Sta bi ste uradili sa 5/50/500 miliona ?

[Dragan]

"Extreme financial inequality is the biggest problem on this planet"

The start-up founder Sebastian Klein made it to the multimillionaire with his app turn signal. 

Then he gave away ninety percent of his assets. He says: wealth is toxic.

 

Spoiler

Preferably only briefly by zoom, Sebastian Klein emailed. His schedule is full until summer. Or I would have to come to him to talk. So I made my way to the successful young entrepreneur who mobilized the rich at the World Economic Forum in Davos with a cardboard sign and argues for radical tax reforms. 

Although grew up in Bavaria, Klein does not live in the chic Munich, as I thought, but in Berlin-Friedrichshain, near the trashy party mile at the Silesian goal, where the wall once stood. A yellowed green area with playground. There is garbage on the floor. On the table of the corner pub it says: "I shouldn't drink that much!" The church is used as a “meeting center”. The glamorous start-up founder must be at home a few houses away. 

A four -story apartment building, old building. A shield with his name somewhere on the bell board. On the second floor, Sebastian Klein, forty -two, awaits me in the door frame. It is rather small and has a three -day beard. "Please take off your shoes," he says in a gentle voice. 

Shortly afterwards we sit in his cozy kitchen: fruits in a wooden shell, spices on the shelf, the image of an exotic bird on the wall. Cook books that are fraudulent on the window sill and the narrow ribbon “Zero Waste Kitchen” by avoiding waste in the household. Could also be a student booth and not the apartment of a successful IT entrepreneur. "Black tea or green tea?" Asks Sebastian Klein. Or would you prefer a blue tea? 

Blue tea? 

Don't you know that? Another name for Oolong tea. These are halboxidated teas, i.e. somewhere between green and black teas. Oolongs are often very complex in taste, so I prefer to drink them. 

Then like a blue tea. And let's get started right away: What made you give away your millions in 2023? A trip to a poor country? 

No. I read. The books of the French economist Thomas Piketty were an important trigger. He shows in the fact that in Europe and the USA you can no longer build up for any wealth: because our economic and social system is structurally unjust. He concludes that the system urgently needs an update. And did you want to finance this update with their millions? The thought only came to me later. At first I, inspired by Thomas Piketty, also started writing articles on social justice. I tried to think of some of his theses.

This is how the book “toxic rich” was created. In it they claim that we would not live in any performance society. You seriously? 

Yes. We should all afford a lot. But those who do a lot get the most money nor the greatest recognition: for example, many educators or nurses. But their work will still not be able to get rich. 

In contrast to you. 

With my personal situation, I initially did not link the injustices. Only gradually did I realize: "Man, you are part of the problem yourself!" 

Didn't you notice that you were very rich? 

I think that many wealthy people are like this. You think: «Oh, I only have a million - much less than this other type who already has twenty. And when you have twenty, you only see people who already have a hundred million. And compared to billionaires you are still not rich. But with this attitude it is made too easy: as a multimillionaire, I was the richest percent of the German population. And since I think the extreme inequality in the asset was harmful, I decided to separate myself from ninety percent of my money. 

Actually, you are the perfect counterexample to Thomas Piketty's core thesis: with a clever business idea you have brought it to multimillionaire. 

Don't forget: I was and I am privileged. My parents are academics and there was always enough money for everything. With such a background, the establishment of a company is more likely to dare. I was able to borrow start -up capital from my father. If you have such a basis, you can also inspire other investors more easily for your project. And if the matter goes wrong, you don't fall so deep. There is no equal opportunities: you have to be able to afford failure.

The Swiss Giada Ilardo, a seconda with Italian roots, has no rich parents. She opened her first tattoo studio in Zurich at Sixteen-and is now supposed to be a millionaire. 

There is no question of such rare exceptions. And then it is said that everything is okay. But that's not true. Social permeability is very low in Switzerland and in Germany. As a rule, assets are inherited, not generated. And there are a lot of people in Zurich, especially in Zurich, who are richer a hundred thousands of times when Ms. Ilardo will ever be. The only thing that was for them that they had stone parents. 

The US multimillionaire Bill Gates started as a small computererd in a garage.

