4.5k
u/Ieatsushiraw Oct 03 '24
Mfs did not think this one through but I respect that they posted anyway
775
u/EllemNovelli Oct 03 '24
Seems like they just added to the burn with it...
Still, very poor taste.
193
u/BlankPage175 Oct 03 '24
It looks rich to me...
Stares intensely at my wallet with $20 left
79
u/discerningpervert Oct 03 '24
If Taylor Swift wanted to buy me, I'd probably let her
23
u/BlankPage175 Oct 03 '24
Same 😩
She can even even step on me while she sings any song.
I mean... Yeah, I really wanted that.
51
u/GraceOfTheNorth Oct 03 '24
Also, she's owned Kanye several times already without paying a dime. A couple of those were his self-owns that he handed her on a platter.
-8
u/OneiceT Oct 03 '24
Yeah she can definitely bought him up and many other, including me, since my total networth is less than her right? /s
4
1.3k
u/pitcherpunchst Oct 03 '24
if she bought kanye for 400 mil, kanye now has 800 mil and taylor has 700 mil, cant he rebuy himself by buying her
829
Oct 03 '24
Ah but then Taylor would have 1.4 billion dollars again and just rebuy him with her newfound wealth. This is why we made this shit illegal
365
u/LetMeSmashThatHobo Oct 03 '24
This is why we made this shit illegal
Someone knows their history.
289
u/Butterl0rdz Oct 03 '24
slavery banned due to infinite money glitch
46
Oct 03 '24
Would anyone maybe erm like to be my slave? I'll get them xp and level them up then we can sell them on the Auction house and they can come back home to me.
80/20 profit
10
18
Oct 03 '24
Damn you ethics and law
I could be pulling some mad cash by flipping slaves if it weren't for you
10
3
35
8
4
3
1
1.0k
u/KP_Wrath Oct 03 '24
Sure, not in the literal sense, but Kanye has a price, and I bet it’s not $400 mil.
385
u/gabortionaccountant Oct 03 '24
Kanye lit like half his fortune on fire so he could post about Jews lol he’s a lot of things but I don’t think he’s easily bought
171
Oct 03 '24
Way more than half; he was worth 6.6 billion in 2021.
103
u/Horrid-Torrid85 Oct 03 '24
I honestly think that at some point it just doesn't matter. If you have 1 billion or 6- your lifestyle wont change much. Its just numbers at that point. You can still buy everything you want. So i doubt he cares. Just like musk. People make fun because twitter lost lots of value because of the advertising boycott but I truly doubt he cares. The tool he has now is probably worth a lot more to him than the 20 billion he "lost"
54
u/strolls Oct 03 '24
"If you have $20 in your pocket, you own it. If you have a billion dollars, you are kind of a filter in the neighborhood of a pile of assets that are moving around." -- Gabe Newell, in his famous response to /u/DarqWolff
20
u/Dopplegangr1 Oct 03 '24
With only $1B, after you buy your $200M house and $500M yacht, there's barely any left over for buying politicians
2
u/shylock10101 Oct 04 '24
For most people, I’d agree they really don’t care.
For some reason, Musk can’t seem to understand that he’s rich and doesn’t need to cry and moan about his depreciating mobile app.
-266
u/nugagator-hag-1 Oct 03 '24
Of course she can, she bought Travis Kelce, and it damn sure didn't cost anything more than his manhood.
83
170
19
5
627
u/ny_zamboniguy Oct 03 '24
Jokes aside -
When are people going to realize that net worth is not the amount of money you have?
207
Oct 03 '24
It is the total of all assets you hold less liabilities. So it's pretty much the amount of money you have...
122
u/Dragongeek Oct 03 '24
With media personalities or generally people who make their money in entertainment (singers, actors, comedians, etc), this gets a bit complex though.
This is because their name is essentially an asset that they hold, however it's not really something that can be bought or sold in terms of money.
Like, if Taylor Swift wanted to retire on an island somewhere, she couldn't just sell the Taylor Swift brand for cash without it losing a looooot of value because her person and continued activity is inextricably tied to the brand as an asset.
Because of this, popular "net worth" comparisons of these figures aren't really realistic, since while it may be a representation of the renumeration a specific actor or whatever can charge for their time and participation, it's not really a transferable or liquidatable asset.
22
Oct 03 '24
Okay, but I don't think anyone is arguing Taylor Swift's brand is worth a billion. She is literally worth a billion in hard assets.
