Okay, so I don't know much about the issue. I heard a debate on it yesterday on CSPAN, and was astounded by the tenor of the debate.
We pay these morons to be our leaders? Everyone was talking around one another! The democrats could only go on and on about how this is a republican attack on social security, education, etc (and none of them gave an example of HOW it's an attack); and the Republicans could only go on and on about this will help the little families that the government has terrorized for years.
Two bright points: Mr. Goud from my own state of VA gave some good numbers supporting the Republican's initiative to dismantle the Death Tax; and Nancy Pelosi from CA was very impressive in her rational call to support the Dem's proposal to do the same. Kudos to both of them, though to hear Mr. Goud speak is . . . well, jarring. Good ol' boy accent that makes W look like a NY sophisticate. (I'll admit that I may not be spelling the gentleman's name right. . .)
So the Dems contention is that although THEY'VE supported getting rid of the death tax for AGES, the Republicans are doing it merely to benefit the wealthy. They have put forth their own bill that would cut out the death tax for 99.7% of all people covered in the Republican's bill-- and contend that that .3% MUST be taxed to prevent dynasties, and to augment medicare/social security, etc.
Does anyone here have any knowledge of the two bills, and the differences between them?
Posted by imenimok (Member # 7679) on :
I don't even know what the death tax is, but I do find it amusing that deceased people like to have $1 donated to the political party fund.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ugh. Don't even want to THINK about taxes. This year is really making me be in favor of a federal sales tax rather than a federal income tax.
Because if you're way below the poverty level, but half of the paltry sum you made was from "self-employment," then you end up OWING money. Right. Self-employment being odd computer jobs picked up here and there to pay the darn bills.
Talk to my landlady or the electric company if you want some of that money. I sure as heck didn't see any of it.
So a Death Tax? Oh HELL no.
-Katarain
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
On a tangential note:
quote:We pay these morons to be our leaders?
I feel exactly the same way every time I watch CPAC (our CSPAN equivalent here in Canada). They're like a bunch of petulant, squabbling children. Someone needs to clean house.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kat, in your case, you wouldn't even qualify under the CURRENT "death" (actually called Estate) tax. Very few people qualify already, and the only real problems are with people that have very few "liquid" assets (farmers, by and large, who utilize very expensive equipment, and that's where most of their equity is in).
I think that an estate tax is good if properly created (and modified as needed) to ensure that large amounts of money aren't locked into a few ultra-wealthy families. I think outright abolishment of it would truly be just a way to have the very wealthy hold on to money, to the detriment of society.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't even know what the death tax is..."
The "death tax" is a euphemism for estate tax often promoted by people who'd like to get rid of it. The term is meant to suggest that you're being taxed for dying, which is intended to rub people the wrong way.
Posted by imenimok (Member # 7679) on :
Thanks, Tom.
Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
quote:"The "death tax" is a euphemism for estate tax often promoted by people who'd like to get rid of it. The term is meant to suggest that you're being taxed for dying, which is intended to rub people the wrong way."
In a way it is like gouging the deceased individual twice with taxes, in that the taxes being collected are essentially from assets, and not profits.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Kat, in your case, you wouldn't even qualify under the CURRENT "death" (actually called Estate) tax. Very few people qualify already, and the only real problems are with people that have very few "liquid" assets (farmers, by and large, who utilize very expensive equipment, and that's where most of their equity is in).
Thanks... I didn't really think it applied to me, but the "T" word just gets me all riled up nowadays.
I about had a nervous breakdown last night because of all the stress in my life. Taxes being one of them.
I have no idea about the death tax.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, the individual happens to be deceased. From a political economy standpoint the estate tax can be a very good thing -- it reduces free riders, increasing efficiency.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Sounds bad to me, though... Like punishing people for doing well.
I think they should concentrate more on eliminating poverty and raising the minimum wage to something that would support a family.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More than a minimal raising of the minimum wage to reduce exploitative conditions would be economically bad. The estate tax, contrariwise, may even boost the economy (when effects of its expenditure by the state are taken into account).
Plus, the estate tax gives the government money with which to fight poverty.
I favor extremely generous exemptions in the estate tax for many things, but not its abolition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The Democrats' plan specifically addresses those situations where the estate tax is indeed least fair -- farmers and other groups whose livelihoods are tied up in capital expenses -- without exempting those people who simply own six really, really large mansions.
[ April 14, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My problem with keeping a death tax imposed on the so-called "wealthy" is that it really hurts families who are trying to pass down family assets. As was already mentioned, we're taxing assets here, not profits or incomes.
The person that I usually think about when I hear talk of the death tax is my friend who comes from a multi-generation family farm. His father has millions of dollars tied up in assets of land and equipment, yet struggles to pay for the basics of life. Assets don't always equal income - there are a lot of farmers who are land rich but money poor. It's sad to me that people have to sell family farms just to pay the inheritance taxes.
Edit: Tom I didn't see your post - I'd have to look at the plan carefully to determine how I felt about it.
[ April 14, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I still have a problem with the idea of taxing the family that owns six mansions.
When they purchased those mansions, they purchased them with money they paid income tax on. They paid taxes on the mansions themselves. To me, this person has fulfilled his tax obligation. I don't see why it should be necessary to have his son or daughter pay taxes on the mansion again because their father is dead.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
How can you be punishing someone who is dead?
The tax does mean that heirs (in the worst case) aren't allowed to live off the work/effort of their lucky/hard-working/opportunistic ancestors.
The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of Cash and Securities, Real Estate, Insurance, Trusts, Annuities, Business interests and other assets.
Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include Mortgages and other Debts, Estate Administration expenses, property that passes to Surviving Spouses and Qualified Charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.
After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit. Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I really don't have a problem with taxing those people, Belle. But I believe that the rich have a civic duty to support the poor and SELL those six mansions and live more modestly, anyway.
And an estate tax may encourage them to do just that.
<- radical fiscal liberal
[ April 14, 2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
These evil rich people who don't deserve their assets - how many people do you reckon they gave jobs to? How many poor families were able to feed their children because this evil person started a business and employed them?
I can't stand the value judgments issued against people simply because they are rich - just because they have money doesn't make them bad people.
Yes, some of them are. Some people who don't have six mansions are jerks too.
I have a problem with designing punitive tax codes. "Everyone else can pass down the fruits of their labor to their children without penalties except you." Why? "You made a lot of money so we don't like you."
[ April 14, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I wonder why, as a society, we feel that we should have the right to determine what happens to our money after we are dead. It is taken as a given that we have the right to decide that in our wills -- but should we?
I am trying to come up with compelling reasons why we should be able to do that, and the only one I can come up with is "because we've always done that." Are there better arguments that I'm missing?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Portabello,
Because they're our family--the foundation of society. If we have children to create a sort of immortality, then it follows that we should be able to pass on our wealth to them as well. It's not individual wealth--it's family wealth. (You might say otherwise when trying to teach your kids about money, like Bill Huxtable telling his kids, "Your mother and I are rich. YOU are poor."--but you're still going to pass on that money.)
It takes a lot of time and effort to raise "quality" members of society, in return for doing that, you should be able to say where your money goes when you die. And since the government shouldn't get into character judgments, it should be assumed that you did your job correctly.
I think Belle's right on about this.
-Katarain
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Some responses to what you just said:
We don't just allow people to pass their money down to family. We allow them to pass it onto whatever person or organization that they wish -- even a pet.
Also, if it is important to you that your children get money that you earned, you are always free to give it to them while you are alive. But still, why should you have the ability to decide what happens to your money once it's not yours anymore (because, being dead, you are no longer "you" anymore, at least not in any legally [IANAL] meaningful way).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I read this story when I was a kid, set in Africa--I believe it was a true story.
Anyway, these two little girls are born to loving parents. The father is from a small tribe, he moves to the big city and marries a very "proper" nurse. They're very happy, but then the mother dies. The father takes his two little children from the big city back to his tribe, believing that they need maternal family attention from his mother/aunts. Then he gets sick and dies. The entire tribe comes in and strips their little hut clean--leaving nothing but a pillowcase and wallet that the little girl was quick enough to hide and sleep over. He was able to leave nothing to his little girls--and they had a lot of nice stuff that their mother had had. Sentimental and monetary value.
