When is enough money enough?

I was just musing about how much money is the upper limit of enough, just thinking along the lines of the 1% and what could be the line where you might tax net worth at 100% . ( I still don't understand why we don't tax net worth. We could as an estate tax but the rules are so easy to bypass now.)

 

Do you even understand what it would mean to tax "net worth" at 100%? I'm thinking you don't.

 

What a load of crap. Nothing is a greater factor in predicting the wealth of people in the future than the wealth of their parents.

 

Sure, but you aren't understanding the reason for that. Poor people are most likely to teach bad life decisions to their kids.....you know, teach them what they know. Wealthy parents are more likely to teach good life decisions or at least have the money in order to make bad life decisions hurt less.

At some point though, life decisions will decide how you end up. If you are enough of a screw up, no amount of money will save you from yourself. Trust me, I have seen it first hand. I've known people who have inherited more money that you will likely make in your lifetime and managed to end up homeless.

For poor people there is usually less room for error, but that doesn't change the fact that we are a product of our life decisions.

 

You have enough money when you can successfully run as a major party candidate while spouting incendiary, off-the-cuff remarks, and half the country praises you while all your opponents can do is to pathetically talk about you non-stop thereby receiving free advertisement.

That's when you have "enough".

 

This describes the differences in opportunities available to the poor and to the rich.

 

If I had a 100 million, I'd want a bigger yacht and more mistresses than my other hundred-millionaire buddies.

 

You can't choose your parents or your upbringing.

 

There's always the option of equality in poverty.

 

So, what is the leftist answer to that?

Destroy the nuclear family. Amiright?

 

Man your posts are crazier than usual.

FWIW programs that sponsor low income people for job training in higher paying fields has been shown to work. You surround them with people that'll navigate them through the college enrollment process, how to learn (this is actually a big deal), make a resume and prep them for a career path with opportunity for growth. Studies have shown those given that opportunity with children of their own are then able to pass along those life skills to their children to make similar headstrong decisions.

 

No, it describes the margin for error between the two. Poor people can't afford to piss away opportunities because they are trying to build something. Those who grew up wealthy are only trying to maintain, which can be easier but is by no means easy.

Of course not, but you can choose not to have children at a young age, you can choose not to get involved with drugs, you can choose to do well in school, you can choose to make sure you always have a job and income, you can choose not to get into financial obligations you can't afford. Those are the classic pitfalls.

 

You missed the point.

 

All other things being equal, a rich kid has a better shot than a poor kid. Agreed?

 

Okay, then what was the point?

 

Help the poor.

 

All things equal, a rich kid has an easier path than a poor kid, of course.

 

In a lot of instances, you'd be helping them more by not helping them. Food stamp slavery doesn't really help anyone.

 

We should allow another 40 million immigrants into the country and quadruple the number of worker visas. That ought to do it.

 

Funny thing, once you are dead, $0 is enough.

Much like freeing slave upon your death, that is great, but feels like you could have done just a bit more if you were really that concerned.