And he had assets in his back. In addition, his mother was sitting on the supervisory board of several major banks and was able to provide him with contacts with investors. Bill Gates studied at Harvard University, one of the most expensive universities in the world. There he was one of the first worldwide access to the most modern computers. Or let's take Elon Musk: he particularly likes to stage himself as an ingenious self -made. The fact is that Musk comes from a South African gem dealer family. And he did not found the companies with which he became famous, but bought it himself. 

Why do you think wealth is toxic? 

Quite simply: we have huge global problems: the climate crisis, the environmental crisis, the democratic crisis. At the same time, we have incredible amounts of private capital - in Switzerland in relation to the population even more extreme than in Germany. And with a lot of money, the huge global problems can be solved, I am convinced of that. As long as the rich and hand over on their money and it is their most important goal to multiply their assets, the problems will continue to worsen. 

What did the five million you earnde with a Blinkist? 

I kept 500,000 euros for myself. The rest of the money flowed into Karma Capital, a non -profit organization that I founded. It is intended to help solve the big problems in the world. We do this, for example, by promoting media foundations. For this purpose, we founded the Media Forward Fund together with German, Austrian and Swiss foundations. The reason for this is that we think that the Democrat crisis also has to do with the weakening of journalism through social media.

Do you stick to Karma Capital yourself? 

I have no say in media funding, which runs through a jury that names the Media Forward Fund. But I made the decision that we are making money on this find together with a team. On the one hand, it is important to me that I don't make anything like this alone. But then I can't keep out. It was probably a bit like many rich who are active: secretly you think that you just know better than everyone else, which should ideally happen with the donated money. I actually reject this attitude. 

In “toxic rich”, you even write that philanthropy is “a pillar of inequality”. 

Correct. As is often known, charity works like this: a billionaire or a billionaire use a few millions of assets for social purposes. This is how you maintain your image - and at the same time support your position as more about it with all the privileges associated with it. The philanthropy is therefore part of a system that further cemented extreme inequality: the toxic wealth of a few people.

The Gates Foundation is more of a budget of the World Health Organization than Germany and Switzerland. Toxic? 

It is commendable that Bill Gates releases a relatively large part of his assets. But it is often mixed up for private and philanthropic interests: In 2014, the Gates Foundation supported the digitization of banking in Africa with $ 19 million-so Bill Gates was able to open up new markets with its indirect participation in the company at the time and earned high profits. I also think that the Gates Foundation is so important for the WHO. Because one day such significant private donors could think about which diseases it is worth fighting and which are not. 

Ultimately, you too are a philanthropic. 

That cannot be denied. I criticize this system and I am part of it at the same time. After all, I try to do a few things differently: I run a philanthropy that has the goal of abolishing itself. And one that contributes to reducing the extreme inequality of the assets. This approach has so far been rare in the rich, because you saw it on your own chair. 

You originally studied psychology. Did you want to become a therapist? 

No. That was more of embarrassment. All other subjects that were offered in Marburg at the university in the ninet years did not really be interested. 

Later you got in at Boston Consulting. A cultural shock? 

I had to have my hair cut, otherwise they would not have taken me. Apart from that, it was easy for me to get started with the management consultancy. Working in the subjects quickly, being resilient, foils make for lectures, that was all. But some things were new: I bought a watch for a hundred euros. I soon learned that some colleagues were wearing watches for 30,000 euros.

In 2011 you started their own business with a friend. With a tie company, isn't it? 

It was about neckerchiefs, cooling neckerchiefs. We thought that we would get really rich very quickly. How did you get the idea? 

My business partner at the time comes from Finland. He said that the apartments are stirring up there in summer. That is why we thought that cooling neckers should go away like warm cakes. Therefore, we had them made from a special fabric filled with the same crystals that are also used in diapers to absorb liquid. In the heat, the liquid evaporates and cools. We found suitable producers in China and sent our designs and 5000 euros there with Western Union. Of course that was a risk. But at the agreed date, 5000 cooling neckerchiefs actually arrived here. Unfortunately, the summer of 2011 was rainy and cool. And above all, we had no idea how to market a product professionally. Many cooling neckers are still here in the attic. 

