> If you have $20M and your lifestyle requires no more than $800K/yr of income taxed a waaaaay lower rates than the working stiffs pay on the same, then a 4% return more than suffices to live off of income that is waaaaay more passive than most passive income frauds even come close to promising.
Assuming you are in eg the US than a 4% nominal return is actually taxed quite severely in real terms, ie after you adjust for inflation.
That's because capital gains taxes and taxes on interest don't account for inflation.
Here in my adopted home of Singapore we don't have such silly things as capital gains taxes. Makes things a lot simpler for the average person who doesn't want to pay for the lawyers and accountants.
* A way to generate passive income, for example, are royalties on a book you wrote.
* Semi-passive income might be $50k speaking gigs after e.g. being the PotUS.
In a financed world, perhaps I can make a financial instrument out of future royalties, but for most people, it's not the same.
Won't somebody think of the "working stiffs" who have to slave away for their $800k/yr!?
Yes. Investing is passive income. If you have $20M and your lifestyle requires no more than $800K/yr of income taxed a waaaaay lower rates than the working stiffs pay on the same, then a 4% return more than suffices to live off of income that is waaaaay more passive than most passive income frauds even come close to promising.
The difference between "investing" and "passive income" is mostly just the difference between blue blood and the new rich. A tale as old as time.
Working men of the world uniting would be an utter disaster, so instead they're persuaded at any cost to choose sides in this absurd dichotomy between two sets of do-nothings.