for the investment.

Just how profitable do people here think these boats are? They are amazingly expensive yes, but that does not mean profitable. There is a healthy competition among available builders and most absolutely must ensure work for their company and workforce or they will lose them to other companies.

Perhaps company owners are taking home a million a year but that is not technically profit, rather wages and an expense. And everything else on these is costly, labor and material and logistics wise.

Tugg

Instead of raising the bridge, why not make the boat lower ? Put in enough ballast in temporary 'bags' (water, bricks) to lower the boat in the water. Of course, they could raise the elevated part of the bridge permanently.

ltbewr wrote:

Instead of raising the bridge, why not make the boat lower ? Put in enough ballast in temporary 'bags' (water, bricks) to lower the boat in the water. Of course, they could raise the elevated part of the bridge permanently.

don't know the size of the boat.If it is a few centimeters, then yes, it might be possible, but if it is anything more than that...

TangoandCash wrote:

Today on First World Problems of the Ridiculously Wealthy...

This is the type of cutting-edge reporting we need! Most of us have no concept of how tough life is for the RW.

I take the bridge has some historical significance since it is no longer used but still made to remain?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

I take the bridge has some historical significance since it is no longer used but still made to remain?

Tugg

with Google translate it should be doable to read it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Hef

Dutchy wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

I'm curious what the cost is for dissembling and reassembling the bridge on multiple occasions is vs the cost of building a new yacht assembly facility in a location that doesn't require getting through a bridge. And if possible, factor in the cost of the traffic flow disruptions caused by the temporary disabling of the bridge.

Apparently, Jeff Bezos is happy to pay for it. His yacht cost north of 450milion. The bridge itself has an interesting history. Rotterdam was bombed at the beginning of the second-word war, this bridge is pre-WW2, so it has some historic significance for the citizens of Rotterdam. The bridge is an old railway bridge, the railroad itself has been put underground. So no traffic disruption. No idea what it will cost to disassemble and reassemble the bridge. It will not be cheap, though. But hey, Bezos can afford it.

The idea apparently is to show-off how much wealthy you are and of course being allowed to get away with it.

I don't get the griping about the wealth involved and "having the money". Bezos has the money, so do a lot of others, and so he is buying something he wants. We all do that everyday. Some can just afford more. Why is it some awful thing?

If I had the money.... if YOU had the money, why not buy something that you want, that can give the ultimate privacy from the world, anywhere in the world? I would.

To say "I don't need to be that rich." or "I'd give my money to something worthy." is just being facetious and sour grapes. It's YOUR money! Do with it as you wish. And employing hundreds of fine crafts people is a good thing too.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

I don't get the griping about the wealth involved and "having the money". Bezos has the money, so do a lot of others, and so he is buying something he wants. We all do that everyday. Some can just afford more. Why is it some awful thing?

If I had the money.... if YOU had the money, why not buy something that you want, that can give the ultimate privacy from the world, anywhere in the world? I would.

To say "I don't need to be that rich." or "I'd give my money to something worthy." is just being facetious and sour grapes. It's YOUR money! Do with it as you wish. And employing hundreds of fine craftspeople is a good thing too.

Tugg

The point is not the privacy here, the point is inconveniencing others, inconveniencing traffic, and whatnot. When you or I have as much money as he has, I in fact would get it crafted where nobody even comes to know. If the whole idea is to have privacy, then you don't shout and show stuff off. If I had the money, and if I really wanted a yatch that big for whatever purposes, I would make sure that nobody comes to know about it. I would rather have a submarine or/and bunkers and whatnot for whatever reason. And if it is to treat business people and whatnot, then they surely would like that sort of thing. People do have a fascination for secrets (whether it is 'secret' or not.) The only thing I would do is make sure the authorities know about it for taxation and security purposes, other than that it is private property, the one which can move. Of course, one can do all sorts of legal or illegal things without anybody being none the wiser.

