Death Taxes

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Whoha said "ever" and you walked right into it. At some point in the future, $2 million is going to be chump change.

-Arrian

-Arrian

hilarious

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Over the course of a lifetime you can indeed acquire $2 million by working, provided you save your money.

Im willing to bet, that of the folks in the USA who have $2 million estates, most got neither by "making deals and contolling resources" nor by "industry and thrift"

Most got it by having to have bought a house in a hot real estate market at precisely the right time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Most got it by having to have bought a house in a hot real estate market at precisely the right time.

That's making deals.

[Arrian]

Yeah, what you said was hilarious.

Returning to the real discussion:

There is a sound basis for preventing too much inheritance, as we want social mobility (or, at the very least, the reasonable hope for social mobility).

I think most of us "get" that the rich must make some concessions to the poor or we will end up swinging from lamposts.

So, though I would prefer the apparently unconstitutional "inheritance tax"...

to the estate tax.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im willing to bet, that of the folks in the USA who have $2 million estates, most got neither by "making deals and contolling resources" nor by "industry and thrift"

Most got it by having to have bought a house in a hot real estate market at precisely the right time.

More likely they put lots of money in their 401(k)s. Which I'd expect is also "making deals."

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If the interstate system were to disappear tommarrow, who would fair worse, the poor working class whose job depends on those roads, or the rich who draw wealth from all sorts of sources. They use it the same, but one depends on it more.

Your assertion is even more ridiculous if you are talking about new rich, which despite the rhetoric is most of America's upper class. Do I make twice as much as the next guy because I drive around twice as much?

A rich person does not use the infrustructre any more than the poor, they just use it effectively.

What ridiculousness. The drop in wealth by a rich man would be far higher than by a poor man. The rich need that infrastructure to ship their goods. Without it, most of their profits go away. The poor working class would be able to find other jobs in the local area because more industries would be concentrated around the areas they are needed, rather than being all over the place and merely shipping the goods to where they are needed.

Why do you think the profits of the top 1% have accelerated so quickly in the age of the interstate highway system and airport development? Because the Microsoft's of the world were able to ship their products cheaply all around the world. The multinational really blossomed after massive investments into infrastructure improvements.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


More likely they put lots of money in their 401(k)s. Which I'd expect is also "making deals."

-Arrian

401(k)s are for retirement. You won't have much when you die likely.

[Patroklos]

Because the Microsoft's of the world were able to ship their products cheaply all around the world. The multinational really blossomed after massive investments into infrastructure improvements.

Which in turn created many millions more working jobs.

[Arrian]

If you accumulated $2 million or more in you 401(k)/IRA, you will likely have lots of it when you die.

Unless you suddenly become a poor money manager.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
If you accumulated $2 million or more in you 401(k)/IRA, you will likely have lots of it when you die.

Unless you suddenly become a poor money manager.

-Arrian

You do realize that that's an investment of over 40k a year right?

[Arrian]

Huh?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Huh?

-Arrian

2M/45 = 44.4k

edit: I know that's not the formula, but it's close enough. Point is that the common American is not going to have 2M in IRA

[Arrian]

Um... 401(k)s grow, you know. So it's most certainly NOT an investment of $44.4k/year. Unless your funds suck ass and don't earn any money.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Basically, all the arguments against the tax are based on the invocation of the rights of the person who has the money to do with it as he wishes, whereas all the arguments for it are based on "We know better, and we want to do it because it fits in with out vision, so we'll do it."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Um... 401(k)s grow, you know. So it's most certainly NOT an investment of $44.4k/year. Unless your funds suck ass and don't earn any money.

-Arrian

Since you can only contribute 4k a year (tax deferred) you are way off anyway.