Again, you're moving the ball every time you post. My response was to your post that said that they'll always take more (paraphrased). My response was to point out, with facts, how that specifically was not so...that, in fact, over time they were taking less.
The median net worth in this country is $77,000 and Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the nation. They're rich. It's great that they've worked hard and have become fortunate enough to become wealthy in an ethical manner but it's also kind of sad we live in a country where we choose to talk about how rough our millionaires have it. Its really a sickening culture of greed in this country. I'm sure with some good estate planning that things will work out just fine for the children. Good luck. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/11/news/economy/fed-family-net-worth/index.htm
The socialists/collectivists will always want to steal more. Always. Many here have posted outright communist philosophies that inheritances shouldn't even be allowed to exist at all. Yet it is the "right" that you criticize.
Oh, no...I criticize the Left, too. I'm an equal opportunity critic of both sides of the political spectrum, I assure you. But the Left isn't who I'm addressing when speaking to you. But again, the fallacy here is that more is being taken over time...that "they" want more...that "they" are going to take it from you...and I've shown you today how "they" are actually taking less from you and others today than they have in the not so distant past.
Funny how that is... Yes, an order to buy health insurance or face a penalty is more freedom. Nothing has been taken there. A complete government takeover of health care is now their outspoken desire. Deficits and more governmental intrusion guarantee more of the same.
And now we've moved to health care. What do you think about Andrew Bynum? I like turtles. Your thoughts on those creatures?
some are big, sure. but i caught a box turtle as a kid, and it was pretty small. i heard they grow to be really old.
The middle class cannot earn enough income to reach $5 million, let alone $5 million in net assets. The most generous estimates put the richest middle class family at making $95,000 a year. They earn about $4 million in their entire life.
Wow, this was a pretty informative D&D thread (oxymoron) when I went home yesterday. I got here this morning and was excited to see that it had reached 8 pages. Then I read it. LOL.... Anyway, I don't have a problem with the estate tax itself. I do have a problem that the rate is higher than it would be if it was taxed as income. 55% just seems like flat out robbery. No hyperbole. I also have a problem with the resentment some seem to have for people who work hard their entire lives in order to provide for their children and their children's children. Even if they're (gasp!) rich.
Yeah, it started out well, then derailed pretty quickly as per usual (thanks, Hightop). Oh well. Can't say I disagree with either of these.
Actually, 80% of millionaires are first-generation rich and never made more than at the top end - 150K a year. Mose actually made less than 100K a year - they became millionaires through thrifty spending, savings and investments. Many are the epitome of "property rich - cash poor". Oh yeah...most also buy two-year old USED cars, usually a Ford or GM. Crazy thing is - there are plenty of people that make 100K+ a year that will never be millionaires..because their spending habits are so bad. This is why you hear of so many professional athletes who end up bankrupt..and then you also hear lifetime-long school janitors or bus drivers who were millionaires.
Agree with this post. I came back in here today to catchup and saw all the nonsense, sighed and decided to move on. Read your post and agreed with it. I understand the "transaction" argument. Even I think it is awkward. I accept that estate taxes will exist, but like you I think it is silly that it can skew up as high as it has in the past. I would personally put a higher exemption on it and then do steps that cap out somewhere around 25%. I think that is a compromise. I'm more troubled by the idea that you touched on than anything else. This idea that it isn't "fair" for parents to leave their children wealth. That bothers me. I recognize that I will never leave my children millions of dollars, but if I could I would. And I don't begrudge someone else that can leave that to their kids and I don't want to take it from them just because it isn't "fair."
It's pure communist philosophy. It should bother you. I find it strange that it is so tolerated in the slightest.
I don't think anyone has really suggested that it's not fair for parents to leave their children wealth. I think the real question is why is it fair/expected/logical that, in a society built on taxing transfers of money, that this particular transfer of money be exempt from that? What makes giving money to you when I die different than giving money to you when I'm alive, and why should one be taxable and the other not be taxable? There's also a side question question - everyone is viewing it in terms of children/family. What if the money isn't left to the children? What if it's left to friends? Or a mistress? Or Obama? Should the rules be different in those scenarios?
Eh... Sam has seemingly implied it isn't fair and NStorm (I think was him) basically said it wasn't fair by saying he thinks every one should have to start life with a blank slate. Yes I think it is different if you are leaving it to someone outside of your family.