Your app later brought more success, which offers summaries of books. So you no longer have to read yourself. 

This app was less about specialist books or fiction. As a young person, I had often bought popular science bestsellers from the USA: about success strategies, motivation and self -optimization. The titles always sounded very attractive, but there wasn't really much in it. Only isolated helpful suggestions - and they can be grasped in time with flashing tanks. 

When you sold their shares in this app, they became a multimillionaire. Did you really let it rip afterwards? 

Of course, I have already wondered what I could buy beautiful now. The first thing I could think of was a suit - which I may have worn twice since then. Then an expensive hi-fi system that I can hardly use in my old building apartment, and ... 

... a Porsche? 

No, no car. But a carbon racing bike for 3000 euros.

Did you draw on the Bahamas? Or to the Zurich gold coast? 

Nonsense. I've been living here in this apartment for fifteen years. Why should I withdraw somewhere where it might be a little more convenient? I can help shape more in Berlin. 

Why do you claim that wealth spoil the character? 

As a multimillionaire, I myself changed little to my standard of living, but I dealt too much with my money. I checked my account balance several times a day. And over time I even started to define myself over my wealth. 

There is this saying: "If you have no money, you always think of money when you have money, you only think of money." 

It does it very well. I was constantly bankrupt until the mid -thirties, constantly pondered how I should pay for my rent. Very uncomfortable. Then suddenly I had a good income, enough money to feel safe: only a few hundred thousand euros in the account, then suddenly the first million. But I did not feel relief - but envy towards others who had more. We are used to constantly comparing us with others, growing up with the idea of the performance society. Then the thought is obvious: I brought it to five million euros with my efforts. Another person has fifty million. It is easy to lose every framework. 

Poor people can probably only laugh at such luxury problems. 

Might be. But for me it was not a good time: and it would always go on in this hamster wheel, I felt: you have five million and want fifty, want five hundred million - and then it goes into the billions. Extreme financial inequality is probably the biggest problem on this planet: Around one percent of people have more than 45 percent of global fortune, and a lot are armed. A scandal! 

Unequal societies have a hard time in climate protection, they claim. Why? 

Without money, every transformation triggers fears: If we are supposed to change to electric cars or insulate housing facades, it is relatively easy with a few hundred thousand euros on the high edge. However, a lot of people have no such savings. Added to this is the Prasserei of the handing over: viewed globally, just one percent of humanity is responsible for the emission of around twice as much greenhouse gases as the whole poorer half of the world's population. [More about the CO2 emissions by super-rich Swiss here.] If we have at least no billionaires worldwide, it would look different: even millionaires, for example, cannot afford private yacht. Such ships cost at least thirty million euros - and emit a particularly large number of toxic exhaust gases. 

You listen to you like to ban such yachts. 

Correct. And private aircraft right away! In view of the climate change, such excesses should no longer exist. So far, however, you don't even have to pay kerosene tax on the fuel for private jets. And such hobbies are considered completely normal among rich: in 2023, when the flashing is sold, immediately wrote me on charter companies and wanted to rent private aircraft.

What did their rich colleagues and friends say when they gave away their millions instead? "The little one went crazy!"? 

On the contrary. I experience many very wealthy people who express respect for this step. They say: "I also see the problem of unjust distribution of assets." However, they usually do not give away their money. Great. 

I don't see it so cynical. My hope is that gradually more and more rich will come to the conclusion: "I am part of the problem, but would rather be part of the solution." Which consequences you then choose can be very different. 

Sometimes you generalize too much: "Wealth is always based on exploitation," you say. For example, who exploit artists like Daniel Richter or Damien Hirst? 

Ok, with a close understanding of exploitation you are probably not the best examples. But also rich artists often invest parts of their assets in real estate and shares and thus increase their money. And as is well known, a lot of listed companies live from exploitation. There have never been as many slaves worldwide in human history. We all support our consumption on exploitation and slavery in the global south. If you look closely, wealth is actually almost always based on exploitation. 

"Money is nothing," writes Irish satirist George Bernard Shaw. "But a lot of money is something else." Do you see it similarly? 