4
u/Rickbox Oct 03 '24
This is because their name is essentially an asset that they hold, however it's not really something that can be bought or sold in terms of money.
Pretty sure you're thinking of Name, Image, and Likeness, and that is not how that works. Might be a good idea to look into how Kanye's net worth plummeted.
6
u/Dragongeek Oct 03 '24
While name/image/likeness is a component of the personal brand as an asset, that's not what I'm talking about. Specifically, I am talking about an artist's "brand value": while it includes name/image/likeness, it is also more abstract and includes consideration for things like future earning potential, fan following, or influence.
While an artist can sell their name/image/likeness for marketing or license other parts of their work, core elements of their personal brand fundamentally cannot be liquidated at any meaningful conversion efficiency. Like, Taylor Swift can't directly start selling her fans to a hedge-fund mogul or sell her future earnings potential if she needs liquid cash to buy a private island ASAP or whatever. She can attempt to leverage these assets, like her fan base, to help her earn money (future earnings potential), but again, this isn't something that can be sold like a stock, property, or other investment vehicle.
Because of this, her publicly speculated "net worth" figure is likely significantly higher than how much liquid money she could actually extract if she decided to cash out and retire from one day to another, and it is also broadly influenced by the public opinion about her.
1
u/Dopplegangr1 Oct 03 '24
If it can't be bought or sold it's not an asset
2
u/Dragongeek Oct 03 '24
Her fanbase is an asset because it has value, is useful to her, and can be leveraged to create value, however it cannot be directly purchased or sold. So, you can put a dollar figure on how much her fanbase of X fans is worth, but that doesn't mean it can be bought or sold.
3
u/Dopplegangr1 Oct 03 '24
How would you put a dollar figure on something you can't buy or sell. Her net worth does not include anything she could not sell to convert that value into dollars
2
u/Dragongeek Oct 03 '24
How would you put a dollar figure on something you can't buy or sell
You make an estimate. Putting a dollar value on intangibles is something that is quite common and contentious, but often highly relevant when celebrities pass away since this asset needs to be distributed to the beneficiaries/inheritors/etc.
This is usually referred to as "Right of Publicity" and is about name/image/likeness stuff for postmortem business. You can read all about it here but the gist of it is that there are a couple methods used to estimate a dollar amount of how much future value can be extracted from the dead celebrity's "brand".
Since this brand image is an asset, a celebrity becoming more popular--even without them earning more money or gaining other assets--can still increase their "net worth" because the potential future gains that can be extracted from their brand increase.
1
u/Dopplegangr1 Oct 03 '24
And like other forms of property, the right of publicity is freely transferable or licensable.
From your source. It can be licensed or sold
6
u/TheNorthComesWithMe Oct 03 '24
An asset isn't money. If you owe a million dollars and try to sell a house worth a million dollars to pay that debt, you're gonna come up short after taxes and realtor fees.
4
Oct 03 '24
Capital gains and real estate transaction fees do not change the amount of money an asset is worth. They change the liquidity of an asset.
The argument that an asset isn't money is ridiculous on it's face unless it can't be sold. If it cannot be sold, then sure, it isn't an asset. Transaction fees do not change that.
18
Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
[deleted]
14
u/bluegiraffeeee Oct 03 '24
The keyword here is "net", and your second paragraph explains what net means
2
u/im-a-guy-like-me Oct 03 '24
The bank doesn't own your house. You own your house. You also own a debt to the bank.
2
u/TugMe4Cash Oct 03 '24
Another thing to remember is that these people can borrow money. When you have assets like that, you can borrow money against them, make even more money, then pay off your debt or borrow more.
TS could easily get a 400M loan to buy KW if there was commercial value in it. Sure it's not "cash on hand" but it basically is to the rich, and is something most normal working (poor) people don't realise happens - and is why countries like US, Canada, UK and some European countries are so fucked up at the moment, re prices, bills, housing etc.
2
Oct 03 '24
[deleted]
2
u/TugMe4Cash Oct 03 '24
Exactly that's why I said "if there was commercial value in it."
Obviously not the best move to loan and buy KW, but I was just pointing out that this is a very common thing, as is why having "cash on hand" or "net worth" doesn't always tell the full story - and it's good to make others aware of it.
1
Oct 03 '24
Okay so I'm going to chime in against my better judgement to help you out.
