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 have a good friend from med school; she's probably the smartest person I know, and one of the most accomplished. She comes from a culture where high achievement is expected, thus her parents are also highly accomplished, themselves. Between my friend and her husband, they surely qualify as Upper Middle Class at the very least, or higher, but they're nowhere close to Forbes level by any means.
She has one child and doesn't plan to have another. The kid gets a private education and the benefit of two highly educated parents, not to mention access to better food (they only shop whole foods), etc.
I believe this picture paints a good example of a person who wasn't born to wealth necessarily, but who certainly will enjoy many advantages along the way and is likely to wind up attending an Ivy League school, get doors opened, etc. The chance is very high he will end up at least in the same economic bracket as his parents.
Inheritance matters, yes, but so do having general advantages, as this child certainly enjoys.
Yes, this is true. Every aspect of a child's life matters. We can't change the fact that millions of kids have bad parents. All we can do is give every child a chance to learn and I believe we are doing that. The proof is that millions of us were not born into families like the one in your post above but have achieved a very comfortable living.
I wasn't discussing inheritance in that post as much as I was discussing those general advantages afforded to kids of The Upper Middle Class.
Upper middle class isn't top 1%, let alone the top 400. Plus, it's completely irrelevant in the context of most of the Forbes top 400, all of whom are billionaires:
Quote:
"...For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes."
I keep seeing this...and links to Forbes usually. Forbes considers Trump (who inherited 200 million) to be a self made billionaire. Weird how it ignores the fact that it takes money to make money. Starting with 200 million doesn't strike me as earned, it just strikes me that they benefited by the massive advantages given to those at the top.
You, too, seem to be unable to comprehend the phrase: "self-made billionaires who rose from nothing"
Quote:
"...For the first time in our data set, we see the number of self-made billionaires who rose from nothing, and overcame various tough obstacles, outpacing those that just sat on their fortunes."
Mother Teresa has once said, Charity, if it is true, MUST COST us, it does not cost to take from Peter to pay Paul.
This friend that you have will have no worries in her future because she obviously works hard and smart. I don't envy her because everybody has his or her own life destination.
I am a trust fund baby, I chose art, not medical school. I chose sports, not investment banking. I suffer from the consequences of my own interests, passion, actions and choices. I don't ask OTHER people to pay for my dream, I asked my grandparents and my parents to pay for it. I am entitled to it.
The case against the inheritance tax does not turn on complex legal or economic argument. It is a simple moral case when you really think about it.
The law should be set up to align the interests of one and all.
If the law allows people to keep what they earn, everyone has a private incentive to work hard—which ends up benefiting everyone else.
The money my grandparents kept is AFTER tax money. Why do we as grandchildren must pay HUGE inheritance tax? It is grossly unfair that people that save the most, and plan for future generations get punished.
That is exactly why the inheritance tax (estate tax) is immoral; people that save the most, and plan for future generations get punished the most.
Quote:
Inheritance tax is unfair, and those who say inheritance tax should be set high are simply jealous. **** This statement is not directed at any posters in this thread ***** I have no other ways to explain it.
There really is no other way to explain it. It's pure jealousy, envy, greed, and the desire to take from others that which one hasn't earned, all of which are immoral.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ir_expense.htm
2013. . . . . $415,688,781,248.40 interest expense
. . .
Borrowing more than what was paid out in interest is what Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing in the private sector.
But it’s legal as long as you consent, via FICA.
The available “dollar bills” (11.5 T) is smaller than what is owed (18+ T).
. . .
You may not be aware, but a "dollar bill" is an IOU (debt), pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411.
Which means if enough Americans volunteer OUT of FICA, and thus stop underwriting the "dollar bills," they cease to be fungible legal tender.
Billionaires become Zero-aires.
D'oh !
FWIW - if all the gold in Fort Knox was coined, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq, it would amount to roughly $9.43 per capita.
No matter how "rich" one was, a mountain of worthless IOUs is not wealth.
And without evidence of paying debt with 'lawful money,' what proof do they have to claim ownership?
D'oh x 2 !
I understand it perfectly. thats a different topic from the headline. Look at it this way:
lets say last year 5 of them were on the list, and this year 6 were. In the meantime they discuss how the majority are "self-made" ala Donald trump. Do you comprehend that they are talking about different things in such a way as to deceive you?
You're being fed BS and enjoying it. LOL. You're going off on people about not comprehending things....when the reality is you are the one having a issue.
I understand it perfectly. thats a different topic from the headline. Look at it this way:
lets say last year 5 of them were on the list, and this year 6 were.
No. It's 34 this year. 34 of the billionaires started with nothing, and endured hardships and obstacles to get where they are today, financially. Meanwhile... fewer than that, only 28 of them, inherited all their wealth.
Here's a thought... How about if more people EARN wealth instead of sitting on their butts and demanding that someone else's wealth be redistributed.
Yes, I wish that the income of the middle-class wasn't being so readily redistributed to the wealthy.
"Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the median worker grew by far less, just 10.7 percent, and nearly all of that growth occurred in a short window in the late 1990s.
The pattern was very different from 1948 to 1973, when the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity.
Working harder used to get workers a commensurate increase in pay, but for the past 40 years an increasingly disproportionate amount of wealth has been taken by the already rich."
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.
