I was puzzling over the best way to round out Class Warfare Week on WSO when Forbes dropped it into my lap last night - the annual Forbes 400 List of Wealthiest Americans. What better way to illustrate the wealth disparity in America than the vaguely pornographic financial exposure of our ruling class?
America is a nation of believers. Yet, for all the lip service we pay as a nation to an unemployed contractor from Galilee and various other institutional deities, these guys are our country's real gods. And they are worshiped as such, because they hold the promise of redemption. Redemption from your wanting. Redemption from your less-than-ideal circumstances. Redemption from all the evils and injustices you believe your lack of wealth has heaped upon you.
The richest 1% of the nation controls 42.7% of our nation's financial wealth, yet the other 99% of the nation defends them tooth and nail against any attempts at a more equitable distribution. When you understand why, you know the true nature of the American dream and the mythology none among us is willing to question.
THE NUMBERS
Once again, so we're all playing from the same sheet of music, let's go over the numbers. While income numbers are fairly easy to put together from tax records, wealth numbers are a lot harder to nail down. The income figures I'll present are fairly recent (2007-2009), but the wealth figures will primarily come from 2004. Make your adjustments as you see fit.
First the good news. According to our own WSO compensation database, 10% of WSO readers fall into the top 1.5% of income earners in America at $250,000 a year or more. Not surprising, really, but still pretty cool. The top 1% are those who earn $350,000 or more per year, for those who are curious.
But we all know that income does not equal wealth. If the law professor taught us anything the other day, it's that you can make $400,000 a year and still be broke. Wealth is where it's at.
In 2004, it took a minimum net worth of $6 million to make it into the top 1%. In the intervening six years, the overall percentage of the nation's wealth controlled by the top 1% has risen by 4% (from 39% to roughly 43%). The next 19% control another 50.5% of the nation's wealth. That means that the bottom 80% of the country, or 264 million people, holds just 7% of the country's wealth.
WHY DO WE DEFEND THESE BASTARDS?
I'm not going to pick on the Tea Party crowd, but if you look at the composition of their rallies they look like pretty ordinary folk. Not a lot of Hugo Boss and Armani in that crowd. I'm not saying it isn't there, it just isn't on display. I think it's pretty safe to assume there aren't a lot of One-Percenters rolling with that particular crew.
But mention a tax increase on the wealthiest one or two percent of the country and these people go apeshit. I find this exceedingly curious, especially because none of them will ever be among the class they're protecting. They're against wealth redistribution while it's been going on for decades in the other direction. Wealth has been redistributed from the poor to the rich.
There can be only one explanation for our collective delusion: Success, specifically financial success, is our religion in the U.S. While mediocrity is our reality, success is our ideal. If you took away the hope, however unrealistic and misguided, that everyone in the U.S. could one day be a deca-billionaire if they just work hard enough, America would become a ghetto overnight.
We need our gods. Their myths pervade our modern psyche. Four out of the top 10 (including the top 3) on yesterday's Forbes list are self-made. That's a staggering percentage. That would be utterly impossible here in France, where you're looked down on as nouveau riche if your family hasn't been at the top of the heap for at least 10 generations.
In the back of all our minds, we don't want to see the rich get hammered by the government because we all think we're going to be there someday. The notion is ludicrous (by definition only 1% of the population can be there at any one time) but that doesn't stop us from believing that we're the ones who are going to make it. The notion is less ridiculous for a WSO reader than for, say, a McDonald's cashier, but both people are invested in the same statistically impossible fallacy. It's why the lottery does such big numbers twice a week.
DRINKING THE KOOL-AID
I grew up in San Francisco in the 1970's and 80's. Believe me, we had more than our fair share of fruitcakes in that town back then. Anyone who was going to profit from the whole counterculture/free love thing had already done so, and all that was left were the dregs who were late to the party to begin with.
Among them was a character named Jim Jones. This guy was all over the evening news when his medicine show came to town. He was a charismatic guy, and won over the mayor of San Francisco, the governor of California, and a bunch of celebrities and important folks.
Then he moved his flock to South America and gave them poisoned Kool-Aid. 900 or so willingly drank it and died. Men, women, and children. This was big news to a kid who considered Kool-Aid part of his daily routine. I think I fell in love with the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid" and all its sarcastic undertones at that very moment, and I've used it ever since.
America loves its Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid has become our sacramental wine. We don't just drink it on Sundays, we drink it all day, every day. The media ensures we have a never-ending supply. No matter where you look, you find the culture of envy with a side order of Horatio Alger bullshit that says, "This can be yours, too, if you just keep cranking out widgets."