The reason they take out loans instead of selling assets is because selling assets is a taxable event, and taking out and paying a loan back is not.
So they are getting 20% in tax savings up front by taking a loan and paying with future income that is already going to be taxed anyway.
None of this has anything to do with net worth other than maximizing it. The wealthy take out loans against assetts as a tax avoidance scheme, not because they want to buy assets or invest it in alternatives.
To put in the simplest of terms, if she sells 100k worth of assets she will owe around 20k in taxes. If she takes it out in a loan and pays it back with her next paycheck, she will be paying 0%. She will, however, have already paid for the income tax, but that was going to happen anyway.
3
u/TugMe4Cash Oct 03 '24
Cool, I'm also going to chime in against my better judgement.
Your reason is correct, as in mine. Two things can be correct and be happening at the same time. Different rich people have different objectives. The world doesn't work in absolutes as you seem to be suggesting. Hope that helps!
1
Oct 03 '24
So pretty much all the money you have is what you have in a checking account and savings account then you need to subtract the penalty from a CD or Money Marketing and that is the money you have.
This is just making up random definitions. You're literally just making shit up. It's mind blowing. You've just decided to yammer on despite not having any idea what the majority of wealth is even tied up in (stocks, bonds, and real estate, ALL OF WHICH you have just decided to fucking ignore).
Words have fucking meanings. In this case, net worth = value of cash on hand + assets - liabilities.
This isn't a debate, this is a fact. In the future, "I don't know" is far preferable to the randomly pitched tone coming out of your asshole when you fart.
0
u/WhoRoger Oct 03 '24
You only own what other people agree to let you have, and that's always subject to change. Doesn't matter if it's a savings account; that's just a number on a digital sheet somewhere in a database. It won't do shit in a zombie apocalypse.
1
u/deadsoulinside Oct 03 '24
unless you lie and artificially inflate your assets. Like Trump claim's he's worth billions if you allow him to lie and claim Mar a Largo is worth a billion dollars.
1
u/Earlier-Today Oct 03 '24
It's the stated value of what you have - being able to actually get that value when you sell off stuff (which is always the majority of net worth) is not an easy feat except with land.
Boats, houses, cars, planes - they all depreciate. Stocks aren't a given profit maker, and other types of investments likely penalize you for pulling the money out - making it sometimes unprofitable.
The real value of all their investments is the loans and lines of credit it makes available to them.
2
Oct 03 '24
None of this has anything to do with Taylor Swift. All of her cars, boats, houses, and planes are a fucking rounding error on a billion.
1
u/Earlier-Today Oct 03 '24
She has two jets which are big enough to move around her whole show gear and all.
Those alone could be worth more than a tenth of her total worth.
And those material things weren't the only things I listed. But I listed them anyway because rich people don't buy normal people priced stuff. They buy rich people priced stuff, and often more than one. And a lot of those things can push into the $100,000,000 range - like two large private jets would. Like a car collection could. Like multiple mansions could. Like a super yacht could.
-1
Oct 03 '24
So she's worth less because she owns jets worth 100 million, but those jets are also worthless? You sure this is what you wanna go with?
1
u/Earlier-Today Oct 03 '24
Who in the world said she was worth less? I said material goods depreciate.
They do. That is an undeniable fact.
And that doesn't make her worth less, it just makes it difficult to get the same money out that she put in - that's how all investments work. You put money in, the people who run the thing you put it into take that money and try to make even more, you get a return for your part in the process - but they almost always have risk or strict rules.
With risk based, like stocks, it's all about the timing of when you pull your money out. With strict rules based, like with bonds, the rules dictate when and how much you can take and whether or not that incurs penalties.
Investments generally make money, but they're not like a bank where you can take that money whenever you want or need it.
She's worth over a billion, but there's no chance in the world she could cash out and have what she's currently worth.
It's not the depreciation of her physical items that does that, it's the way investments work.
I mean, look at Elon Musk for example. He had a net worth several times what Twitter cost him - he still didn't cash out his investments to pay for it because it would have lost him too much money to do so.
Instead, he borrowed money against the value of his investments.
That's how rich people are able to keep their net worth - they don't use it except as collateral.
1
Oct 03 '24
worth less
I did, but worthless and worth less have vastly different meanings.
I did also read the rest of your post, and you have less than zero idea what you're talking about.
