For example, Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of money. So much that he can buy a mega-yacht and it not really affect him financially. But, he could buy lots of things that don't affect him financially, and he chooses not to do so.
I always assumed that acquiring a massively valued asset like a yacht that's assumed to appreciate was part of this "buy, borrow, die" strategy.
That phrasing deserves a pause. If someone has money, it came from somewhere - income - which is taxed. If you play that in reverse: someone who paid no tax had no income, and therefore no money.
Zuckerberg paid 13.7% tax [1]. Ballpark figure income [2,3] for that effective tax rate is $95K/year. You couldn't maintain a yacht on that income, let alone rent or buy one.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/13/wealthiest-a... [2] https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#9S4WHcw5WA [3] https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-calculator
Also, someone could have received lots of income, say 5 years ago, at which point their income tax would be very high. The following years their income tax might be low if they, e.g., don't sell any stocks or take distributions from various trusts they have set up.
Especially not at a rate that pays to keep it shipshape.