Now that's a tribal example, and an extreme one, but I think the concept is the same. He had a right to leave his family, his daughters, anything he wanted.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Then your kids would just get taxed for getting a "gift" from you while you're alive.
-Katarain
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I can't stand the value judgments issued against people simply because they are rich - just because they have money doesn't make them bad people.
I never said that they were bad people, Belle. Just that they should take their surplus wealth (that's wealth after they've saved for retirement, and for college funds, and for vacations, etc) and do something socially positve with it, instead of sinking it into more assets. By socially positive, I mean like creating another business, setting up scholarships for underpriveledged kids, giving to charity, etc.
Its about learning to live in comfort instead of in extravagance.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
A compelling reason to let people determine what happens to their money. Hmmm...
Well, I know it's considered cool to hate rich people, but consider that when people make money, they usually invest it, which helps other companies grow. Many make their money by building businesses, which employ a lot of people, giving them opportunities for income. Their investments may help other businesses employ still more people.
One of the things that drives people to become successful is the idea of leaving behind a legacy, and caring for their children and descendants. I think it's something that should be encouraged.
One of the driving goals for us to build our business was so we could have something to hand down to our children. My husband hoped that when he got ready to retire, either one or all of the kids might step in and take it over, or we could sell it, and have money to pass down to our children and grandchildren. Both of us believe we can't take any wealth with us when we die, so building a successful business was never all about us. We wanted to provide for our kids, we wanted the peace and security that would come from knowing that our grandchildren wouldn't go hungry.
Had we not been working toward that goal - we might well have quit years ago. Certainly life has been easier for us since we quit.
Maybe we should have quit years ago, maybe none of it matters. But I think it does matter - because in the last two years or so we've had two employees that came to work for us, we provided them with a chance to get experience, paid for them to take licensing tests, and helped them learn a trade. My husband gave a lot of his tools to them when we shut down.
Running the business three years longer may not make all that much difference to us - we still have nothing to pass down to our kids - but it made a difference in the lives of those two men. They now have skills and a trade license that helps them support their families. One is striking out and starting up his own company, we have referred all our customers to them. Maybe they'll actually make it, and have something to pass down. I hope so.
But at any rate, if the idea and goal of passing down something to our children when we die had never been there in the first place, we probably wouldn't have ever bothered, and those guys wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.
So I'd have to say that I believe giving people the power to control what happens to their assets at death is a good thing - it encourages people to try and build something and that can positively impact the people that work for them, and so on.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
By the way... I'm talking as a very uninformed regular person... I have never studied this.. so I'm very wrong on occassion. It's okay. -Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Belle, its "everyone can pass down millions of dollars worth of property to their children, including you, but after that the government takes most of it to provide social programs to people who get to pass down a pair of shoes."
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:do something socially positve with it, instead of sinking it into more assets. By socially positive, I mean like creating another business,
How does that not qualify as "sinking it into more assets"? It can be argued that investing their money is extremely benificial to the community.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My husband describes the American Dream like this: A poor man can immigrate to America, working himself up from nothing, make a fortune, and pass it on to his children. That's why he does it. To make life better for his children.
I understand we're only talking about the extremely wealthy here, and I hardly think they need little old me to defend them, but I think it would be wrong to apply that rule to the middle class, so I also think it's wrong to apply the rule at all.
-Katarain
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
All taxes can be viewed as punitive.
I have no problem with rich folks enjoying their largesse while living. I just worry about systemic issues that can arise if they are allowed to pass their largesse onto their heirs such that the heirs can live very comfortable lives through no effort on their own. This can breed all sorts of social consequences.
One way to look at this is that the heirs (not the deceased) pay the tax because it is only through our orderly civic society, regulated and governed by our government that they can without much conflict receive anything. Without government regulations (and this is an absurd extreme example) they might have had to enlist security forces to defend their parent's properties/bank accounts, or legions of lawyers against people who may feel they have a right to some of the property (long time work collaborators, lovers, etc).
-Bok
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
What rule do you mean, Katarin?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As far as I'm concerned, no person has the right to pass down a personally owned $10 million business (for instance) to his or her offspring. He or she has the right to see it perpetuated, but that is one reason corporations and other collective entities of various sorts exist.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The Estate Tax.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If I own $100 million dollars, should I not be allowed to give $10 million to a child of mine?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Just that they should take their surplus wealth (that's wealth after they've saved for retirement, and for college funds, and for vacations, etc) and do something socially positve with it, instead of sinking it into more assets. By socially positive, I mean like creating another business, setting up scholarships for underpriveledged kids, giving to charity, etc
And many people do.
But see, as they build their wealth, and spend it, they are positively impacting people. You may think it's disgusting that people spend $5 million dollars on a home, but consider who gets that 5 million. It's split among the carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians and others that worked on the home. They are people who don't have millions of dollars, but they survive because other people do have wealth, and they spend it on homes, which gives them a job so they can feed their families.
I would maintain that wealthy people spending money on things does help others. Remember the fallout from the luxury tax? Who got hurt? The small business owners and tradespeople who made their living building things like yachts. My uncle is a carpenter for a company that builds yachts. He shakes his head at people who would spend a million dollars on a boat, but he is certainly glad they do.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: As far as I'm concerned, no person has the right to pass down a personally owned $10 million business (for instance) to his or her offspring. He or she has the right to see it perpetuated, but that is one reason corporations and other collective entities of various sorts exist.
So they should work for years simply for the good of society? How noble. Sorry, but I care more about my family than I care about the rest of the people in the world. I'm not ashamed of that. It doesn't mean I don't care about the rest of the world, but if I don't care most about my family, who will??
And I also don't see the problem with rich kids living off daddy's wealth. Well, I see the problem... but I don't think the government has any right to say anything about that. Because every once in a while, there will be some rich kid who wants to give something back.
I'm so just talking here... it's not like they're getting all of the money taxed away, right? They're still rich.
Bah. And as for those social programs. I needed one last year. I didn't qualify. Most of my life will be spent paying into those social programs, and the one year I needed it, I got a big ... well, you know.
-Katarain
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Not about the topic but:
quote: We pay these morons to be our leaders?
When I watch the Parliament I have the same feeling. People yelling over one another, people heckling. The Speaker had to keep standng up and syaing something equivalent of "Now quiet down everybody..." or "Inside voices please, children."
I came to the conclusion then that everyone who wants to be a politician shouldn't be allowed, because it's clear that they can't even exhibit qualities learnt in elementary school.
if they yell they should be thrown out, same as anywhere else.
</rant>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure, you can give it quite freely, and a good portion won't go taxed, though a good portion will. Even more will go untaxed if you earmark it for certain sorts of expenses.
Just as with any other gift. (By the by, there's a gigantic reason gifts over a certain amount are taxed -- so people won't use them to circumvent income, capital gains, and other taxes).
And when you're dead and incapable of giving anything to anyone, your will can pass on a good portion of that $10 million, particularly in certain sorts of assets, to your kids.
But I see no particular reason your kids should be able to receive the $10 million at one time without penalty (whether we're talking as a gift or as part of an estate), whether you have $11 million or $100 billion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, the person likely worked for years to become rather wealthy and live a good life, Katarain.
Or do you spend nothing on yourself, saving every penny you have to give to your children?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You may think it's disgusting that people spend $5 million dollars on a home, but consider who gets that 5 million. It's split among the carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians and others that worked on the home. They are people who don't have millions of dollars, but they survive because other people do have wealth, and they spend it on homes, which gives them a job so they can feed their families.
I contend that a similar number, or perhaps slightly more, could be employed by building quality affordable housing for low income families for the same amount of wealth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kat, one solution for your story would be to have the government defend the girls, and give them most of what their parents had, minus some amount for the cost of the defense. Of course, in this story, the girl's parents had much lower than any reasonable minimum for any sort of estate tax, so the government would have protected them for free.
That story is more of a support for judicious use of government regulation as opposed to an anti-tax cautionary tale, in my view anyway.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle: of course large expenditures circulate money. As do government expenditures from money that's taxed (even the debt servicing goes mostly straight to tax payers).
However, money that circulates in the higher strata (large financial transactions, for instance) doesn't create as much money as that which gets spent on houses and tinker toys and nice clothes. Which is why I like the idea of letting people exempt millions of dollars, giving them an extremely comfortable cushion from which there will be many expenditures. Extremely large monetary assets, however, I see no reason they need to be passed on.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:I contend that a similar number, or perhaps slightly more, could be employed by building quality affordable housing for low income families for the same amount of wealth.
