Let's be honest about how we live.

More info is needed, but this article disagrees with the point TaiChi made:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybu...ividuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/

"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”"

Is 1/3 considered "most"?

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0211/how-the-rich-got-that-way.aspx

"Inheritance is clearly one of the proven pathways to getting rich. About one-third of the 50 richest Americans can tie their wealth directly to being the fortunate son or daughter of wealthy parents."



This last link sums it up best:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

"1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous."
 
Taichiliberal said:
But it has been PROVEN that standardized test are NOT the be all, end all to determine a persons worth or potential in society for the rest of their lives. Remember, Einstein FAILED a standardized test at one point.
Click to expand...

Sure. Its not the most precise ever. Is it cost efficient? Do you have another way to provide educational standards and nationalized testing? If we took away the SAT/ACT, for instance, what would replace it?
 
Taichiliberal said:
But it has been PROVEN that standardized test are NOT the be all, end all to determine a persons worth or potential in society for the rest of their lives. Remember, Einstein FAILED a standardized test at one point.
Click to expand...

The only way a standardized test will determine a person's worth or potential is if they allow it to do so and they quit.

The example of Einstein proves my point.
 
WinterBorn said:
Do you have any links to show evidence that the majority of wealthy people inherited it?

Also, if I work hard and earn great wealth so I can provide for my family, are my children and grandchildren any less for that?
Click to expand...

This is what stood out for me. I haven't seen any evidence that every rich person is a Paris Hilton. And I also agree that my descendants should be able to reap what I have worked to achieve....which in my case really ain't much but I may invent something when I retire. ;) I've never understood the desire to take everything a person has earned (or at least a great portion of it) when he dies.
 
leaningright said:
This is what stood out for me. I haven't seen any evidence that every rich person is a Paris Hilton. And I also agree that my descendants should be able to reap what I have worked to achieve....which in my case really ain't much but I may invent something when I retire. ;) I've never understood the desire to take everything a person has earned (or at least a great portion of it) when he dies.
Click to expand...

For some the idea that most wealthy people have earned their money is tough to take. It actually ruins the idea that the rich are evil and the poor are only poor because they were taken advantage of by the rich.
 
WinterBorn said:
For some the idea that most wealthy people have earned their money is tough to take. It actually ruins the idea that the rich are evil and the poor are only poor because they were taken advantage of by the rich.
Click to expand...

I think they also have the misconception that all rich kids are spoiled rich kids. I always remember Ann Richards talking about George W. Bush being born with a "silver spoon" ... so what. That made me want to vote for the guy even more the first time around. I hear a lot these days about the Walton heirs. I might wish I was lucky enough to be one of them but I'm not. But I don't begrudge them what they have and they continue to employ a lot of people. But it seems that some would make em paupers and disperse their capital on society...and be happy while doing it. That might would work for a while but it wouldn't last. I am for social safety nets and for funding for the public good, but I am also hesitant to be a "take from the evil rich and give to the noble poor" type of person.
 
leaningright said:
This is what stood out for me. I haven't seen any evidence that every rich person is a Paris Hilton. And I also agree that my descendants should be able to reap what I have worked to achieve....which in my case really ain't much but I may invent something when I retire. ;) I've never understood the desire to take everything a person has earned (or at least a great portion of it) when he dies.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that no one has come forward to link to most of those that are 'rich' are legacies?' Color me shocked.

If I'm wrong, expect lots of bumps to the links.
 
leaningright said:
This is what stood out for me. I haven't seen any evidence that every rich person is a Paris Hilton. And I also agree that my descendants should be able to reap what I have worked to achieve....which in my case really ain't much but I may invent something when I retire. ;) I've never understood the desire to take everything a person has earned (or at least a great portion of it) when he dies.
Click to expand...

I'm more of the opinion my descendants need to earn their own money. If I have anything left when I die, minor amounts are going to stepkids and nephews; most of it is going to charities.
 
tekkychick said:
I'm more of the opinion my descendants need to earn their own money. If I have anything left when I die, minor amounts are going to stepkids and nephews; most of it is going to charities.
Click to expand...

I respect that. Mainly I respect your freedom to make that choice. That is what I argue in favor of, the freedom to make that choice. The inheritance should not be seen as a "cash cow" to pay the bills for bad financial planning by our govt.
 
