$10,000,000 in net worth....beyond that is excessive? (pay, lawyer, dependents)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just think it's bullsh** to take so much of a persons money before it gets to their family. Plus, then that 92 is cut down again the next time it's transferred, then again, etc. Makes it hard to amass a family fortune when it keeps getting chopped down by a greedy government every generation.
Government shouldn't be allowed to profit from someones demise, tax them on the income they make while they are alive. I don't consider transferring wealth to family members after death as income on their part. It's just staying in the family, what other choice do they have except to give it all away or something?
Inheritance isn't something that just goes to family members. Amassing huge family fortunes for generations isn't good for the economy. Why wouldn't you consider the transfer of 150mm a gift or income? The truth is so few people really have to deal with this I always find it interesting how often people argue against estate tax when most never run into the issue
Most people use their own idea of wealthy when answering these questions instead of statistics. A net worth of $10 million puts you at about the .5 percentile (approximate, too lazy to look up the exact stat) in the USA. It would put you at an even higher percentile if your using net worth of all individuals on the planet. If people don't consider being richer then 99.5% of people as wealthy I don't know what else to tell them.
Agreed. If you are wealthy enough that insurance of any kind just seems silly because you could still afford everything in perpetuity even if you became totally disabled tomorrow and your house burned down (uninsured) and you needed chemotherapy at the same time with no health coverage, then you are wealthy.
How many of us can honestly say insurance is pointless? Not me, probably not you either. We are the 99.5%.
The fundamental question is how should the wealthy be allowed to spend their money? Should they be allowed to spend it on the health and education of themselves and their children, or should they only be allowed to spend it on conspicuous consumption, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and prostitutes?
Whoopi Goldberg said: "I already paid the tax, why do I do I have to pay again just because I died?" She is right.
The people complaining about income inequality seem to have a selective focus. Rich CEOs and business owners are bad, but wealthy celebrities, athletes, entertainers, and lottery winners are OK. In fact, athletes are so good that they are entitled to tax-subsidized sports stadiums.
The fear of generational accumulation of wealth is overrated. The vast majority of wealthy estates are depleted with time. In taking a quick look at The Forbes 400, only a few people remain from even the early 20th century ancestral wealth.
Think of this hypothetical example of 3 people in a nursing home for 10 years: One person has never had any assets; a second person was wealthy, but spent all of his money prior to the nursing home. The third person is paying for the home out of his accumulated assets. All 3 people are getting equal treatment, but 2 of them are being supported by our tax dollars. And yet somehow, the wealthy person who is paying his own way is considered to be the bad guy.
I think it's only excessive when you reach a point to where if you get any more money your lifestyle would not change.
Bill Gates' lifestyle is MUCH different than a person with a net worth of 10 million dollars.
Although, I'm not sure what you mean by excessive. People should strive for whatever they want to reach.. it's no one else's right to say what is too much money.
I'm quite poor, just getting my feet planted after college. I find it very annoying when people think others are too rich or should be giving their money to others. Everyone (at least in the US) has the opportunity to be rich. If the poor put less time into making decisions to keep themselves poor, they could be rich.
The fundamental question is how should the wealthy be allowed to spend their money? Should they be allowed to spend it on the health and education of themselves and their children, or should they only be allowed to spend it on conspicuous consumption, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and prostitutes?
Whoopi Goldberg said: "I already paid the tax, why do I do I have to pay again just because I died?" She is right.
The people complaining about income inequality seem to have a selective focus. Rich CEOs and business owners are bad, but wealthy celebrities, athletes, entertainers, and lottery winners are OK. In fact, athletes are so good that they are entitled to tax-subsidized sports stadiums.
The fear of generational accumulation of wealth is overrated. The vast majority of wealthy estates are depleted with time. In taking a quick look at The Forbes 400, only a few people remain from even the early 20th century ancestral wealth.
Think of this hypothetical example of 3 people in a nursing home for 10 years: One person has never had any assets; a second person was wealthy, but spent all of his money prior to the nursing home. The third person is paying for the home out of his accumulated assets. All 3 people are getting equal treatment, but 2 of them are being supported by our tax dollars. And yet somehow, the wealthy person who is paying his own way is considered to be the bad guy.
6 of the top 10 on Forbes 400 have inherited monies. The main reason they drop over time is how many people the funds are split amongst more and more people after each death.
6 of the top 10 on Forbes 400 have inherited monies. The main reason they drop over time is how many people the funds are split amongst more and more people after each death.
Who cares how they received their wealth? I think most people work hard to be able to provide for their families while they live and after they die. Some do a better job than others, but it's not our right to look down on someone because their family was able to give more to them.
Who cares how they received their wealth? I think most people work hard to be able to provide for their families while they live and after they die. Some do a better job than others, but it's not our right to look down on someone because their family was able to give more to them.
No one is looking down on those who do well.
Lottery winnings are taxed, dividends are taxed although at a preferential rate just as an inheritance is. Tax death out of the question. Should I be able to just give you 50mm if I wanted to with no tax implications?
The fundamental question is how should the wealthy be allowed to spend their money? Should they be allowed to spend it on the health and education of themselves and their children, or should they only be allowed to spend it on conspicuous consumption, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and prostitutes?
If I'm answering in just that respect, then they should be allowed to spend it however they want to. As long as they aren't spending their money in a way that actively hurts others; who are we to say how they should spend?
Personally, if I had a net worth of $5 million or more I would give away at least 5% of my after tax income on my money every year to the poor. At my death I would leave just enough for my children so they have a cushion for emergencies and a little bit of investing money. The rest would go straight to charity. But that's just me. Some may give much more then me and some may give away a lot less. Point is I would hope that most people that are wealthy would give away their wealth for a good cause but at the end of the day its their money so its their choice.
Yeah, 5 mil. when you have 150, 5 isn't much. I believe that 5 mil exemption is only for generation skip.
You would believe wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