I think it is generally a bad idea when you try to start telling others how they should spend their money. If you think that people should give money to low-income housing, then you should do it. If the rich people feel the same, then let them do it on their own.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My family has quite a lot of assets, all untouchable and tied up in the family business, which translates in low cash flow. They are still building the business, so most of the profits go back into it.
No one owns six mansions. No one owns one mansion, although my uncle's house might be considered one depending on your definition. On the other hand, they have six children, so they are using every inch of the space.
If my dad or my uncle died, we'd have to sell the business to cover the estate tax. They pay double taxes now (once for the business, and then again when the profit becomes income), besides employing a hundred people and paying umpteen amounts of taxes on labor and licenses. It's a business with a small profit margin, so the taxes make a difference between black ink and red.
The state is much, much better off with the business intact, running and continuing to employ people and pay taxes. Where, exactly, is the incentive to build a business that can keep going if it has to be sold as soon as one of the founders dies?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Porter, I think that was more of a general statement/opinion of economic value, than one of coercing people to do that.
kat, I wonder if there isn't something your family is missing in this case (probably not, I admit), that would lower the net estate value, due to debts and the like.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think it is generally a bad idea when you try to start telling others how they should spend their money.
TRY? I beg your pardon-- I'm not trying, I'm actually telling rich people to give money to the poor.
Taxes are the government's way of telling us how we should spend our money. We don't get an option.
Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
Regardless of the manner in which a person dies or the state of their assets upon the time of death, those assets are private property, and are to be given by the individual to whoever they desire via a will upon their death. The government doesn't have a right to take someone's private assets. If people here really hate that concept, then they can voluntarily go live in a commune, or move to Cuba, China, or North Korea. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No fair, Scott.
For the arguments of keeping the money out of the same families generation after generation, human nature takes care of that. Families rarely stay wealthy longer than two or three generations - there is a reversion to the mean of human behavior, and the suceeding generations rarely have the drive/need/impetus to keep and build the empire that their great-grandfather built. In other words, they are going to spend it away anyway. The government doesn't need to get involved to ensure that the money gets back into circulation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
katharina: in 2009 the base exemption increases to $3.5 million. Plus, you can get special valuation on the business which will reduce the taxes owed on it considerably, and since its most of the estate you'd have 14 years to pay the taxes from time of death.
I doubt you'll end up having to sell it at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kat-- I think history disagrees with you. How else did monarchies first establish power, and then keep it?
And what was it I said that was unfair?
EDIT: This is my fastest moving thread EVER. And it's on taxes, of all things. Go figure.
[ April 14, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that's your opinion, and currently the legally elected government's stance is otherwise, so if you don't like it you can move, FIJC.
Plus, its not taking anybody's assets, because a dead person is no longer a legal person.
Not to mention you've just denied the government a right to exact criminal penalties.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think there is an elaborate system of trusts in place to avoid the estate tax as it currently stands, although I don't really how the assets are allocated among those trusts. It doesn't affect my life in anyway, and considering my dad's family lives to an average of over 90, it won't for a very long time.
Scott: I got the information from The Millionaire Next Door, but my copy is at home.
[ April 14, 2005, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I contend that a similar number, or perhaps slightly more, could be employed by building quality affordable housing for low income families for the same amount of wealth.
Then you would be wrong. Sorry, but this is one area that I do know something about (the construction thing, not the death tax issue.)
The types of skills and abilities necessary to build high-end housing are not the same as what you need to slap up a Habitat for Humanity home. Expensive homes cost money not just because they're bigger in square footage than moderate housing, but because they use different materials and require a different level of craftsperson to build them.
Most moderate homes don't need the services of a skilled finish carpenter. In your moderate home the framer or general contractor can hang your doors and put on window trim.
But in a high end home, the finish carpentry requires a lot of skill and years of experience to do. I'm talking about the skills to create and install custom moldings, and build an arching staircase, etc.
The construction industry is much more specialized than you might think. When a general contractor signs on to build a $5 million dollar home, he doesn't call Roto Rooter to install the plumbing. He calls someone who does high end plumbing, someone who can read architect blueprints, draw schematics, plan the drainage system, etc. A seven bathroom home, multi story home has much more complicated plumbing than a 3 bedroom, 2 bath ranch. Not every plumber can handle the challenges of that high end home. Plus, that home is going to take a lot longer to finish. Many plumbing companies take jobs where they can go in, slap in the pipe, install off-the-shelf contractor grade fixtures and then collect their paycheck and move on to the next house. We could spend months sometimes on a single home - where each fixture was unique, with its own installation challenges.
Sure that $5 million could be spent building a bunch of low income housing. But it wouldn't employ the same people by any means. And if we stopped building high end housing and started only building low income and moderate housing, many, many companies would go out of business. The companies that specialze in making custom millworks would be gone. Custom cabinetry would disappear, because in low income housing you just order stock cabinets. The craftsperon, the artisan, that spent years honing his craft so he can create the most beautiful custom fireplace mantles - what's he going to do for income?
He can't compete with the manufacturers that produce assembly-line fireplace mantles. He exists only because people are willing to pay thousands of dollars for him to custom design and craft a unique piece for their high end home.
We're already losing the artisan in our society. Cookie cutter subdivsions, where all the homes are built on one of three choices of floorplans are the norm. I think it's very, very sad. The high end home market keeps the few true craftspeople going. I think it would be a shame to lose that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
FIJC, if the private owner dies, I would say the property is actually in an undetermined state. At a base level, proving ownership requires constant positive action. I don't think private ownership is the default state of nature, at any rate.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle: so you'd be for leaving people with tons of assets, but taxing and then demolishing the homes they would have inherited so they're forced to build more ?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, I don't think you've proven that building lots of little is less economically advantageous, at a macro level, just that it won't benefit every type of person.
I can understand the aesthetics, but from an economic standpoint, is employing 1 artisan tradesman for a year more valuable than employing 12 "roto-rooters" for a month? I don't think anyone here really knows that answer.
-Bok
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:TRY? I beg your pardon-- I'm not trying, I'm actually telling rich people to give money to the poor.
This was tongue-in-cheek, but I believe that the rich have every bit as much right determining how you spend your money as you do to in determining how they spend their money.
None.
Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
quote:"FIJC, if the private owner dies, I would say the property is actually in an undetermined state. At a base level, proving ownership requires constant positive action. I don't think private ownership is the default state of nature, at any rate."
Except that wills are written before death occurs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well...I wouldn't go that far. I do believe that there is no way to earn money entirely alone - it takes stability, infrastructure, sound banks, and an assurance that you will not be ripped off by your broker, working airlines,.
It takes an army, the SEC, the FCC, FAA, a police force, departments of transportation, and a working government to create an environment where money-making is possible. Since those who make money are helped by those things that everyone pays for, there is a little bit of an obligation to return some of the benefits of everyone else's investment.
However, there a hundred taxes already in place that take care of that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That doesn't change that dispensation occurs after death. Its what separates an estate from a gift.
The government (necessarily) determines the rules for how assets are divided up in the case of death without a will, too, of course, is that somehow contravening the wishes of the dead person if they might have wanted it differently? If so, do you propose to divine those wishes?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle: so you'd be for leaving people with tons of assets, but taxing and then demolishing the homes they would have inherited so they're forced to build more
I know you're joking, but no I don't want the homes demolished. A well designed home built with the use of skilled craftspeople is a work of art. Whenever our business finished one, Wes would always ask the owners for permission to bring me by so I could tour it. I loved it - I loved seeing the work of true craftsmen.
Sure, there were many times that I shook my head when he told me how much a bathtub formed from Italian marble cost. He installed one that cost $20,000 one time. For a bathtub. Yes, I thought that was excessive, but I didn't begrudge the homeowner the right to put in his home what he wanted. And, that $20,000 got spread out to the American importer and fixture company, and all the way back to the Italian worker whose job it is to mine marble. The money to install that $20,000 tub came to us, and was distributed to our employees (and a big chunk of it to the government in income and self-employment tax.)
High end homes have to be maintained, and by their very nature keep craftsmen in business. You can't replace the custom fireplace mantle in your high end hom by going to Home Depot.