WinterBorn said:
I respect that. Mainly I respect your freedom to make that choice. That is what I argue in favor of, the freedom to make that choice. The inheritance should not be seen as a "cash cow" to pay the bills for bad financial planning by our govt.
Click to expand...

taxes-1.jpg

taxes-2.jpg

taxes-3.jpg

taxes-4.jpg

taxes-5.jpg

taxes-6.jpg

taxes-7.jpg

taxes-8.jpg
 
WinterBorn said:
I respect that. Mainly I respect your freedom to make that choice. That is what I argue in favor of, the freedom to make that choice. The inheritance should not be seen as a "cash cow" to pay the bills for bad financial planning by our govt.
Click to expand...

Damn, and here I liked having a strong military; good roads; safe levees; the CDC; safer food; clean water, clean air; national parks, national forests; our national monuments; public health clinics; etc etc etc.

Gotta come from somewhere.

Inherited wealth stored up in a few families - we got away from that when we got away from the robber barons like the Rockerfellers.
 
tekkychick said:
Damn, and here I liked having a strong military; good roads; safe levees; the CDC; safer food; clean water, clean air; national parks, national forests; our national monuments; public health clinics; etc etc etc.

Gotta come from somewhere.

Inherited wealth stored up in a few families - we got away from that when we got away from the robber barons like the Rockerfellers.
Click to expand...

You mentioned if you had extra money remaining at the time of your passing you would give most of it to charities. Why not give it to the government instead?

(I'm asking that only in the context of your last response. Not trying to tell you what you should do).
 
WinterBorn said:
I respect that. Mainly I respect your freedom to make that choice. That is what I argue in favor of, the freedom to make that choice. The inheritance should not be seen as a "cash cow" to pay the bills for bad financial planning by our govt.
Click to expand...

No point in ending inheritance, we don't live in a utopia, and in middle class families it does little harm. If people couldn't pass their wealth down, anyway, our would result in economic inefficiency, as people spent lavishly before they died, because the money would be of no use to them after they're dead. The current approach is reasonable, a tax at the revenue maximizing rate (~50% - theoretical highway rate at which the loss of revenue from discouraging working due to the tax doesn't outweigh the revenue from raising the rate) on estates with millions in net worth. Discourages extreme snowballing of wealth while leaving most alone.
 
Taichiliberal said:
It's not the competition but what the "winners" do afterward to the "losers" that is the question. Just because you don't pass a certain test at a certain time doesn't mean you should be regulated to a position of "failure" for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

There are examples of successful entrepreneurs who didn't go to college at all. And you don't have to be perfect to go to a state school and get a degree that will earn you a perfectly well paying job. You may not he able to be a professor, butt most industries aren't quite so obsessed with college performance, and if your capable you can quickly price yourself. Arty the end of the day, though, a college had a limited number of seats to give to a limited number of people. Who should they give them to? Use some arbitrary and meaningless statistic like GPA, which various dramatically from school to school and is often unreliable (the GPA of athletes, for one, is often a largely made up figure, as High schools usually manipulate grades to keep their athletes from having to drop out)? I, for one, didn't have a very high GPA, because I didn't turn in my homework, but I was able to prove myself on tests, even though I didn't study for them. Our should it just distribute them randomly? At the end of the day, the material on the SAT just isn't that hard, and if you don't even have the motivation to sit for it, or know enough to eek our at least a mediocre score, perhaps that's just not the path for you. Find success in some other way. We can't do perfectly, we have to settle for the best case.
 
tekkychick said:
Damn, and here I liked having a strong military; good roads; safe levees; the CDC; safer food; clean water, clean air; national parks, national forests; our national monuments; public health clinics; etc etc etc.

Gotta come from somewhere.

Inherited wealth stored up in a few families - we got away from that when we got away from the robber barons like the Rockerfellers.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. It should come from every citizen, not just select "wealthy" ones.

Also, we could have a strong military on half what we spend every year. Of course, we would have to cut back on policing the world and meddling in the affairs of other nations.
 
WinterBorn said:
Indeed it does. It should come from every citizen, not just select "wealthy" ones.

Also, we could have a strong military on half what we spend every year. Of course, we would have to cut back on policing the world and meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Click to expand...

Why, pray tell, do we as a nation need a 'strong' military? Shouldn't we be concerned, like every other nation on Earth, with simply keeping our borders secure?
 
Taichiliberal said:
It's not the competition but what the "winners" do afterward to the "losers" that is the question. Just because you don't pass a certain test at a certain time doesn't mean you should be regulated to a position of "failure" for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

If you can't pass standardized tests, or achieve high enough in standardized academic settings, then you aren't going to get into Harvard or Stanford. For that matter, you aren't going to get into the top state schools, such as UCLA or Berkeley. In this country, however, anyone who wants a college education, or access to technical and trade schools can gain access. What they do after that is what will likely determine whether they "win" or "lose." Of course, not having been Harvard material, I already feel a certain amount of loss, but, oh well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top