To illustrate, a few months ago, a local Artist's son Aryan Khan was arrested a few months ago on a yacht, actually, he hadn't even entered the yacht but was arrested on narcotics, later it came to be known he had nothing on him.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/ ... l-in-india

Now in that 'cruise ship/yacht' there could have been any number of drug suppliers and drugs could have been into any holds. Just a month before that, in a merchant's vessel, they caught 3 tons of drugs, but the case was buried as the person whose boat and the premises in which it was caught is close to the Prime Minister. All sorts of shennigans can and could happen.

Tugger wrote:

I don't get the griping about the wealth involved and "having the money". Bezos has the money, so do a lot of others, and so he is buying something he wants. We all do that everyday. Some can just afford more. Why is it some awful thing?

If I had the money.... if YOU had the money, why not buy something that you want, that can give the ultimate privacy from the world, anywhere in the world? I would.

To say "I don't need to be that rich." or "I'd give my money to something worthy." is just being facetious and sour grapes. It's YOUR money! Do with it as you wish. And employing hundreds of fine crafts people is a good thing too.

Tugg

The problem isn't that Bezos is spending his money on extravagances, the problem is that our current tax and ownership structures allow him to accrue so much wealth that it simply can't be spent or invested fast enough and effectively isn't doing anything useful.

Newark727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I don't get the griping about the wealth involved and "having the money". Bezos has the money, so do a lot of others, and so he is buying something he wants. We all do that everyday. Some can just afford more. Why is it some awful thing?

If I had the money.... if YOU had the money, why not buy something that you want, that can give the ultimate privacy from the world, anywhere in the world? I would.

To say "I don't need to be that rich." or "I'd give my money to something worthy." is just being facetious and sour grapes. It's YOUR money! Do with it as you wish. And employing hundreds of fine crafts people is a good thing too.

Tugg

The problem isn't that Bezos is spending his money on extravagances, the problem is that our current tax and ownership structures allow him to accrue so much wealth that it simply can't be spent or invested fast enough and effectively isn't doing anything useful.

The employees at the yard and the local businesses beg to differ. It’s tainted money, t’ain’t yours and it t’ain’t mine. Apologies to Twain.

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The employees at the yard and the local businesses beg to differ. It’s tainted money, t’ain’t yours and it t’ain’t mine. Apologies to Twain.

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

I'm not worried about the money that's going to yachts, that employs people, I'm worried about the vastly greater amount coming in that can't all be spent on yachts even if Bezos tries.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The employees at the yard and the local businesses beg to differ. It’s tainted money, t’ain’t yours and it t’ain’t mine. Apologies to Twain.

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

I'm not worried about the money that's going to yachts, that employs people, I'm worried about the vastly greater amount coming in that can't all be spent on yachts even if Bezos tries.

But his wealth is not do to anything bad or wrong. The public adores his company and has valued it highly. He owns/owned it (stocks) and so his wealth increased in line with how much the public values what he owns. That is not a bad or wrong thing.

After that there are taxes etc that he must pay. And we the public, the citizens of the USA, aka, the government of the USA, decide what that amount is and how much and how it is applied/determined. Just like some complain taxes are too high and the government is "taking/redistributing money", I will point out that WE, the citizens of the USA are deciding this. We elect those that legislate and come up with the laws ans rules we follow. If some think it is too high, other think it is too low. But WE decided that ultimately. And we as a nation have decided and made laws and those laws or followed (as well as any loopholes in those rules).

If it needs to change then change it. But there is nothing wrong.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The employees at the yard and the local businesses beg to differ. It’s tainted money, t’ain’t yours and it t’ain’t mine. Apologies to Twain.

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

I'm not worried about the money that's going to yachts, that employs people, I'm worried about the vastly greater amount coming in that can't all be spent on yachts even if Bezos tries.

But his wealth is not do to anything bad or wrong. The public adores his company and has valued it highly. He owns/owned it (stocks) and so his wealth increased in line with how much the public values what he owns. That is not a bad or wrong thing.

After that there are taxes etc that he must pay. And we the public, the citizens of the USA, aka, the government of the USA, decide what that amount is and how much and how it is applied/determined. Just like some complain taxes are too high and the government is "taking/redistributing money", I will point out that WE, the citizens of the USA are deciding this. We elect those that legislate and come up with the laws ans rules we follow. If some think it is too high, other think it is too low. But WE decided that ultimately. And we as a nation have decided and made laws and those laws or followed (as well as any loopholes in those rules).