Plus, when homes are passed down to the next generation, they often are remodeled, which is another source of income for these specialty companies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given the estate tax has one of the absolute best ratios of government income to economic detriment (that is, highest government income for the lowest economic detriment), I see no reason to substitute a less efficient tax to obtain the money.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, keep the estate tax, and dismantle the IRS?
Deal!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, and I favor a pretty much absolute exemption for one and possibly two homes, Belle. The value of the second might be taxed given sufficient liquid assets, but absent those would still be protected.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, there will always be an IRS. They administer the estate tax, after all. Plus, the estate tax should take in less than it currently does (and is being moved nicely towards that). It will never substitute completely for other taxes.
However, I don't have a problem with entertaining major revisions or other, complete substitutions for the current income tax. Quite the contrary.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ooooh.. Dismantle the IRS?
I'd love to hear more about this from you guys.
What alternatives to a federal income tax would work? What's possible? What SHOULD it be??
-Katarain
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Estate Tax -- should be in place to prevent a "landed aristocracy" from arising in this country. The rich get richer....but it shouldn't occur intergenerationally. It will keep the kids motivated and keep power from amassing too much in the top 2%....oh wait, it already is amassed in the top 2%....And guess what, only 2% of families actually get hit by the estate tax every year...sure there are the occassional sob stories of family farms and small businesses...but most of those "examples" are carefully chosen under strict scrutiny by politicians...they do not represent the majority of those affected.
The tax code will never be abolished -- it is the preferred method of subsidation in the US...we are so full of it we can't stand to call something a subsidy or welfare...we'd rather call it a tax credit...pathetic...
[ April 14, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: 1lobo1 ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, I don't think you've proven that building lots of little is less economically advantageous, at a macro level, just that it won't benefit every type of person.
But Scott's contention was that those same people would be employed - which I know from personal experience is not true.
It takes a lot less people to build moderate housing. If every rich person quit buying high end homes and everybody lived in the same kind of cookie-cutter house, then many people would lose their jobs and it's not a matter of them just turning around and working for the companies building the cookie cutter homes. There wouldn't be jobs for them in building those homes - and if we built all houses the same we would increase efficiency by making only certain stock items, which we could mass produce. That would mean more automation, less people actually building and creating things.
Everything would be easier to install, and because all the houses are similar there's no learning curve - no one has to study blueprints for hours, so we can build houses much faster. Which means we get more done and make more profit with fewer employees.
It would be a net loss of jobs and income for a lot of people, and I don't think that would have a positive impact on society.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
His contention was that a "similar number, or perhaps slightly more" would be employed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Estate Tax -- should be in place to prevent a "landed aristocracy" from arising in this country.
The estate tax is not necessary to do this. The landed aristocrasy stayed landed because assets were entailed to the estate and the title. It takes serious effort to keep a family wealthy for more than two-three generations. There is definitely no effort expended in that direction, so the dynasties do not stay intact.
A hundred years, the richest people in America were the Rockefellers and Carnegies. Today, it's Gates and Buffet. There is a natural turnover.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you're creating a situation which doesn't and won't exist with the estate tax.
With the estate tax, people get to keep (at least one) big home in the family. Additional assets will be taxed, which in many cases are likely tied up in complex financial instruments that circulate little money in the "lower" economy, and those assets will be expended by the government on things such as low income housing.
Not to mention that in economics taking anything to an extreme results in a ridiculous situation (for instance, what if we built all giant houses!). There's some number (possibly more than one) in the middle where an efficient balance is reached, and its nigh impossible to tell how close we are to such a balance. Predicting economic doom and gloom based on an extreme is a meaningless argument.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
With proper estate planning and asset protection, the effects of the Estate Tax can be entirely avoided in most cases, and drastically decreased in all others.
In some ways, the Estate Tax is like the lottery: a tax on stupid people (or, rather, people who have not taken the time and thought to plan ahead).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Echo fugu, FIJC, but what is a will, except ink on tree, without some entity that all sides (or at least, most sides) agree will enforce and protect the terms of the will?
-Bok
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
While it appeals to my sense of mischeivousness, I hate the idea of stupid taxes.
But maybe that's just because I keep paying them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Has anybody here ever inherited a significant amount of money? If so, what did you do with it?
My parents inherited about $80,000 dollars from an uncle who died. A lot less than some of the amounts we're talking about, but it was a lot to them.
They used the money to invest in a home, buy new cars, and put some away for retirement. The money didn't sit in their mattress, it got put back into circulation and benefitted society - they provided income to homebuilders and a real estate agent, they provided money to car salesmen and the people who work on assembly lines in Detroit, and by putting money into investments, they impacted still more businesses that employ people.
It's not as if money that is inherited will only ever benefit that one person. That person is going to use that money to buy things and invest and put more money into society. They might even make considerable charitable donations with it. So, to me the question is would it be better for the child who inherits Daddy's millions to spend it and impact the economy, or for the government to take it all away and then spend it where they want to.
Being fiscally conservative, I favor putting the money into the economy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was going to leap into this discussion but Belle has made every point I was going to make better than I could have made it.
So I'm just going to put on my cheerleading outfit and cheer for Belle.
B-E-L-L-E GOOOOOOO BELLE!
(ok I'm feeling silly.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know someone who inherited $450,000 when her father died, and she spent every last cent of it within ten months. Bought a house with cash at the beginning, and towards the end, financed it to the hilt to have the cash to spend on more stuff.
There's no earthly way dynasties stay dynasties without considerable effort expended in that direction. I'm pretty sure the estate tax was in force for her father as well, because I can't imagine that if he had done any planning at all, he would have left her the money out right.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Neither one of my parents have inherited anything, because their parents are not dead yet.
And when that happens, they won't get much, with all the siblings they have.
I plan on never inheriting any amount of money that will actually make a difference.
But then again, I plan on never receiving a single dollar from social security.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I'd just like to point out that under the Estate Tax, as it now stands, neither Belle's parents, nor kat's friend, would have been taxed for those amounts.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, many of the very wealthy still have lineage with those old-timey folks. Even if many have fallen, might that be due to the beneficial effects of the estate tax? They spent a lot of money on philanthropy, such that what they passed on was much lower than it could have been, and that the descendents squandered what they got (which may still be substantial)?
-Bok
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Uh, it's not like taxation doesn't benefit society. The government takes that money and puts it into social welfare programs, reconstruction projects and those wars you Republicans love so much. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Being fiscally conservative, I favor putting the money into the economy."
Dollar for dollar, giving money to the rich is a far poorer way to put money into the economy than giving money to the poor.
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
I own a wealth management company. My clients are people that are subject to the estate tax and Kat is exactly right about the system of trusts that she mentioned. There are very complex ways of getting around the estate tax in many cases. That is the thing that bothers me most, as is the case with the federal income tax system, huge amounts of resources are waisted on tax avoidance.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ah, but holden, that money used for tax avoidance goes to tax preparers, lawyers, and others! I would say it isn't much different than spending it on anything else.
Looking at it this way, they might avoid paying the tax (which the government would use to pay other people) but they'll still be forced to put some of that money back into the economy.
-Bok
Posted by holden (Member # 7351) on :
quote:but holden, that money used for tax avoidance goes to tax preparers, lawyers, and others! I would say it isn't much different than spending it on anything else.
Strongly disagree Bok. Tax avoidance is a very inefficient use of assets. If there were no estate tax, or at least no loop holes to the estate tax, those resources could be used for other more productive purposes. Trust me, while I make money helping people avoid estate taxes, I would much rather devote that time and effort to making their portfolios more efficient.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fair enough.
Being a Vonnegut fan, much of my thought (perhaps too much) comes from his book "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater".
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tax avoidance is a very inefficient use of assets."
Agreed. Perhaps they should stop avoiding taxes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: to me the question is would it be better for the child who inherits Daddy's millions to spend it and impact the economy, or for the government to take it all away and then spend it where they want to.
The answer all depends on who you trust more.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And who the money belongs to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And who the money belongs to."
I'd argue that this train has already left the station, and is never coming back. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe not for everyone.
[ April 14, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't believe that private property needs to exceed 2 million dollars in cash/assets.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
We can quibble on a number, but regardless, you should add that you are adjusting that number for inflation Scott.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Do you adjust that for location? 2 million in NYC is not the same as 2 million in Dallas.