I would rather say: money is power. A lot of money is a lot of power - and a lot of money is too much power. How to toxic too much wealth can work is currently very clear, especially in the United States.

Marlene Engelhorn from Vienna, the descendant of one of the founders of the Chemical Group in BASF, gave away half a legacy: a total of 25 million euros. 

Correct. And Marlene did something that I didn't dare to do: she had people from different social classes selected according to the random principle and made a basic democratic decision about the distribution of the money: a body of fifty citizens. [Read an interview with Marlene Engelhorn here.] 

Astonishing.

In any case, it was a brave step. I got to know Marlene about the work in the Taxmenow association, in which we fight together with fellow attorneys for the harder taxation of rich. She co -founded this association, I only got in later. Her enormous trust in democracy impresses me. The 25 million euros from her inheritance finally flowed to 77 organizations from the areas of climate and environmental protection, health, social affairs as well as integration and education. 

Together with Marlene Engelhorn, you made it at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2024 with a cardboard sign "Tax the Rich!" To the "look". Do you enjoy your heroic status in the left scene? 

The visit to Davos, frankly, was rather fun for me. Media people found this a sexy topic, of course: two rich people who stand up against their own privileges. But we were also put a lot. A large group of hooded police officers often guarded us with assault rifles. They should probably be careful not to kill anyone with our cardboard sign. And passers -by roared us: «Tax the Rich? - Fuck you!" 

Maybe some thought: spoiled millionaires are important as good people. Like vain! 

One can perceive our form of engagement as complacent, yes. But we were and believed that such public appearances also help. In any case, people who talk about toxic wealth from their own experience and show new ways. 

The Greek philosopher Plato suggested in ancient times that the richest should have a maximum of four times as much as the poorest. From your point of view, where does “toxic wealth” begin? 

At the latest when someone has several million. 

So should assets of more than ten million francs be banned? 

The limit could be higher, I don't see that dogmatic. But consider yourself: here in Germany, for example, the arithmetic assets are around 250,000 euros. If the assets were distributed equally, every family of four would have one million available. In reality, however, the top few percent of the population hoarded almost all of the money. 

Don't boost the supervisors too, and that's why you shouldn't get it with them? 

This argument only catches because many people have no idea what most billionaires really do with their money. A large part of the assets very often make up real estate - the economic benefits of which are known to drive up rents and prices for houses and apartments. In general, it is usually not invested with the aim of strengthening the regional economy. You want to multiply your own assets and, for this purpose, buy forests in Bolivia, rare earth from Canada or bitcoins. A national or even regional benefit for the economy and people rarely play a significant role. 

How do you imagine a fairer society? 

Thomas Piketty proposes a general ground heritage. I am fascinated by this idea: I would find it great to give all young people with maybe 100,000 euros - or Swiss francs - to invest in their education, to found a company or to pay a small apartment. But of course we would also have to talk about the financing. Above all, the handing over would have to hand in from their assets. 

Do you preach a revolution? 

No. We are talking about the change in tax laws, i.e. a normal process in a democracy. And of course everyone could also decide individually to separate themselves from assets. From my own experience I can say: If you voluntarily give a large part of your private assets out of your hand, you get more back than you have given. At least on an emotional level. In any case, my life has become much richered by this step.

And you seriously think your example could do school? 

I hope so. But if you look at the billionaires, then the proportion of your assets that you donate on average is unfortunately even less than the poorest. A Bill Gates does not tear all the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Very many billionaires donate very little. Nevertheless, the myth is widespread by the charitable super rich, especially in the USA. We all have to talk much more openly and honestly about money! 

Hm. "You don't talk about money," said the famous American billionaire Jean Paul Getty. I like this discrete attitude. 

In reality, Jean Paul Getty said: "You don't talk about money - you have it." That sounds less modest. Incidentally, the oiltycoon had a dubious character: in the 1970s, for example, it was too stingy to raise the ransom for his grandson that the Calabrian mafia had kidnapped. Only when the kidnappers cut an ear to the boy did he pay. And he later had the sum backed up by his traumatized grandson. But apart from Jean Paul Getty: It has to be transparent where a family or person's wealth comes from, how high it is and which taxes are paid for. 