If it needs to change then change it. But there is nothing wrong.

Tugg

Those loopholes will remain where they are, irrespective of whoever comes in charge.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1187564/

And there is also this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxIRCHWL-HM (this comes from Germany)

It is just amazing how corruption spreads.

Tugger wrote:

But his wealth is not do to anything bad or wrong. The public adores his company and has valued it highly. He owns/owned it (stocks) and so his wealth increased in line with how much the public values what he owns. That is not a bad or wrong thing.

After that there are taxes etc that he must pay. And we the public, the citizens of the USA, aka, the government of the USA, decide what that amount is and how much and how it is applied/determined. Just like some complain taxes are too high and the government is "taking/redistributing money", I will point out that WE, the citizens of the USA are deciding this. We elect those that legislate and come up with the laws ans rules we follow. If some think it is too high, other think it is too low. But WE decided that ultimately. And we as a nation have decided and made laws and those laws or followed (as well as any loopholes in those rules).

If it needs to change then change it. But there is nothing wrong.

Tugg

I think it's very naive to assume that the amount we tax the Jeff Bezoses of the world represents a true democratic consensus. With concentration of wealth comes concentration of political power as well. But even if it was, I'd still argue we're essentially wasting money on him through our policy decisions.

TangoandCash wrote:

Today on First World Problems of the Ridiculously Wealthy...

It’s not Jeffs problem, it’s the shipyards problem, it’s an easily resolved issue, step the masts at a different location, it going to be cheaper than dismantling the bridge. All they need is a large crane, which they probably had to hire anyway.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I don't get the griping about the wealth involved and "having the money". Bezos has the money, so do a lot of others, and so he is buying something he wants. We all do that everyday. Some can just afford more. Why is it some awful thing?

If I had the money.... if YOU had the money, why not buy something that you want, that can give the ultimate privacy from the world, anywhere in the world? I would.

To say "I don't need to be that rich." or "I'd give my money to something worthy." is just being facetious and sour grapes. It's YOUR money! Do with it as you wish. And employing hundreds of fine crafts people is a good thing too.

Tugg

The problem isn't that Bezos is spending his money on extravagances, the problem is that our current tax and ownership structures allow him to accrue so much wealth that it simply can't be spent or invested fast enough and effectively isn't doing anything useful.

The employees at the yard and the local businesses beg to differ. It’s tainted money, t’ain’t yours and it t’ain’t mine. Apologies to Twain.

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

I’ve seen Octopus a few times, normally she’s parked offshore and the passengers tender to shore, when she was in Auckland she was birthed at the cruise ship terminal, which is a really central location.

There’s a lot of yachts longer than Octopus.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Story goes Paul Allen hated that his yacht was so big it had to be docked at cruise ship ports with common people.

Classic!

What's the problem? He's paying for it. Holland got to build a yacht. Would we prefer it was built in China or Korea. How difficult do we want to make it for the wealthy to spend their money in Europe?

Newark727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

But his wealth is not do to anything bad or wrong. The public adores his company and has valued it highly. He owns/owned it (stocks) and so his wealth increased in line with how much the public values what he owns. That is not a bad or wrong thing.

After that there are taxes etc that he must pay. And we the public, the citizens of the USA, aka, the government of the USA, decide what that amount is and how much and how it is applied/determined. Just like some complain taxes are too high and the government is "taking/redistributing money", I will point out that WE, the citizens of the USA are deciding this. We elect those that legislate and come up with the laws ans rules we follow. If some think it is too high, other think it is too low. But WE decided that ultimately. And we as a nation have decided and made laws and those laws or followed (as well as any loopholes in those rules).

If it needs to change then change it. But there is nothing wrong.

Tugg

I think it's very naive to assume that the amount we tax the Jeff Bezoses of the world represents a true democratic consensus. With concentration of wealth comes concentration of political power as well. But even if it was, I'd still argue we're essentially wasting money on him through our policy decisions.