2. What do you think the effect on entrepenuership would be if, once that number has been reached, everything else is taken away?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I see Scott. So my friend whose father owns a family farm worth more than 5 million dollars should sell the farm?
Does it matter that he can barely afford to pay his property taxes, because income from farming has fallen off? If you saw his lifestyle, you'd assume he lived just at or above the poverty line. And he does. His actual income each year barely does keep him above the poverty line.
But his land is worth a lot, so according to you he should sell it and donate it to someone else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay, I admit I just made up a number that sounded like a pretty outrageous amount of personal wealth to me.
Kat and Belle have wisely pointed out good problems with my hypotheses.
Kat:
1) Adjust for regional differences.
2) I don't know. What would the effect be if all entrepeneurs set off wanting to support a product they believed in rather than to make money?
Belle:
Good point. Mmmm. . . could we call in personal assets, meaning any asset not used for business purposes? So, farm land, business offices, work computers, tractors, etc. would not be counted, but residences would.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:set off wanting to support a product
Then everyone would be musicians, artists, and/or philosophers. Do you think the majority of people run businesses because they think it is fun?
My uncle would be a musician - he plays the French Horn, trumpet, and piana, and sings in MoTab.
I don't know what my dad would do, although he could probably do anything. However, as much as he doesn't mind the business, he wouldn't do it out of ideaology. He does it because he has six kids and needs to.
It would definitely be the state's and their employees' loss if they shut it down. Shut down small businesses on a mass scale, and you've got Irami's future.
[ April 14, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you think the majority of people run businesses because they think it is fun?
Actually, yes. My dad runs a small business, and he enjoys the product he sells (um. . . bull semen ) and because he works for himself.
If you don't enjoy it, don't do it. That's why I'm in the technology field instead of being a lawyer, or English teacher. And it's why I plan on becoming a writer.
quote:Shut down small businesses on a mass scale, and you've Irami's future.
Who's talking about shutting down small businesses? What have I said that makes you believe that I support this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They personally own the assets of the business, and your cut off is 2 million. They'd have to sell the business to liquidate the assets enough to give it to the government.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
See my qualifications to Belle, kat.
Are you saying that some one person NEEDS to have more than two million dollars of personal wealth, doing nothing to help anyone but laying around and being. . . I dunno. . . a house?
[ April 14, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In order to join the business, my parents saved a lot during the years my dad was an executive in the oil business. In order to expand it, they needed capital. So, while the capital was accruing, it wasn't in business assets, but it was earmarked to become so.
Would you exempt it then, because it was meant to become business assets later but hadn't reached critical mass enough that my dad could quit the oil business and join it yet? Spending the capital then on business equipment wouldn't work because both the capital and my dad's labor was needed to expand it.
With your cut off, the ONLY way to get enough capital to start and/or expand some of these businesses with ahigh up front cost would be to borrow it, so all entrepenuers would have to start off deeply, deeply in debt.
The capital was NEVER spent on mansions or Mercedes, but it was liquid for a while. It was just as untouched then because of its future purpose as equipment and buildings as it is when it is tied up in that purpose.
[ April 14, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Scott, in some areas, a 2 million dollar house actually isn't all that big. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hey, I did say adjust for region, rivka.
Back atcha!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The capital was NEVER spent on mansions or Mercedes, but it was liquid for a while."
I'd say that this is one of the costs of liquidity. The alternative is to say that anyone could, in theory, be saving their money for a good reason, and therefore money should not be taxed. Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
So...what happens if you decide to move? If I only need $1 million in assets where I live, but want to move to a place that requires $2 million, I couldn't, becuase I wouldn't have enough money.
Also, I agree with Tom's alternative.
[ April 14, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Avatar300 ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So saving is bad? It's better to always borrow capital and thus dramatically increase the risk and cost?
Is encouraging more debt and more instability really what we want to do? Keep in mind that without the ability to have liquid capital, the business never would have happened.
If you cap off ownership of capital at 2 million, you'd better dramatically increase the willingness of the government to guarantee loans if you want the same level of entrepenuership.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
They tax you for dying? What's a Death Tax?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, Scott here's another situation for you - it's relevant and real, because it's my situation. I'll change the numbers but the situation is exactly what has happened.
Suppose you have been saving for years toward a new home. You take your savings, and look for an area that is quiet, peaceful, has good schools and a small town atmosphere. You use your savings to put a down payment on a 2 acre lot and then work for the next two years to pay off the mortgage on your lot.
Then you start building your house. You take out a construction loan for $100,000 and you build the biggest house you can afford to build because you plan on being here for a long time, and you also plan on adding to your family and you figure this is the biggest investment you'll ever make. You do a lot of work yourself, and you pay for some things out of pocket instead of putting them on the construction loan so you can keep your mortgage payment down.
Now you're done - the mortgage payment is high, but you're managing okay - you can pay everything with careful budgeting.
Fast forward five years. You still have that mortgage payment, and you're struggling even more because one of your two wage earners quit to stay home with the kids. You have increased your income to compensate, but you haven't quite caught up to the income you lost. You're making it, but barely.
In the meantime, during those five years, other people discovered what a wonderful place it is where you live. Homes and land started selling. Prices started going up. Houses were re-appraised. Now, that home you worked so hard for is worth $500,000 dollars. And you only owe about $80,000 on it - wow! Let's say you also own a small business, with a lot of equipment that's worth a good bit too. Combining your business assets and personal ones puts you up into the category of people that have more than $1 million net worth.
Wow. It's cool being a millionaire, huh? It's living on easy street, no worries at all.
Wrong. You still are struggling to pay that mortgage on the remaining $80,000 you owe.
Just because someone looks on paper as if they have a lot of money doesn't mean they really do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Belle: This isn't going to win me friends, but if someone is in a house that they cannot afford, there is no reason they should be guaranteed it anyway. It's a lifestyle, and if someone can't afford their lifestyle, then it needs to be downsized or else income increased.
[ April 14, 2005, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Except it wouldn't have been a struggle if the assests weren't arbitrarily capped.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, but kat we can afford our house. We still pay the mortgage every month. We had no control over the way it rose in value - we wish it hadn't as it's vastly increased our property values.
(and remember those numbers are made up)
Edit - I think I see. When I said "still struggling to pay" it implied a situation where someone borrowed more than they reasonably should have. That is not the case.
When I say struggling I mean it in the sense of still having to get up and go to work every day, in order to bring in enough income to pay all the bills. I don't mean living paycheck to paycheck with no savings just so you can live in a big house with a fat mortgage payment.
I agree with you that someone who does that is not making sound financial decisions.
My point is not to have anyone feel sorry for me or someone in my position - it's just to show that determinations of wealth can be deceiving. What looks really good on paper, may not match up with reality. For example, when we had to go buy a new van, we bought a used low mileage van and were insistent on keeping our payment down so we resisted the salesman's effort to upsell us on a new, much more expensive van. They would have approved us for a loan for far more than we were comfortable paying, just because we looked good "on paper."
[ April 14, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Belle: Okay - that makes sense.
Yeah, it's too bad. A million doesn't go nearly as far as you think it might. I believe the term for the level at which one doesn't have to work is, um, not repeatable, but the amount is much, much higher than 2 million. -------
*wants Scott to answer the question about capital*
Some businesses, to start, require a concentration of capital. Your plan would eliminate the ability of private citizens to concentrate capital, so the only source would be banks and the government, in the form of borrowing.
That would greatly, greatly increase the risk and cost involved in starting a business. How would you compensate for that?
[ April 14, 2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*always awaiting Scott's answer*
That's an excellent point, kat. We started our business with only the money we were able to save, I doubt we would have even bothered trying to start one if we knew we'd have to start out in debt.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, I think the assets should be distributed and then taxed. Because if my parents drop dead, I'd get about half of the inheritance I'd get in 4 years when it goes up.
But I think that rather than capping the estate, cap the inheritor. I mean, each kid could inherit a million. That seems more fair. I mean, an only child gets a million tax free, but a child with 4 siblings only gets 200,000 tax-free.
The way I figure it, by the time I inherit, my husband will be ready to retire, and by then, what difference will it really make? I think the money should be passed down to the next generation. My son will be the one who could use the money at that point and time. He'll probably be struggling to pay for a house and trying to keep a family in diapers and food.