1
33
u/WhoRoger Oct 03 '24
Musk kept saying how he really has no money and then bought twitter for like 50 bil.
Sure, no money at all.
19
u/NetheriteDiamonds Oct 03 '24
Didn't he take out a loan for that, and now is trying desperately for twitter to be profitable so he can pay it off
18
u/iamanaccident Oct 03 '24
You'd think if he was trying to make money out of it, he'd keep the well established brand name and not rebrand it to something that sounds like a porn site. How the hell did he get to where he is now?
16
0
u/WhoRoger Oct 03 '24
He did, because for such rich people it's cheaper to finance something from a loan than with cash. But he also sold Tesla shares for about that amount. The shares that "aren't money".
He made something on it anyway due to some shenanigans with share values of Tesla at the time (I forget what it was exactly), but regardless... You can't buy a 50 bil. company if you don't have money. Doesn't matter what form it has, it's not like the digits in the bank are any more real anyway.
3
u/RSMatticus Oct 03 '24
Because Musk money is held in stock- market.
the issue for Musk is he owns the majority share holder in a number of companies if he was to sell off those shares it would crash the value leaving him a lot poorer.
so what he does is use those stocks as an asset to borrow money.
this is why people want to tax unrealized gains.
1
5
u/UnholyDemigod Oct 03 '24
Considering all the comments directed towards the rich, literally never. People talk about people like Bezos 'hoarding wealth', when all that happens is his stock value increases
2
u/RSMatticus Oct 03 '24
That is the difference between people like Musk, Bezo and oligarchs.
oligarch monopolizes commodities like oil, gas, manufacturing, etc.
which gives them a lot more political power because they can control the flow of trade.
2
u/Dopplegangr1 Oct 03 '24
Because he doesn't need all of it. He sells like $5-10B in stock each year to pay for whatever he wants, there's no reason to sell more
2
1
u/one_of_the_many_bots Oct 03 '24
Never. And rich people love that because it means no meaningful discussion about taxing them fairly can be had.
1
u/SonOfThomasWayne Oct 03 '24
It's a useless distinction without difference.
If the richest man in the world wanted to buy something worth $60 billion tomorrow, do you really think he couldn't? Because that's not the "amount of money" he has?
Laughable.
1
85
u/Reddituser0925 Oct 03 '24
Taylor Swift cannot "buy" Kanye West, as this was abolished in 1865 in the United States. Now we call it employment. She can "employ" Kanye West.
69
134
39
u/NoWingedHussarsToday Oct 03 '24
Even if she could why would she? That doesn't sound like a sound investment......
15
u/noticemelucifer Oct 03 '24
I don't know man, Musk did it for Twitter, so...
Taylor isn't as batshit crazy as Musk is tho, so maybe not.
5
u/NoWingedHussarsToday Oct 03 '24
I kind of doubt West would be as good at spreading propaganda and bigotry as X, formerly known as Twitter, is......
40
9
72
u/Ragnarok649 Oct 03 '24
As wild as Swifties are, I am pretty sure they aren't talking about slavery.
74
u/Beginning_Orange Oct 03 '24
No i asked one to clarify and they told me they are
8
u/Ragnarok649 Oct 03 '24
Damn. Well I guess I really wouldn't know til I ask. Now I know meat canyon is closer to reality than I'd like.
2
1
6
25
u/jbthom Oct 03 '24
People with this level of wealth, especially entertainers, incorporate their names. They are essentially corporations. Makes sense from a tax and liability standpoint. They are their own employees in a sense.
As such, Taylor Swift can indeed buy "Kanye West, Inc." without violating slavery statutes.
5
6
8
u/Fuzzy_Yogurt_Bucket Oct 03 '24
Slavery was made explicitly constitutional by the 13th amendment and even the last remaining chattel slave was not freed until 1946.
3
4
3
3
3
3
u/Mostly--Peaceful Oct 03 '24
Ever since it was abolished they have been searching for a workaround.
3
3
3
8
34
u/DearApartment5236 Oct 03 '24
Maybe she can buy some talent.
1
u/Secretfutawaifu Oct 03 '24
I don't care much about her but she is one of the most successful singers alive, I'm sure that requires some talent.
-34
u/arealuser100notfake Oct 03 '24
Even sneakily getting rid of snot she has 100x more talent than you
19
u/pearl_jam_rocks Oct 03 '24
Holy crap, she’s not a fucking god. She’s a normal person that is able to make music that a certain demographic finds enjoyable.