Economic magazines regularly publish rankings of the “hundred richest” of the country and their billions. Yes. But in Germany the most richest family does not appear. The Boehringer family from the Mainz area, known for their pharmaceutical company, should be up to three times as wealthy as the officially placed first. The investigative journalist Julia Friedrichs, who has been researching asset distribution for years, assumes that the billionaires in Germany have a total of up to a trillion euros more than is generally assumed. And I would suspect that the handing in Switzerland are not much more happy. Are the super rich fear of envy or raid? 

I think many rich people do not want to expose themselves out of consideration for their family. I naturally respect that. But I would generally want a lot more transparency about the distribution of wealth across Europe. 

Let us assume that the assets of all citizens would be known. What then? 

A grievance could be easily eliminated: If we earn our money through work, we have so far paid a lot more taxes on these income than with an inheritance or in income that is achieved by capital investments. In order to recognize that this is unfair, you don't even have to be particularly socially adjusted. Capital yields must finally be taxed reasonably, especially funds that are earned by stocks, investments and bonds. These are gigantic sums. And even high taxes would finally have to be levied on high inheritances and assets.

Even protest parties such as the AfD in Germany are back with such demands. 

That's correct. The AfD claims that they would stand up for the little people - and make tax policy that plays millionaires and billionaires in their pockets. AfD politicians like to speak of “tax relief”, that sounds good for everyone. In reality, they are primarily concerned with the tax relief of their major donors. Terrifying how many voters are apparently not noticeable. Part of this broken system is that people who are not one of the winners are always looking for the fault of themselves or with other people who have even less than they, the former investment banker Gary Stevenson from London claims Stevenson is absolutely right. I think that is not least due to the fairy tale of the performance society, with which we all grow up: "Those who do something will be something." When I see that people are poor, I may conclude quickly: they have just done nothing - and now want to take something away from me. Such reflexes have the absurd situation that 99 percent of the population has so far failed to make the richest percent more contributing to the general public. 

Wouldn't the super-rich not simply migrate with higher inheritance and wealth taxes? 

Who knows. In South Korea, inheritance tax is fifty percent. The heirs of the founder of the Samsung company, for example, had recently had to pay for inheritance tax equally. They did not complain, but saw it as their duty to return the society that made their wealth possible. 

And do you believe that such an attitude could also establish itself with us in the West? 

The international efforts against tax avoidance must of course be reinforced. And I also consider a high level of removal taxation to be handed over. Last but not least, I hope for the reason of many people: Most of the difficult Europeans are known to be rooted somewhere and hang on their homeland. There are always a few people who try to press their fair contribution under all circumstances. But I have a positive image of manity this minority: Most rich also want a society in which it is fair. I speak to many who are rich themselves and see the problem very similar to me. That makes me optimistic!

 

Edited Monday at 11:25 AM by Dragan

[DameTime]

Ovo mi je baš privuklo pažnju:

 

Quote

Don't forget: I was and I am privileged. My parents are academics and there was always enough money for everything. With such a background, the establishment of a company is more likely to dare. I was able to borrow start -up capital from my father. If you have such a basis, you can also inspire other investors more easily for your project. And if the matter goes wrong, you don't fall so deep. There is no equal opportunities: you have to be able to afford failure.

 

Quote

You originally studied psychology. Did you want to become a therapist? 

No. That was more of embarrassment. All other subjects that were offered in Marburg at the university in the ninet years did not really be interested. 

 

 

Quote

In “toxic rich”, you even write that philanthropy is “a pillar of inequality”. 

Correct. As is often known, charity works like this: a billionaire or a billionaire use a few millions of assets for social purposes. This is how you maintain your image - and at the same time support your position as more about it with all the privileges associated with it. The philanthropy is therefore part of a system that further cemented extreme inequality: the toxic wealth of a few people.

 

Zanimljiv ugao gledanja na stvar. CSR ili bilo koji drugi oblik filantropije ne rešava suštinski problem zbog kog dolazi do (finansijske) nejednakosti u društvu, već je to zapravo feedback loop: postoji finansijska nejednakost -> bogataši daju pare u humanitarne svrhe -> čime se jednokratno rešava neki deo problema, ali nema dugoročnog rešenja -> čime se dalje potvrđuje pozicija moći kod sloja bogatih.