But, I'm one of those people who will inherit a lot more in four years than I would tomorrow. Still, I think there should be a cap. I think there is only so much money you need. My parents are never going to run out of money. I think the money they inherited their parents is being used for some small gifts now, but mostly collecting interest. But I'm sure they want to make sure they have enough money to last them till they're a hundred, which I've read can cost two people their age a million dollars. But,I have no idea what they're doing with the rest of it. Probably spending it frivolously just to piss me off. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I saw the debate Scott is referencing, and the floor being discussed was 6 million dollars, not one, not three, not five, six. If the good government of the United States cleared a space for you to accrue six million dollars worth of assets, I don't know if it's unseemly to ask a little bit of sacrifice, especially considering the war and the deficit.
[ April 14, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I thought that right now it was a million and in four years it would be 3.5 million.
Why did kat delete her post about her dad zeroing out on the day he died?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sorry. Rethought it.
Scott's probably working - which is why he hasn't addressed the capital concerns. Silly working.
Irami, you've completely missed the point.
[ April 14, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I didn't see the debate and I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have already been posted. But since I spend about 80% of my work day dealing with probate estates and death taxes, I wanted to get this part out first.
Currently, the first one and a half million dollars of your estate at death is exempt from taxes. So if you have less than $1.5M in assets when you die, then you don't have to pay death taxes at all. If you have more than $1.5, then you pay on the amount over that exemption. The exemption increases every year until (currently) 2010, when it's up for renewal or elimination.
Because of the exemption, it would seem to me that elimination of the death tax would only benefit the wealthy, because frankly, us middle-class schmoes with no real assets don't pay anything anyhow.
Personally, I'd love to see them eliminate it entirely because FETs are a ROYAL pain in the patella to create and file!!!!! Especially when you're talking about a decedent with as much money and as many properties as some of these clients have got... someday I'm going to convince at least one of these to name me as a beneficiary under their will... Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scott was spending 2.5 hours going home, because they had one lane open on a three lane bridge, and there were no alternate routes to take.
And after that was bathtime, and family time, and bedtime.
Seriously-- let's do keep our priorities in order.
Kat, Belle-- you both bring up questions which, honestly, deserve an answer that I don't have for certain. I'm fleshing my opinions out as I make 'em.
What I feel is that, in regards to the estate tax, the situation that Kat describes would be rare. Most entrepeneurs would be able to build capital as they see fit-- no one starts a business thinking, 'Now what if I die, we're going to lose all our money.'
I've tried to make it abundantly clear-- I'm not talking about stripping wealth from small, family owned, businesses.
If the $2M catches too many small fish, I'm not adverse to raising it to $6M, or $10M.
NOW. . .
No one needs a huge estate to leave their children; my opinion is that your children need your time and love far more than they need any 'security,' or 'prosperity' your wealth may bring them. So this nonsense of leaving an estate is, well, nonsense-- teach your kids to be secure and to stand on their own power. THAT'S the true American Legacy. If they want to take over the family business, fine-- let them BUY it from you.
So sure-- acquire as much as you can, but after you've acquired a certain amount of personal wealth, it should revert to governmental control. If you don't like the government, that's fine-- there are LOTS of entrepeneurs looking for cash.
There is no sense in owning a home that has a $20,000 bathroom. It is socially irresponsible, when that money could have been used to fund education, or scientific research, or actually done something useful. I realize that there are artisans and high end carpenters that are employed by this type of work-- and I realize that my way of thinking could cost them their jobs. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to support them until they find work that suits their skills. Heck, I'm willing to pay higher taxes to MAKE jobs where their skills are needed-- heaven knows, some of our governmental buildings could use a little beautification.
There, I've said it-- higher taxes. We need 'em. And we need a tax code that the rich can't pay to find a way out of.
This is why I'll never be a candidate for anything-- I advocate with sincerity, honesty, and a loud voice for higher taxes. Elect me, I'll tax you! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:No one needs a huge estate to leave their children; my opinion is that your children need your time and love far more than they need any 'security,' or 'prosperity' your wealth may bring them. So this nonsense of leaving an estate is, well, nonsense-- teach your kids to be secure and to stand on their own power. THAT'S the true American Legacy. If they want to take over the family business, fine-- let them BUY it from you.
I agree with this, actually.
Mostly.
No one needs to be handed a kingdom, but I also know that no one really does make it completely alone. Not alone does society help, but families do and should help. My family's business never would have started without my grandparents' help. My grandmother did the accounting for free for the fifteen years, and my grandfather, a chemist, ran the lab for the first twenty. He just barely stopped this year, at 85. Those are expensive labor positions, and their labor often made the difference between making payroll and not.
It is okay to help, I think.
Have you read The Millionaire Next Door? I think you would find it interesting. There is a whole section on giving adult children money to maintain a lifestyle they could not have on their own, and the conclusion was that those who recieve this assistance are considerably less likely and/or able to ever stand on their own.
Another point made is that the vast, vast majority of millionaires are self-made. Seriously - family fortunes self-destruct and dissapte in a generation or two all on their own.
[ April 14, 2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by WigginWinning (Member # 7811) on :
Scott, how about this with respect to the floor...The Wealthiest x-percentile of the population...then it isn't about so-and-so wealthy-asset cash-poor farmer, it's about trust-fund gadabout. And it isn't about new memebers of the ever-growing (though still INCREDIBLY EXCLUSIVE) American Millionaires club. It's only the mega-millionaires and billionaires who routinely find ever-multiplying ways to prevent anyone from taking their treasure. How much more would it benefit society if instead of ensuring the livelihood of a billionaire's say forty or fifty descendants (and this is one fertile billionaire i'm talking about) the assets upon his/her death were used to give good public education to 50,000 poor students? And it's a TAX, it's not like we're taking the whole thing (though that doens't sound like such a bad idea either).
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:So sure-- acquire as much as you can, but after you've acquired a certain amount of personal wealth, it should revert to governmental control. If you don't like the government, that's fine-- there are LOTS of entrepeneurs looking for cash.
How exactly does this money "revert" back to the government when it never belonged to the government in the first place?
You're missing the point. Perhaps no one "needs" that much money, but they earned it, and they have the right to decide how it is spent.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dead people don't spend money. Nor do they make decisions. And heirs didn't earn it.
Does "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" ring a bell? Money doesn't grow on trees. USdollars are printed by the USmint. Your money would be worth less than the cost of the ink&paper if "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" wasn't backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Plus there is the value added by the fact that the US dollar is the only acceptable means of paying US taxes. Similarly, the government is the sole backing for claims of property ownership.
And if ya don't think the government has anything to do with creating wealth, move to Zimbabwe. You should do at least as well there as in the US.
[ April 15, 2005, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You're missing the point. Perhaps no one "needs" that much money, but they earned it, and they have the right to decide how it is spent.
No, I understand this point. I just don't agree with it.
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
Sith own everything so there is no need to worry about taxes.
Such pettiness.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Sith own everything so there is no need to worry about taxes.
Such pettiness.
Your sad attempts at humor amuse me. . .
not at all. If you don't have anything to add to this (or any) serous discussion, please refrain from posting. Keep the stupidity to the fluff threads.
You wouldn't annoy me so much, if you didn't go around posting this idiocy on so many serious threads. Please stop.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Crud, now I have to stop posting idiocy??
That's all I had, after they took whimsy away from me...
You've left me with nothing!
* Wailing, and gnashing *
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*patpats Bok*
Don't worry, dude you're actually funny.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
That was you, Bok? I expected more of you.
I don't know what it is about Darth Ender that annoys me. I think it's the repetition. The first couple of times, I just ignored it. But after all the variations on what is, essentially, the same stupid joke, it just started to irritate me.
Ok, enough derailing. Back to the topic at hand, and if anyone wants to continue this track, make another thread.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
You misread the memo, Bokanon. It's mimsy which ain't allowed.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nope, I'm not Darth Ender.
I'm too lazy to be a Sith. All the conniving, and brooding, and, oh! the plans to take over the galaxy...
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then there is the difficulty of planting stupidity at just the right moment to derail others' takeover conspiracies.
[ April 15, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'd be curious to know why so many people seem to treat "trust fund" like a dirty word. What is it about leaving money to someone that they can't spend outright that annoys people so much?