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Virtual737 wrote:

What's the problem? He's paying for it. Holland got to build a yacht. Would we prefer it was built in China or Korea. How difficult do we want to make it for the wealthy to spend their money in Europe?

are you serious? Do we really need to have: tell me how high I need to jump-attitude? Anyhow, this isn't a major problem, if Bazos pays for it, nobody is really put at a disadvantage because the bridge in question is in disuse.

Dutchy wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

What's the problem? He's paying for it. Holland got to build a yacht. Would we prefer it was built in China or Korea. How difficult do we want to make it for the wealthy to spend their money in Europe?

are you serious? Do we really need to have: tell me how high I need to jump-attitude? Anyhow, this isn't a major problem, if Bazos pays for it, nobody is really put at a disadvantage because the bridge in question is in disuse.

Perfectly serious. Where does the "how high do I need to jump" attitude come into it?

Alternative way of taking real estate from the sea: Instead of reclaming them into land, just have large boats and occupy the surface of it for living!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Sure, collectively we decided to make Jeff Bezos successful by using Amazon. But did we decide to make him this wealthy? Worth more than several Manhattan Projects or small countries wealthy? I'm just not convinced by the underpinning assumption that a business as successful as Amazon must therefore create a few individuals of such historically unprecedented net worth. There are public policy choices that took us there, and they deserve to be questioned and discussed.

I hope they have big budget contingencies incase the reassembly is more complicated/expensive than expected so that the city isn't left out of pocket.

I for one am really fascinated by the Netherlands' system of inland waterways. The photos/videos of superyachts built in the inland yards being maneuvered through the tight bits is always enjoyable.

Tugger wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well the main issue is the location of the dry docks (or just land, sometimes) where these ships are built. Invest in the correct facilities, if these yachts are so profitable they should pay for the investment.

Just how profitable do people here think these boats are? They are amazingly expensive yes, but that does not mean profitable. There is a healthy competition among available builders and most absolutely must ensure work for their company and workforce or they will lose them to other companies.

Not really. What you say might well be true of your Benettis, Sunseekers and Princesses, but at the top of the market there's very healthy margins. Oceanco, Feadship, Blohm & Voss and Lurssen have made such a name for themselves and can charge what they like. Not uncommon for them to have sold space in the shipyard before there's anything close to a final design (let alone something that's been costed out). Remember too that it's standard practice at these yards for yachts to be returned to them after a month or two of use for a light refit whereby small niggles are fixed and design changes are made to suit the owner's changing tastes.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Sure, collectively we decided to make Jeff Bezos successful by using Amazon. But did we decide to make him this wealthy? Worth more than several Manhattan Projects or small countries wealthy? I'm just not convinced by the underpinning assumption that a business as successful as Amazon must therefore create a few individuals of such historically unprecedented net worth. There are public policy choices that took us there, and they deserve to be questioned and discussed.

Yes, decided collectively to make him this wealthy, did he steal the money? No, we, worldwide, decided the convenience, availability and price was worth buying from him and not Wal-Mart or Joe’s Hardware Store. His business has created tons of minor millionaires as has Microsoft, Apple and the rest, just as cars and oil did at the beginning of the 20th century. We, collectively, don’t care about his wealth, we care about ourselves and our welfare and wealth. What public policy do you ascribe his wealth to? If we changed it, would there be a Bezos or would he still be flipping burgers at Mickey D’s?

And Bezos just became 12% or so richer. So he can now even better afford his pricey super yacht.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

But his wealth is not do to anything bad or wrong. The public adores his company and has valued it highly. He owns/owned it (stocks) and so his wealth increased in line with how much the public values what he owns. That is not a bad or wrong thing.

After that there are taxes etc that he must pay. And we the public, the citizens of the USA, aka, the government of the USA, decide what that amount is and how much and how it is applied/determined. Just like some complain taxes are too high and the government is "taking/redistributing money", I will point out that WE, the citizens of the USA are deciding this. We elect those that legislate and come up with the laws ans rules we follow. If some think it is too high, other think it is too low. But WE decided that ultimately. And we as a nation have decided and made laws and those laws or followed (as well as any loopholes in those rules).

