$100 million invested into dividend stock would gross him $1-5 million per year. About 1/3 of that will be paid in taxes, depending on what kind of dividends those are.
Me personally, I think I’d be happy with $10 million but I guess you get hungry when there’s a lot of food in front of you.
Depends if you want rich people play money or just comfy people play money.
Also if you want to say buy a beach front house in california or a nice mountain home in Colorado. That alone can run you a few millions dollars upfront not to mention a the on going costs.
100m is honestly not a lot of money if you plan to not for for the next handful of decades and want to actually enjoy a rich life style.
10 mill will put you in a nice middle class home and keep you living a middle class life style for the same length of time.
Wealth to life style scales pretty well from 10 to 100 million dollars when your looking at a 35 year span.
and want to actually enjoy a rich life style.
I guess my imagination is not good enough but I cannot imagine what I’d need much more than 1M per year in passive income for. 100K every 5 years easily gets me the car I want, 2M up-front would probably be enough to get me the house I want. Perhaps another 2M for a second house in some warm climate. I could pay for all of that in 1-5 years of passive income if I had $10M in investments.
I’ve been to Monaco. I’ve seen rich people. I didn’t see anything there I wanted.
Good for him.
Raise the taxes, remove the cap on FICA contributions, implement universal healthcare.
Should have shared the money with the workers who built the company into a $1.6B valuation and worth acquisition.
Jesus Christ, it’s never good enough for you, why even bother trying.
At the end of the day, stolen wages are still stolen wages.
Lol, i know, right?
So many upvotes for the guy above you defending billionaires
Just because he gave it away, doesn’t remove his responsibility for how he “earned” it.
Look, at least he does not seem to have raped anyone.
I agree, but it doesn’t sound like his choices are bad. There’s a comment further down.
If anything he should have invested it into effecting political change. But that other person is right; it’s never good enough for you.
In Russia that’s an oligarchy. Yet here you are advocating it?
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
I’m not advocating for the system. I’m just suggesting a way the money could do the greatest good.
Money can buy political change. That shouldn’t be true, but it is.
If you’re so hungry for a target to be mad at that you imagine them like this, maybe it’s time to take a little break.
How many more people/companies do we need to see doing this before we see change?
I am praising the action not the individual :)
Just a general reminder to anyone to use a site like Charity Navigator to find good causes to donate to.
Seems to be only American
Because most other Western countries have social security networks paid for by taxes, which are infinitely more efficient than the temporary bandaid which is charity.
or GiveWell if you want causes ranked according to their impact as measured in QALYs. They research these things pretty carefully to determine the impact. If you’re not a utilitarian then you may not see the point of doing this (though on the other hand, if you’re not a utilitarian, I don’t know if there’s any way to evaluate charities well.)
When a billionaire gives money away, it’s usually to their own charity, and it’s to avoid paying taxes. Of course it sounds good to say they gave it away but it reality, they give it to a charity they fully control.
Or to reinvent their image, and not be look upon as a terrible person. Aka, gates
I reserve my praises until I learn how exactly he gave away the money. Family-controlled foundations that only do political lobbing while avoiding taxes are a thing .
I wasn’t able to find details with a quick search, but it sounds like it wasn’t his own foundation:
After the AppNexus sale, O’Kelley and his wife carefully chose which causes to support. Their donations focus on education, social justice, technology access, and healthcare initiatives.
https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2025/08/could-you-give-away-1-5-billion-like-this-ceo/
Perhaps the only good billionaire is one who isn’t.
I honestly hope that’s the case. “Hopeful” is a nice change of pace.
Their donations focus on education, social justice, technology access, and healthcare initiatives.
Okay, but you realize the could just be the Gates Foundation, right? Or whatever bullshit charity Zuckerberg runs?
I think it’s the Cuck Foundation
well political lobbying would be good if it’s lobbying for socialism i’d say
I would argue that legalized corruption is bad, even if you happen to agree with the cause.
Well, the current method of taking the high ground to make change for good ain’t exactly working out too well.