I also don't understand the idea that it's better to give money to the poor which they will immediately spend, be it on beer and cigarettes or a new car. At the end of the day, that irresponsible poor guy still has nothing to show for his money. The beer is drunk, the cigarettes are smoked, and the car will only depreciate in value.
I am a bank teller. I see where people spend their money. Please stop telling me the poor would spend it wisely if they just had more of it. I've seen inheritances blown through in months. I've seen law suit settlements spent in a great orgy of self-indulgence. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen people without money spend it wisely when they did get a windfall.
I still say the vast majority of the poor look at money differntly from the rest of us. Maybe Scott's right and it's a self esteem thing. Maybe if we were all nicer to the poor they wouldn't act like that. So let's work on that first. Because if we give them a bunch of money with the attitudes they have now, they'll still be poor next week.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
What annoys me about trust funds is more the self-serving attitudes I tend to see in the beneficiaries....
Many of these "kids" do not learn any kind of fiscal responsibility, and since my boss is their trustee, he holds the purse strings, so to speak. Which means they come running to him demanding money on a much more frequent basis than the alloted distributions, often claiming an emergency.
"I can't pay my rent, you need to send me more money" - that girl gets four grand a month, her rent is $1,500... what did she do with it all?
"I need a tooth extracted" - okay, this definitely falls under best interests and welfare, but don't you have insurance?
"I'm in Vegas and I just drained my account" - {jawdrop}
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Maybe Scott's right and it's a self esteem thing.
I never said anything about the poor and a self-esteem problem; that's more along the lines of Irami's philosophy, I think.
And I've never advocated GOVERNMENT handouts, ever. I advocate personally giving money to the poor, whenever they ask, without needing (much of) a reason, but I don't think this type of thing should be a social institution. I advocate using money garnered from the estate tax to create jobs. I'm not terribly sure how to go about doing that-- but believe me, it's a fine idea in my head.
Boy-howdy, is it ever. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I still say the vast majority of the poor look at money differntly from the rest of us.
I think I have a different view of money from the rest of you. I think it's possible to be proudly poor. I'm not sure material poverty is the same as degradation, even though the two often accompany each other. I also think it's possible to be wealthy trash.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I also don't understand the idea that it's better to give money to the poor which they will immediately spend, be it on beer and cigarettes or a new car. At the end of the day, that irresponsible poor guy still has nothing to show for his money. The beer is drunk, the cigarettes are smoked, and the car will only depreciate in value.
So people are poor because they're irresponsible? They never spend money given to them on food or clothes? What if they buy a slightly used car that runs well in order to have more job opportunities?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
And I'm sure some of them do. But often times, a poor person will take a large chunk of money, buy something expensive with it, and think they've made an investment. That car won't be worth as much as it is before you buy it for a good 25 years, if you keep it in pristine condition. Driving it around does not mean you've invested in a potentially classic car.
I don't know. I just get annoyed with the attitude that rich people are bad and poor people are good. Just because. Trust me, there's never been anything noble about the poor people I've known. I've known a few people who were temporarily poor through unfortunate circumstances, but they didn't stay poor.
Sorry I misunderstood you, Scott. The self-esteem bit was from the OSC essay you linked to. An idea that other people tell the poor it's their fault they don't have any money until they believe it and feel powerless to change. Personally, I'm all for education. Let's get investment bankers in inner city schools and trailer parks giving lectures on letting your money work for you. Teach people how to invest in long term annuities, CDs, stocks, bonds, something other than bling.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Trust me, there's never been anything noble about the poor people I've known.
Not one aspect?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
No really, they were white trash. I promise.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I submit you have not known very many poor people, then.
Irami, I do not see anything to be proud of in being poor. I don't see anything to be proud of in being rich, either. What's the logic behind your idea?
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:I submit you have not known very many poor people, then.
I must not, either, or perhaps AvidReader and I are thinking of people who aren't necessarily poor but extremely irresponsible.
Come to think of it, I'm surrounded by poor people. But I don't think of them as poor because they're careful with their money. They don't consider government help an option, so they cut where they can.
Perhaps what I'm doing--what AvidReader is doing as well--is associating "poor" with those on welfare, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
The government rewards irresponsibility, so the people I know who get government assistance don't actually need it. They just live the way the government tells them to live in order to get welfare, food stamps, etc.
On the other hand, I've never known, or met, or heard of an actual responsible poor person who needed financial help, who received anything of use from the government. I mean, besides the "You don't fit our criteria, so we can't help you." bit.
That doesn't mean some genuinely poor people haven't been helped. It just means a lot of people--and I do mean a lot of people--take advantage of the system when they don't really need it. It's free money to them.
That's what irks me about the welfare system, about estate taxes. If I knew that every dollar, or every half dollar actually went to someone who needed it, not a mother of three who spends $200 a week on hair and nail appointments and doesn't want to divert that money to buy food for her kids, (true story), then I'd be okay with it. But a lot of the money is wasted and given to the kind of people who con their way into, while those who need it are ignore.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just because someone accepts help from the government, doesn't make them "white trash," or "irresponsible."
The majority of welfare dollars DO go to people who need it. And I think the stereotypes being perpetuated by certain people in the last few posts are disgusting.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, I do not see anything to be proud of in being poor. I don't see anything to be proud of in being rich, either. What's the logic behind your idea?
I meant that people can be noble inspite of being materially poor. I also think that many virtuous decisions lead to material poverty.
I think US culture endorses a set of materialistic priorities, possibly born from a sense of security or stability or dignity or even Godliness that is supposed to be evidenced by material wealth, and the ability to produce and maintain it.
And maybe security, stability, dignity,and Godliness are the fruits of making money, but I think that there are other ways to attain those qualities with only a little bit of money, and furthermore, focusing on making more than that bit is a shameful distraction. And in this culture, I think takes a little bit of courage to say "no" to drugs, cell-phones, cars, cheeseburgers, and the spending eight hours of your working day concerned about how to make more money. So yes, when I see people who are materially poor by decision and not circumstance, I think it's a good thing. _____
Again, I'm not one of those who sees money as a good in itself.
[ April 17, 2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Just because someone accepts help from the government, doesn't make them "white trash," or "irresponsible."
No one said that. At least, I wasn't implying that at all. A lot of good people need help at times. My point is that the government (or the way welfare is run) only helps a select few. They don't dole out money according to need, but according to lifestyle.
quote:The majority of welfare dollars DO go to people who need it.
I disagree. I think some people are helped, and that's a good thing. But there's a lot of fraud and a lot of people working the system.
quote:And I think the stereotypes being perpetuated by certain people in the last few posts are disgusting.
That all poor people are white trash? Well, yeah. I'd be white trash then, because I'm technically poor, and I'm white.
But not all poor people are saints, and I think that was the point AvidReader was trying to make. That was the point I was trying to make, at least.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But not all poor people are saints, and I think that was the point AvidReader was trying to make. That was the point I was trying to make, at least.
Maybe, but when AvidReader said it, it came out, " Trust me, there's never been anything noble about the poor people I've known."
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Maybe, but when AvidReader said it, it came out, " Trust me, there's never been anything noble about the poor people I've known."
The poor people he/she has known, though. That's the difference. Perhaps AvidReader is surrounded by a lot of crappy people, poor or not.
I felt I was in the same situation, until I recalled that I do know quite a few poor people, most of whom are exceptional people. But they never came off as poor, because they don't walk around with their hands out. Instead, they're very, very careful with their money and only ask/accept help when they have no other options.
But then there's those other "poor" people I know, people who are always demanding help, but have houses--or trailers--full of junk they squander their money on. Or the lazy people who can't hold down a job, even though they're healthy, smart, capable, and want everyone else to take care of them. Those are the people that I don't think should get help from the government. But of all the people I personally know, those are the only people who are getting help from the government.
That's why I get a bit about welfare.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But of all the people I personally know, those are the only people who are getting help from the government."
This is because you consider a refusal to accept charity to be a positive trait. Ergo, the people who do accept charity are less deserving of it.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:This is because you consider a refusal to accept charity to be a positive trait. Ergo, the people who do accept charity are less deserving of it.
No, I consider people who demand charity, whether they actually need it or not, who can't admit to themselves or anyone else that their poverty is a result of their own actions, less deserving.
Pride--or an inability to accept help even when you need it--is also a character flaw.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: No, I consider people who demand charity, whether they actually need it or not, who can't admit to themselves or anyone else that their poverty is a result of their own actions, less deserving.