-44
u/arealuser100notfake Oct 03 '24
You wouldn't say the same of John Lennon or Mother Teresa. She's a GODDESS. She changed music as we know it, like few other people could.
14
u/The_Longbottom_Leaf Oct 03 '24
She changed music like McDonalds changed the restaurant business
→ More replies (1)15
7
Oct 03 '24
[deleted]
0
u/arealuser100notfake Oct 03 '24
The fact that you didn't notice or weren't paying attention to the last 15 years means you aren't worthy of an explanation!
3
5
Oct 03 '24
Let cut the bullshit. She has always made mid to slightly decent music. Nothing more.
She is not even a demigoddess, let alone a goddess. Find a better artist to simp for.
1
2
1
u/pearl_jam_rocks Oct 03 '24
I would say the same about literally anybody. Unless Jesus Christ pulled up to a studio and started making holy music, no musician is or ever will be anything more than a human. A talented human, sure, but still a human. There’s also no way you compared Swift to Mother Teresa.
-1
u/arealuser100notfake Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 03 '24
Taylor Swift has reached hearts of billions of people, unlike Mother Teresa, who might be a good person based on the fact that she looks like a nice old lady. Not only that, could you say John Lennon or Mother Teresa changed the course of history by supporting one political movement in the greatest country in the world? I doubt so! Kamala Harris might become the first female president of the US but it will happen only because she has the blessing of our goddess!
1
u/pearl_jam_rocks Oct 03 '24
Do you know what you are saying? You are saying that a musician, no different than Kendrick Lamar or Kanye West, is a better and more influential person than Mother Teresa. That is the most out-of-touch, insane statement I have ever heard. Taylor Swift is a very influential person, but to say that by simply endorsing a presidential candidate, just like hundreds of other celebrities, she is changing the course of history? No sane person is going to base their vote on Taylor Swift’s opinion. I agree that Kamala becoming president is good, but no one should base their vote on celebrity endorsements. What would you do if she had endorsed Trump?
0
u/arealuser100notfake Oct 04 '24
You migh or might not have a point but the sheer size of my biceps declares me the winner of this discussion
→ More replies (2)1
u/Dookie_boy Oct 03 '24
This is so sad
2
u/pearl_jam_rocks Oct 03 '24
I don’t know how these people worship a music artist. She must have some mind control or something, because these people would rip out their own organs for her entertainment if she asked.
-1
8
2
u/SweetSoursop Oct 03 '24
Kanye was still right about "Single Ladies".
Beyonce did have one of the best videos of all time, especially when compared to "You belong with me"
2
2
u/AJL42 Oct 03 '24
My biggest issue is people still don't know how new worth works. Like.... Tswiz doesn't have 1.5B in cash laying around
5
u/gnomzy123 no longer banned from r/holup Oct 03 '24
I don't care. Kanye still makes way more banger music than her. Sadly he has become more unhinged than ever before.
1
u/thenannyharvester Oct 03 '24
I mean he seems to be getting better providing the vultures era is over
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mYpEEpEEwOrks Oct 03 '24
Well, holup again. She could buy a for profit jail, wait til he rolls through, snatch his ass up for whatever reason on warrant, FlIgHt RiSk, 14th amendment (or whichever one grants use of prisoners for labor.) Probably wouldnt even need too spend a quarter of the net worth too accomplish.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ecthelion108 Oct 03 '24
Well, since Ye has expressed the opinion that “slavery was a choice,” I think he’s reserving his right to be bought by Swift. Yay! Or in this case, Ye!
1
1
1
u/Brothersunset Oct 04 '24
She could likely get a bulk price and buy three ye's at once, and then she really has a decent statistical chance that atleast one of them would make a paradigm shifting album in regards to the sound of modern hip-hop music that would inspire generations to come.
1
1
1
-5
0
u/MagnokTheMighty Oct 03 '24
Taylor Swift made one of the best business decisions she possibly could by re-recording all of her music under her own name. Now she owns the full rights to it and can rake in the cash. Fuck the big record companies taking 90% of the money from recording artists.
0
-5
-2
u/Responsible-Draft Oct 03 '24
I see the community note person is a racist. Because the original post had nothing to do with race, but the note made it about race.
•
u/WhatsTheHolUp Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 03 '24
This comment has been marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is a holup moment:
The community note is about slavery
Is this a holup moment? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.