Lobby for removing that legalized corruption?
I don’t know if there is something much newer and more focused on the foundation aspect, but The Rich and the Super-Rich spends a bit of time on discussing foundations and how they work to preserve wealth.
There’s also his age as a factor, he’s probably more aware of his limited remaining lifespan than he would have been if he cashed out at 25, let’s say.
Cashing out 1.6billion at any age is generational wealth.
I understand, but I think a 25 year old wouldn’t think first of donating most of it.
O’Kelley’s [sic] says billionaires represent “such an incredibly ludicrous waste of money in a world where there’s so many people who don’t have that,” but he says actually being one is also “othering”—separating you from the limits and consequences that define normal life. “There’s something about keeping connected to normalcy that is really, really important,” the entrepreneur explains. “I don’t want a yacht and I don’t ever want to be able to be without consequences. I think that’s the biggest risk, is, how can we be accountable when we have so much money we can buy anything?”
He gets it. Past a certain point, wealth erodes your humanity. I think I’d have picked $100M too - at a safe 4% return that’s $4M per year, plenty for anybody to live on but not megayacht money.
I’ve always said If I could have enough where I could purchase in cash a cottage in a small cottage town here in Canada with a top of the line internet connection and I’d never have to work or worry about money for the rest of my life I’d be happy. what would I do? nothing. I’d pursue my hobby projects, more FOSS development, gaming, painting, build model kits, drink beer, eat whatever I wanted, and socialize with as few people as possible.
That’s all i want. I just want enough money right now to achieve that.
Plenty for a normal yacht, the kind you can sail by yourself or with a partner. Megayachts are basically private cruise ships that need a full staff to sail. Even if I had the money I wouldn’t want that!
The only people that should want one are cruise ship operators and you can rent one for a lot less.
And you would only pick 100mil because of how fucked up the world is. You can easly burn half a million in US if you have a serious health condition.
Motherfucking $4MM total is enough to live on with a return like that.
Sure, but choosing to live on $160k/yr would be a bit much when you’re starting with $1.6B. I can’t fault him for still wanting to enjoy being wealthy instead of upper-middle-class and definitely don’t think it’s reasonable to complain that giving away 95% of his wealth is somehow not enough.
Even if it still feels a bit wrong, I can somehow reason with there being wealthy people and the motivation of potential lavish life, since some seem to really need it to make any effort in society. It’s somewhat understandable at least. Talking about tens of millions, with a bit of stretch hundreds - okay, I can stomach it even if it still seems extremely excess.
But billions… that’s already ten times more than that. How anyone can stomach that, I don’t get.
While my heart disagrees, my brain can get, with some effort, behind what this guy says. It kind of makes sense at least. Retaining your humanity and giving up such an inconceivable amount of money for that, really sounds pretty good in this world we’ve been living in lately. Sounds fucking weird to feel good about someone still having such excess in comparison to all the people struggling with next to nothing, but at least there’s some amount of backbone and clear thought involved.
Not sure what to think still. Like someone else commented, better reserve outright okaying this until we know how the money was given away.
But if it turns out to be sensible and humane, I can honestly say I’m fine with the kind of millionaire this one is. It’s not ideal, but it’s tolerable and in some niche sense, justifiable. If it’s all good, I even wish all the millionaires were like this… if we have to have them, as a compromise with the part of people who need all that, the “dream” to strive for, for whatever reason, at least let them be sensible and moral in some way, such as this…
My point is that $160k is enough for anybody. That much per person would give any household a very comfortable lifestyle even in a HCOL area.
You’d think that, but hcol is hcol. Then add kids. Now those kids can drive, go to college and need a lot of shoes (seriously, I feel like I should get a part time job at a shoe store). Gotta put some up for retirement too.
It goes faster than you’d think, and that’s with buying used cars, no luxury vacations, little travel, bargain shopping and doing a lot of my own home/car repairs.
This is why I live in my medium size city in a “fly over” state.
I’m living very comfortably with my partner in a desirable part of Seattle with a mortgage and high medical bills for just over $120k annually.