Aye, I agree with that. My family was on foodstamps and unemployment for I think four months when my mom (single mother raising two boys) lost her job. This was five years ago. She couldn't get another job for awhile, and in the meantime the whole family (and friends helped) did a 5000 house paper route every week to help pay the bills. This of course with my mother who has bone chips in her neck from a car accident, and carpal tunnel/arthritis from a work related accident years ago. She ended up getting a dream job, but that four months was a nightmare on her.
Thus, I have little sympathy for those who create situations that are bad for themselves, and do little to correct them. There are always options out, especially when you have a family to support. You make it work.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thank you, Lyr. That was actually my point. Many people choose to be poor and stay poor. Some people choose not to be poor and move themselves up to middle class. Many people, like Goody's trust fund kids, choose to be poor and just haven't gotten there yet.
USA Today just did a big story on Americans needing to go on a financial diet. Yahoo puts the national credit card debt at 60 billion dollars. The average American has over $8000 in credit card debt. My pastor just did a sermon on giving oursleves financial leeway. He said Americans are living on 115 to 125% of their income. Couldn't find a link for it, though.
If people don't change their spending habits, there's going to be a lot of middle class people who suddenly find themselves poor. And with changes to bankrupcy laws, they're still going to have to pay back all the money they already spent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Many people choose to be poor and stay poor. Some people choose not to be poor and move themselves up to middle class. Many people, like Goody's trust fund kids, choose to be poor and just haven't gotten there yet."
Two questions:
1) How many people do not choose to be poor and yet remain poor? 2) Can someone choose to be poor in return for some other lifestyle and yet deserve charity?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Nice set-up, Tom. Do you seriously think anyone will walk into the trap, though?
Lyrhawn, what if your mother hadn't gotten a "dream job" after only 4 months? What if it had taken 2 years? And even then, it had been a relatively sucky job that was barely good enough? And what if in those 2 years, she and her children and friends hadn't been able to keep up with the 5000 paper paper route?
I just think, that even though there was a lot of bad luck in your family, it was short-lived and a lot of good luck followed it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm still confused as to what people are arguing about here. It is absolutely indisputible that there are many people who are poor because of poor choices, and who remain poor because of more poor choices.
It is also absolutely indisputible that there are many people who are poor because of forces over which they have no control, and who remain poor because of such forces.
It is also absolutely indisuputible that there are many people who are poor through some combination of poor choices and forces over which they have no control.
Dagonee
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know Kayla. I'd attribute some of what happened to good luck, but in the end it was hard work. My mom was out every day of the week going to interviews, handing out her resume. Had it lasted longer than the four months, I don't know what would have happened, I'm thankful I don't have to worry about that. But it's not like she sat around and waited for a job to hit her, like I know many (though of course not all) poorer families do. She made something happen.
Bottom line is, I think there is a job out there for anyone, even if it isn't the best job, and if it doesn't give you everything you want, anyone can make something happen. I don't really believe in the American Dream in the sense that we can all become wealthy, but I think no matter what your situation, if you work hard, you can at least survive, and give your children a chance to make their lives better for themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Has the American Dream transmuted from one of individual progress to one of personal independence?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's become something of forlorn hope and cynical disbelief.
We all like the notion, but anyone who comes from the bottom of the well doesn't have the almighty chance at prosperity that the dream promises.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm still confused as to what people are arguing about here. It is absolutely indisputible that there are many people who are poor because of poor choices, and who remain poor because of more poor choices.
It is also absolutely indisputible that there are many people who are poor because of forces over which they have no control, and who remain poor because of such forces.
It is also absolutely indisuputible that there are many people who are poor through some combination of poor choices and forces over which they have no control.
All of this is true, and I submit that we are paying people for the wrong things. In addition, there is a sense that awareness of the right or choice that is neither an issue of control or poor judgment, and finally, I was offered a nice cush job because one of my friends was highering for a nice cushy job, and it makes me wonder if there aren't a significant number of people who are living well because of who they know.
[ April 18, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In addition, there is a sense that awareness of the right or choice that is neither an issue of control or poor judgment
I read this 10 times and can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify, please?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In addition, there is a sense that awareness of the right or choice that is neither an issue of control or poor judgment
It's not you, it's me.
Being aware of the presence of the right choice is neither an issue of control nor judgment. We live in an intricate society with many institutions and entrenched rules for success in any given institution. I think some people never take advantage of their situation, even though they have control and judgment. These people don't make the prosperous choice because they don't know the rules.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good point. I would have grouped that situation either in poor choices or forces beyond their control, depending on how willfull the ignorance of the rules is. There would be a lot of shades of gray in there, of course.
But you're absolutely right that the lack of education in such matters is cronic in this country, and crosses class lines. I have a spreadsheet I make when someone asks me for financial advice that demonstrates how critical the time value of money is to financial security. People are always astounded by how the numbers work out over time.
And, of course, there are many rules that can't be demonstrated easily in a spreadsheet: ettiquette, how to write a cover letter, why it's important to give two weeks notice, why gaps on your resume need to be explained, why and how to buy a house instead of renting, and a million other little things.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I'd attribute some of what happened to good luck, but in the end it was hard work. My mom was out every day of the week going to interviews, handing out her resume.
Nah. Not buying it. I've known people who work their asses off trying to find jobs and can't. I bet there are lots of them here at Hatrack. The Pixiest, to name one, I believe. It's not a matter of how hard you look for a job. You need to be good at what you do, there needs to be a demand for what you do, and you need some luck.
I just hate the sweeping generalizations being made about the poor recently. The lazy no-good slobs who couldn't find a job if one were thrown at them and just mooch off the hard-working tax payers who don't want to have to support their cigarette smoking, beer drinking, TV watching butts.Which is the stereotype vibe I'm feeling here.
Which is why I thought Tom Davidson was setting up someone with question "2) Can someone choose to be poor in return for some other lifestyle and yet deserve charity?" Because, if I recall, there is at least one, but I think more than one, poster at Hatrack who seems to have chosen poverty in order to have kids and is on public welfare/medicaid/food stamps/or something.
So, is it okay to have half a dozen kids and be on welfare? It doesn't seem like those who are for abolishing welfare think so, because black women having babies to stay on welfare seems to be their big hang-up, but when you change that image to a white a Mormon couple having 6 kids and being on welfare, it suddenly doesn't seem nearly as offensive. I mean, the husband is working, he just can't support 7 other people.
What I haven't figured out is why it's okay for white Christian families to be on welfare/whatever, but not for single black women. Is it a morality thing? Not being married? Is it a religion thing? Not your religion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, there are way too many unwarranted assumptions and spiteful sideswipes in there for your post to be taken seriously. Take out the personal allusions.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
No. Wasn't talking to you.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You were still being rude. Why do you want to do that? Do you think your own glass house can take the return, or do you count on other people not being as rude as you are being?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can only speak from the experiences of my family. Both my parents have lost their jobs before, and both got jobs later, in my mom's case she had a strong resumee from working all her life, in my dad's case in a totally different field.
I can't speak for what it's like to be poor or without a job in anywhere except where I live. But there are jobs around here, I don't understand why people who need jobs won't work them. Sure, not all of them have the qualifications to take them, but there are plenty of jobs that don't need more prior experience that can be worked.
I think this argument is all rather moot though. The poor, working or not, aren't all the same. Some are lazy, some are trying and aren't getting a break, it's not all one or the other. And in the end, I doubt any more than a very small handful of us really have enough information to speak on this topic in a truly informed manner.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
kat, why are you doing this? I wasn't talking to you. I find most of your posts rude. I try and avoid threads you are on. You and I don't get along. We don't agree on, practically anything. So why are you doing this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because you are singling out people on this forum based on intimate details that they've shared and using it as weapons. Knock it off - you'll hurt somebody.
Because I don't want to see those people get hurt.
And because I'd like Hatrack to be a place where someone can show weakness without having that thrown in their face later.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Who are you talking about? The Pixiest? I think she's rather proud of that story. She managed to go a couple of years without a job because she socked so much of her money into her savings, if I recall correctly. It hurt her, but she wasn't homeless, and as I recall, she was rather proud of herself. If she's not, I'll delete it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I didn't really think it applied to me, but the "T" word just gets me all riled up nowadays. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) and because he works for himself.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
about welfare.