If it needs to change then change it. But there is nothing wrong.

Tugg

I think it's very naive to assume that the amount we tax the Jeff Bezoses of the world represents a true democratic consensus. With concentration of wealth comes concentration of political power as well. But even if it was, I'd still argue we're essentially wasting money on him through our policy decisions.

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Sorry in Jeff Bezos world, there is nothing democratic, especially for employees -

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-ama ... ivism.html

This was last to last year and again last year they used all sorts of bullying tactics against employees.

And then there is this -

https://nypost.com/2022/01/28/ny-comptr ... -behavior/

A megayacht has to be big enough so you can put a yacht in its garage, allowing you to reach smaller harbors.

As for how the rich get rich and keep that wealth, especially in the US context, last time I checked rich people can buy politicians there, and thus get laws tailored to them. When they don't directly get elected so they can lower their own taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... ing_limits

Aesma wrote:

A megayacht has to be big enough so you can put a yacht in its garage, allowing you to reach smaller harbors.

As for how the rich get rich and keep that wealth, especially in the US context, last time I checked rich people can buy politicians there, and thus get laws tailored to them. When they don't directly get elected so they can lower their own taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... ing_limits

What you and I are saying about the wealthy is the same. The Rolling Stones article I shared above gives a birds-eye-view about how it is all ring-fenced. Saw and read the same about the Comex transactions that happened in Germany and other places.

Aesma wrote:

A megayacht has to be big enough so you can put a yacht in its garage, allowing you to reach smaller harbors.

As for how the rich get rich and keep that wealth, especially in the US context, last time I checked rich people can buy politicians there, and thus get laws tailored to them. When they don't directly get elected so they can lower their own taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... ing_limits

Ummm. France has a major problem that has persisted from generation to generation with inherited wealth. And it remains a major factor in wealth disparity, and these people are deeply tied into government. I forgot what the schools and universities are (wait, found one, ENA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89col ... nistration) but essentially the majority of top government comes from wealth and particular schools and the inequality persists though the inherited class have worked to increase the burden on the working rich to deflect the "wealth disparity" issue.

And though I see the school has been "closed" (relocated actually) the problem persists.
https://www.ft.com/content/f77bbe14-612 ... ecfc937c37

So please do not lay this as some US only thing. Wealth has ALWAYS bought government. That's where "He who has the gold makes the rules" came from. And France has a proud part in the origin of that.

Editing to add:
And it appears that France just changed their wealth tax laws as they found that rather than paying increased taxes, the wealthy would just leave France and avoid their economic system so as to not pay. And because of that France was losing a vital group that contribute a significant amount to the economy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom ... ealth-tax/

Tugg

You answered your own argument. It's not possible to be alone as a country, taxing the rich. That's why France was one of the countries pushing for a minimum corporate tax, now agreed internationally : https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/130-count ... reform.htm

And the only country in the world to have actually taxed Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. towards that end : https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom ... dda4394009

According to that article, that "offended" the US.

Aesma wrote:

A megayacht has to be big enough so you can put a yacht in its garage, allowing you to reach smaller harbors.

As for how the rich get rich and keep that wealth, especially in the US context, last time I checked rich people can buy politicians there, and thus get laws tailored to them. When they don't directly get elected so they can lower their own taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... ing_limits

The rich got rich by offering a product to consumers that said consumers wanted to buy. The government didn’t suddenly take the money and randomly decide who would be rich.

pune wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

I think it's very naive to assume that the amount we tax the Jeff Bezoses of the world represents a true democratic consensus. With concentration of wealth comes concentration of political power as well. But even if it was, I'd still argue we're essentially wasting money on him through our policy decisions.

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Sorry in Jeff Bezos world, there is nothing democratic, especially for employees -

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-ama ... ivism.html

This was last to last year and again last year they used all sorts of bullying tactics against employees.

And then there is this -

https://nypost.com/2022/01/28/ny-comptr ... -behavior/

I don’t ever remember having a company taking a vote—it’s their train set, their rules. A democracy implies voting, every dollar, rupee, dinar, euro spent is a vote, a choice.