You’re doing great! But I’m guessing that’s double income no kids, or at least no kids. I think we can allow this anti-billionaire ex-billionaire to reproduce and give his kids the luxury of graduating without debt.
Single income, kids grown up.
EDIT: corrected post with biweekly to monthly pay
My point is that $160k is enough for anybody. That much per person would give any household a very comfortable lifestyle even in a HCOL area.
$160k/year is way low to live a “very comfortable lifestyle”, even more so especially in a HCOL area.
Lets use NYC as an example of a HCOL area. Here’s what that looks like for take-home pay:
Lets call it $8,800/month to make it easy.
So a person needs to house themselves. Lets look at NYC rents. Here’s median prices:
And here’s some specifics from a few places in the city:
So looking at the cheapest of the 3 listed here, the small 1 br 1 bath place in the East Village will set you back about $3200/month. Of our $8,800, we now have just $5,600/month for every other living necessities including food, transportation, clothing, and the big budget killer we haven’t talked about yet…health insurance/healthcare.
All of this also assumes a person would be single. If they have children a 1br apartment isn’t going to cut it, and the costs for raising children are also a large increase in monthly money burn. People still have to save for retirement too.
$160k/year is way low for: “That much per person would give any household a very comfortable lifestyle even in a HCOL area.”
$160k / 12mo. ≈ $13k / mo.
You threw away $100k annually, chum.
First, thank you for pointing out I made a mistake. I didn’t see the calculator broke it into twice a month paychecks.
Take home for one month for $160k/year would be: $8,784
I’ll correct my post, but $160k/year is still way too low to meet your “That much per person would give any household a very comfortable lifestyle even in a HCOL area.”
You’re taking out too much tax. Closer to $9,300.
A household of two adults would have $320k gross annually, so twice that.
Also, I’m comfortably supporting two adults in a HCOL area, with a mortgage and high medical bills, for under $125k annually.
Actually it’s not. I used to live in a moderately HCOL area (Denver metro, Colorado). Not even the highest. On a low six figure salary I was worried about rising rents and couldn’t afford to buy a home anywhere around there, they were all like $400-$650k.
Mind you, this is just me and my wife, no kids, and few debts, the costs were just extreme. Looking at the costs I was looking at a mortgage of $2500 to $3200, and that was when the interest rates were only a bit over 3%, they’re much higher now.
I’ve moved to the boonies and had a cheap home built for around $200k, and I’m on track to pay it off while also saving for retirement since I’m in my 40s and can’t do this shit forever. Thankfully, my job is fully remote and I’ve built my skills to be able to be fully remote, but not everyone can do that.
Can you just let this story be a good thing? In a sea of shit there was a nugget of uplifting news. Go be negative in one of the bad-things posts.
Ha ha ha ha no. Lemmykins hate people with money almost as much as they hate cops.
He could have given it all away and they would bitch about who he gave it to.
Probably. I’ll take the W. So shines a good deed in a weary world.
Sadly, not necessarily true. In the US, all it takes is one family member with a severe chronic illness tovery quickly erode that to the point that you are back at work. I think $10MM is the magic number but $100MM is a really good number to ensure that you and.your loved ones are taken care of.
That’s a good point, I’m currently leaning on corporate sponsorship to support my wife’s severe chronic illness. It’ll be a lot easier once Medicare kicks in.
Wishing the best buddy
It doesn’t make any sense to keep just enough, because then you may have to worry about weathering any economic storms in the future.
I think the amount he kept is reasonable, especially when they are pretty much one of a kind for doing this.
Yeah, I was thinking about fluctuating interest rates alone. If we are assuming 4% return on 4M and that’s where 160K/year comes from…that’s essentially a fixed income, risking all kinds of problems in the future, including very low interest rates and doesn’t even begin to get into problems like inflation spiking again or unexpected healthcare bills…
Joe Rogan’s punk ass couldn’t handle $100M
$4 million a year is absolutely mega yacht territory.