 

Moj odgovor na pitanje iz naslova teme: u zavisnosti od cifre, "odrekla bih se" cca 80% para, a ovih 20% iskoristila da ispunim neke svoje snove, obezbedim kevu i sredim joj kuću i sl. 

Edited Monday at 12:03 PM by DameTime
dopuna

[Smrtokapa]

*biste.

 

Moje viđenje filantropije je dosta blisko ovom opisanom. Izvesna doza filantropije je neophodna - čak i u najboljoj verziji sveta i sistema koji imamo, potrebno je makar podsetiti ljude da postoje oni kojima je teško i kojima treba pomoći. Ali poziv na filantropiju je često u isto vreme i poziv na to da se problemi ne reše sistemski, a velika "potreba" za filantropijom znači da su tu i velike nejednakosti, nehumanost i nepravda. U Srbiji su primeri lečenje putem SMS poruka ili novčana pomoć prosvetnim radnicima u štrajku (ovo nije filantropija u pravom smislu reči, ali jeste iznuđena solidarna mera zato što ne funkcionišu institucije, zakoni i solidarnost na višem nivou gde ne bismo "plaćali prosvetarima da štrajkuju i umesto nas").

 

Ne mogu sada da nađem taj post, ali skoro je na USA temi nešto o koristima filantropije i njenim prednostima u odnosu na razne "državne" aidove i careove pisala baš osoba od koje bih to najviše očekivao.

 

Što se tiče odgovora na pitanje iz naslova, ne znam, a nije ni bitno. Šanse da zaradim taj novac su minorne, a loto ne igram.

[berti]

Šta bih uradio. Obišao po svetu mesta koja me zanimaju. Posle toga napravio neku kuću na planinčini i povukao se tamo jer mi se zgadilo sve. Da ne cujem vise za politicare, izbore... da ne vidjam po gradu plodove pink semena posejanog po Srbiji... Postavio bih jedan koš u dvorište, instalirao neki total tv samo sa bbc earth i nacionalnom geografijom... Toliko

[Dragan]

Gravity Payments

In 2013, Dan increased pay for all employees earning less than $100,000 by 20%, as a response to the lapse of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

The company also provides unlimited paid time off to employees. 

Repeated pay increases resulted in "surprising" productivity jump from 30% to 40%, as did overall company profits. 

The company faced harsh criticism from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who said he hoped the company would become 

"a case study in MBA programs on how socialism does not work, because it's gonna fail".

...

Svakako bih jedan deo novca upotrebio za sebe, ali to bi vise bile neke sitnice, jer uglavnom vec imam sve sto mi treba.

Veliko pitanje je na koji nacin bi se, sa vecim delom tog novca, moglo na najbolji nacin pomoci sto vecem broju ljudi ?

Sin se trenutno veoma angazuje u pokretu  Effective altruism.

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:31 PM by Dragan

[Malkolm Brogdon]

Ako govorimo iskljucivo o novcu, postavlja se pitanje koji je najefikasniji nacin pomoci, i koliko uopste teziti ka efikasnosti u ovom slucaju.

 

Recimo, mogu od sutra da odvajam X% svoje plate za altruizam, ali isto tako mogu da iskoristim taj novac za investiranje (naravno, ne u neeticke stvari, jer bi to potrlo ideju da zapravo zelim da pomognem) i da kroz Y godina mogu da pomognem efikasnije. Tom racunicom, najefikasnije je donirati sve posthumno, ako se pre toga novcem raspolagalo odgovorno.

 

S tim sto onda nemamo apsolutno nikakvu satisfakciju od toga, a satisfakcija je u ovim situacijama jedan od najvecih motivatora.

[Mina D. Harker]

Sa 5 mil jura bih obezbijedila sebi i najbližima udoban život, ali ne znam da li bih prebrinula sve finansijske brige do kraja života. Sa 50 već bih, a humanitarni rad bih usmjerila u pravcu pomoći ženama žrtvama nasilja, sigurne kuće i skloništa za žene i djecu beskućnike.

Edited Tuesday at 02:09 PM by Mina D. Harker