Aesma wrote:

You answered your own argument. It's not possible to be alone as a country, taxing the rich. That's why France was one of the countries pushing for a minimum corporate tax, now agreed internationally : https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/130-count ... reform.htm

And the only country in the world to have actually taxed Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. towards that end : https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom ... dda4394009

According to that article, that "offended" the US.

Answered? I asked that you not make this as if "wealth" and the inequality of it is some "US problem".

I am fine with the corporate taxation and prefer it to be globally balanced/equal as it will only help the US (as well as other countries). How many trillions of dollars seek tax havens? I will also note that it was an EU partner nation that fought to not have it at 15% even (and they are still fighting it and the EU as a whole has not come to a binding agreement yet).

If I am to answer my own question... (what was it by the way?) I think I would say that each nations sets it rules for how it manages its economy. And the citizens have to abide by that. And free countries (as opposed to places like Russia and China where a single element can dictate a sudden change if something displeases it) allow their citizen's to have input into what those rules are the manage it.

The fact that money influences things is not new or news. To complain about it is like complaining about it rain on your parade. You have to deal with it because it is a real thing that does happen. France has done a good job regarding its financial rules. That is why it is one of the more successful nations of the world. And similar can be said for the USA.

Is everyone "equal"? No. It is possible to make everyone equal? No. Do people have input? Yes, they do. Are some people happy with their nations taxes and services and government? Probably. But I think it is safe to say that most everyone has some complaint and some thing they would change if they could dictate their desires. Would you want everyone to be able to dictate what they want? No. I am confident I say that of you. So we creak along with an imperfect process and system that has input from millions who are represented by many thousands of officials, and no one is entirely happy or satisfied with what we have come up with.

But it is our system. And I find it works more than it does not. And am pleased to say that that we can make changes and we do. And people can earn money and acquire wealth and pass it on as needed.

And yes there are many that game the system if allowed, both on the wealthy end of the spectrum as well as the poor end. There is no easy answer.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

pune wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How did Bezos and his like get that wealth? They didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head, did they? They developed a product or service that people valued more than the money charged. The purchase brought the buyer something more valuable than money. Bezos got money more valuable than the product in his warehouse and his employees thought working there was better than their other options. That’s about democratic as it gets—no coercion, completely free individual choices.

Imagine a world where you’d have to drive around to five stores to find what one can find in ten minutes on Amazon. You’re paying for that, too.

Sorry in Jeff Bezos world, there is nothing democratic, especially for employees -

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-ama ... ivism.html

This was last to last year and again last year they used all sorts of bullying tactics against employees.

And then there is this -

https://nypost.com/2022/01/28/ny-comptr ... -behavior/

I don’t ever remember having a company taking a vote—it’s their train set, their rules. A democracy implies voting, every dollar, rupee, dinar, euro spent is a vote, a choice.

You are mistaken. They had taken a vote, Amazon said it to the employees, Unionizing is bad and who knows what will happen while at the same time they did some agreement with teamsters (a big union). But this is not just till him. Even Elon Musk is anti-union. He actually put it to vote in his shareholders. Now I do not know how the question was phrased, if was phrased to say dividend versus unions then of course the shareholders voted against union. On this, he shruggled his shoulders and said it would have been better if there was a union. The same question was on diversity of talent that again was denied.

Maybe generating newspaper articles about that you ordered a yacht so big so that bridges had to be dismantled is a USP for the yacht building company?

It has been evoked earlier in the thread but I didn't realize it was about Bezos' yacht. His is a sailing vessel. I'm glad about that, it means a bit less emissions when moving it around (I'm sure it still has large diesel generators, but still). Also I'm a fan of sailing, there has been a sailboat in my family for generations.

I've never heard of a sailing vessel that didn't allow the dismantling of the masts. The masts are not installed yet from my understanding. So I really don't get what the issue is.

This story made the news here on national TV, I've just seen a story about it on the midday news, with interviews of locals all upset about dismantling their bridge (that they find beautiful...beauty is really in the eye of the beholder I guess !).