Not even close - megayachts are 9 figures and that doesn’t include the absurd crewing and other operational costs. There’s no way he could own let alone operate one on a $4M income.
I definitely underestimated the cost of mega yachts. But $4mil/yr is still and insane amount of money.
I mean, I could probably retire right now with 4 million and live comfortably. But hey, I’m not gonna fault this dude for doing the right thing here and still being wealthy. Dude put over 90% of the funds back into causes and recirculating instead of hoarding it like some sociopathic dragon.
Oh I don’t want anything I’ve said to come off as a criticism of what he’s done. I think it’s amazing.
Nah, just regular yacht
Yeah, and uncrewed, one where you can operate everything solo or as a couple. Big crewed ones can easily be 20k per day to run.
Uncrewed regular yachts small enough to singlehand are cheaper than a normal middle-class house. Hell, you can get an old one for $1 and some sweat equity.
(That’s a slight exaggeration – fiberglass and resin costs money – but there are definitely people who sail around on boats worth 5 figures and work occasional odd jobs when they need money.)
To buy, sure, but how much is fuel and dock fees? (I’m asking, I have no idea)
Well, they have sails and an anchor, so $0 and $0 if you’re hardcore about it.
It’s definitely really nice yacht territory but can’t afford the floating 100+ room compounds all the billionaires are buying.
The question is: does it bring lasting benefits to the people?
If he gives away a billion once, eventually it will be consumed and then we’re stuck in the same situation again. The rich must give money away repeatedly, that’s the only way to sustain society going forward. For that, solid and robust policy changes will have to be implemented.
Well, you among many others in this thread are just describing communism, at least on some level.
Well, yeah, I mean you are not wrong but in this case the guy sold his company for a billion (or rather more) and I assume that company wasn’t running for just a few months. So in order to do it again he’d first have to start another company that reaches that selling price.
Other billionaires of course would need to keep giving back money they continuously amass, yes.
If only he believed in himself, he could have been a billionaire…
Oh. I thought this was The Onion for a second when I saw the title.
He’s not wrong. Being circled by scavengars like some kind of dying leviathan is not a sane way to live.
Wait is this really a good rich person? I have to think something’s up
In the military there were two kinds of officers: the ones moved from enlisted to officer through schooling and hard work and the ones who started their career in ROTC.
The ones who came up from nothing were always the first to help out the workers and rarely pulled rank. They wanted the entire unit to don well and were not above getting dirty. They were also the most highly respected for it.
The worst and most selfish officers were the ones who came out of ROTC as officers and were essentially police, but with rank only. They sucked and no one liked them and any respect they received was only due to their rank, never to them.
I feel humility and the actual act of working your way to the top is the only way to maintain a connection to your humanity. So many of the current ultra wealthy come from money, didn’t work for it, and don’t know how to be a human being as a result of it. The last time that kind of generational-wealth was flaunted while the masses starved and suffered, it was in France, and there were a lot of removed heads. The only thing that saved the rich during the Great Depression was the fact there were a lot of them that lost everything as well. Almost everyone was in the same boat.
Those at the top will learn, soon enough, that they only maintain their wealth through the grace of those near the bottom. Squeeze too hard and their whole world will come down around them.
Better than most but at the end of the day it would have been nice to give that money to the people that built the company he sold for $1.6B.
I would think there’s a lot of talented people that worked hard to build the value of that company such that he could sell it for a huge amount of money.
Definitely better than buying a yacht, but he still got to decide what to do with the value created by others.
AppNexus employs 1000 people across 5 continents. If the ceo has an extra $1.5B kicking around he could have given every person that helped build AppNexus $1.5M, which is a truly life changing amount of money for your average person.
Yeah that amount of money would change my life I knew there was something wrong about this thank you for pointing this out
Also see Chuck Feeney
I’m too lazy to read, but they probably didn’t grow up in this wealth they ran into it later and didn’t hold on to it long enough to be corrupted.
yea well trying to increase your wealth to billions is pretty much an addiction much akin to gambling addiction.
