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.
Are baby boomers being selfish, they might have lived through a couple of rough patches but overall the economy they grew up in is better than then the one their kids live in today.
"My goal is when they carry me away in that box that my bank account is going to say zero," Willison said. "I'm going to spoil myself now."
revenus increased over 27% from 2001 to 2007...since 2007 it has dropped because of the recession
SPENDING has INCREASED over 60% since 2007...its up over 400% since 1990((((our 'budget' was 1 trillion in 1990...now just 20 years later....... its nearly 4 trillion (3.7 trillion)........ in just 20 years the spending has quadrupled))))
btw the gross COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion and in 2007 was 1.36 trillion...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion and in 2007 395 billion......total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion and in 2007 was 849 billion..........
the WHOLE GAMBIT.....:
COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion
.............. ...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion
... total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion
for a TOTAL of total revenue in 2000 was 2.09 trillion...
revenue in 2007 was 2.7(2.69 to be exact) trillion and INCREASE of 30% from 2000
You really need to learn how to read critically. I said 2005 not 2007 you just imputed me saying 2007 so you could claim my accurate statement was false. If you look at your own chart Revenue in 2000 was about 2.09T. That droped to 2.01 T following the Bush tax cuts in 2002. It went even lower in 2003 and did not reach 2000 levels until 2005.
There was no recession in the early 2000s with the exception of possibly a very short one in 2001. A recession is a sustained period of no economic growth (two quarters of no GDP growth). So all that time there was GDP growth, sometimes as high as 4.4% but no increase in revenue. There was also inflation meaning individual dollars were losing value over that time.
As to 2007 this increase only came after 7 years of growth, and in the later years reasonably high inflation (especially 2006 when it was pushing over 4%). The fact is the Bush tax cuts cost us 5 years of revenue growth which is a large factor behind this debt problem.
I am fine with the boomer generation not leaving any inheritance to their children. Nobody should feel entitled to inheritance. HOWEVER. Some of them were left much by THEIR parents and ended up enjoying not only the fruits of their parents' hard work while not following in their footsteps to leave a security net behind. It's kind of selfish if you ask me.
My boomer parents gave us plenty already so I have nothing to complain about.
Yep;the boomers have had it easy;vietnam;two recessio includig the 70's with double digit unemployemnt and inflatio at same time.What bothers this gernation is they are likely to be the first generation who doesn't build more wealth than their fathers did.
"Given to them" like the boomer generation's parents gave to them??? I'm going to have a substantial inheritance and my parents are traditional in the fact that they have a trust and their assets WILL be passed on to the next generation.
The boomers gave gen x a wonderful gift...A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT! Thanks for that...
What is really interesting about this discussion is the obvious disconnect between generations.
I have always been of the thought that we are connected to generations both past and future, and should live our lives accordingly.
Each generation owes a debt to previous generations who's sacrifices have made our country and our lives better.
In return, we each have an obligation to future generations to follow that legacy.
We have allowed the advertising of corporations and bankers intent on selling us useless crap, to cloud our thinking and our judgment.
Our priorities are mis-directed and for that we and future generations will pay the price.
Great nations cannot be built on a culture of greed and indifference, they must be built on a foundation of fairness and the belief that we are each a small part of something greater, something that will endure and prosper.
I suppose that is the difference between the wealthy, who produce dynasties, and the common man. The wealthy understand that legacy is important, and not something to be trivialized.
Not yes and no. No. The estate is responsible for paying debts. Not the kids. So it's just No.
Big difference.
nope
it is yes and no
You as their other children (your siblings and half siblings) are not liable for any of their bills, unless you co-signed something.
but
Once people die, everything they have house, cars, money in the bank, become their estate, someone is put over their estate(usually one of the kids). the person over the estate pays all of the bills of the people who died, from this.
They may sell the cars, and the house and pay the bills, After all this money is gone if there is still bills they merely notify them that there is no more money in the estate and they will not be paid.
the kids are the estate..they are the NOK..the NOK which will have controll of the estate will have to pay the DEBTS first, before they would get anything...
You really need to learn how to read critically. I said 2005 not 2007 you just imputed me saying 2007 so you could claim my accurate statement was false. If you look at your own chart Revenue in 2000 was about 2.09T. That droped to 2.01 T following the Bush tax cuts in 2002. It went even lower in 2003 and did not reach 2000 levels until 2005.
There was no recession in the early 2000s with the exception of possibly a very short one in 2001. A recession is a sustained period of no economic growth (two quarters of no GDP growth). So all that time there was GDP growth, sometimes as high as 4.4% but no increase in revenue. There was also inflation meaning individual dollars were losing value over that time.
As to 2007 this increase only came after 7 years of growth, and in the later years reasonably high inflation (especially 2006 when it was pushing over 4%). The fact is the Bush tax cuts cost us 5 years of revenue growth which is a large factor behind this debt problem.
total revenue fell because of the recession of the dot-comers and 911
and the bush tax cuts didnt go into effect until AFTER 2003 for 2004
revenue for FY02 (bush's first year...fy01(1 oct 00 thru 30 sep 01) was passed by clinton) was 2.01 trillion........by 2003(recession starting to end)it was down to 1.95...by 2005 (after the tax cuts) IT WAS UP to 2.26 trillion (UP 12.5% in 3 years time)....by 2006 it was up to 2.5 trillion(thats up 14% from the previous year)....by 2007 it was up to 2.69 (UP another 8% from the previous year)
FACTS are FACTS , the revenue went UP after the cuts
Some of them were left much by THEIR parents and ended up enjoying not only the fruits of their parents' hard work while not following in their footsteps to leave a security net behind.
Perhaps not. Pretty much everything my mother will leave my sister and me (hopefully not for a long while yet!) will go to the next generation: my sister's children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The wealthy understand that legacy is important, and not something to be trivialized.
Do they? Who of the current wealthy are creating a wide-encompassing philanthropic legacy like Carnegie, Kellogg, Ford, Annenberg or Pew?
(Don't mention Bill Gates; his philanthropy in the U.S. exists only so that schools and libraries will purchase Microsoft products ... )
Perhaps not. Pretty much everything my mother will leave my sister and me (hopefully not for a long while yet!) will go to the next generation: my sister's children.
Do they? Who of the current wealthy are creating a wide-encompassing philanthropic legacy like Carnegie, Kellogg, Ford, Annenberg or Pew?
(Don't mention Bill Gates; his philanthropy in the U.S. exists only so that schools and libraries will purchase Microsoft products ... )
I am not talking about philanthropy, I am talking about family dynasties, the preservation of family wealth.
I think a bunch of people who sit around and write articles and whine about how they aren't going to get money when mommy and daddy die are FAR MORE self-centered than the boomers.
I see both points, but I think you can make a pretty strong argument that a parent who has a lot of money that doesn't leave their children something is selfish, especially given the shaky financial future of our country.
For better or for worse, that's a big difference between Americans and many other cultures. For many non-Americans, parenthood is cradle to grave while for many Americans, parenthood ends at 18.
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.