Meanwhile, half the nation's wealth resides in the hands of roughly 3 million people while 264 million fight over table scraps. I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. My brain tells me I'll never make the Forbes 400, but my heart tells me I've still got a shot.
HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENT?
I'm not going to ask if you're drinking the American dream Kool-Aid, because I know you are. I'm just interested to hear how you expect to overcome the staggering odds against you. Sell me on why you're the exception, the one who's going to make it. Somebody has to, right? Why not you?
I'm not trying to piss anyone off with this post (well, maybe a little), I'm just trying to shine a light on the egregious wealth disparity in this country and on the fact that the rich don't need you defending them. They're doing just fine.
Now, how do you take your Kool-Aid?
I am against tax increase on the rich based on two reasons.
1) Principle
2) It never just stops at the rich
If the definition of wealthy in this country is 250K I would like to think that everyone on this board can hit that figure. Hard work, promotions and the right industry can yield that.
As for increasing taxes, politicians always go for people that the majority don't give a shit about. I am not saying we should pity the rich, but the reason this country is broke and needs to continually steal more of our money is because it is managed like shit and OUR FUCKING MONEY is pissed away.
Who do you think Uncle Sam is going to tap once he gets done milking the rich? Add onto that the fact that most millionaires are not Paris Hilton types, but people who went out on a limb, took a huge risk and employee 10-20 people. Taxing the rich is simply penalizing risk taking and success. It is popular to do when you are down and out, but we should not be penalizing the economic drivers of this country.
Once you step out of the majority, you paint a target on your back.
I don't want to be an exception, I just want to make MP at a PE firm, pull down 10-15 mil a year and chill out at my Hamptons abode.
Great post. The old Trader Monthly top 100s and Alpha Magazine top 50s are probably my favorite form of Kool-Aid. There's a lot more than just the money going into why I'm in finance, but when you see Paulson, Tepper or John Arnold's numbers, all I can think is I'm going to do that someday, and get out of the game immediately. Which is completely delusional, because if you've worked that hard, have been so successful and have that many investors relying on you, walking away must be nigh impossible (props to Druckenmiller, btw).
However, I don't think I've been drinking the Kool-Aid from a tax perspective. Whatever income I have, between what I have now and the $4 billion Tepper made, an increase in taxes wouldn't be that much of a problem. How someone could find grounds for complaining if they ended up with 2 billion instead of 4 one year is beyond me. The argument that you earned so you should be entitled to keep it is also crap. New Money Republicans fight tax raises tooth and nail because they are afraid they will erode their leveraged and overstretched spending power. True Old Money isn't afraid of tax raises because they live within their means, give plenty of money away anyway and understand that wealth is a relative thing. If they are getting taxed more, they're still richer than "Porsche hotshot #65728" down the road.
@Goodbread - So theft is OK as long as I don't take too much of your money?
The government takes money from people who earn it and then pisses it away. I would be less resistant to taxes if the govt. actually spent the money wisely. I would say that for every dollar they take they spend 6 cents appropriately. The rest is wasted.
I do agree with Anthony however that there are some HUGE things that need to be addressed before tax raises are justified. And that's the breaks corporate America has been getting thanks to lobbyists. There is a sizable portion of our deficit that stems from cracks in regulation, tax loopholes.. It's hard to justify passing on the bill to the American taxpayer when companies across all industries are being given a free pass.
Relax bro, I wasn't finished.
I agree with part of what Anthony says, despite not living in the US. After all some of the people on this list willingly give A LOT of money away to charity, if that is not better than tax then I do not know what is. While charity targets a specific tranche of the society or specific people it still goes to stuff that the government will have to go through a lot of red tape to do (more in developing countries than developed ones like the US)
On the other hand there are some of them that do not do this , then Tax the bastards.....yes it is a selective process i know , but i think it should be done. I mean what will a guy do with amounts up to 10 and 20 billion.....i mean honestly, that s a bit too much for one person AND I AM SAYING THIS OUT OF PRINCIPLE.
Anyway this whole topic is a bit complicated i think. Tax; though heavily involved with the financial side of running the country, still has a lot to do about politics and power which is a totally different game.
If the very wealthy don't give money to charity they do something WAY more important. That is employee or consume. Think of how much wealth Buffet creates? Think of how many jobs Gates creates.
OK, cool, lets make it a law that says no one is allowed to have more than a million. The Govt. will just take all the rest. Cool. Now what are they going to do with all this new money? Piss it away on pork barrel spending to satisfy their constituents. All they care about is getting re-elected. Do you think they will get together and magnanimously decide to improve our infrastructure? Are they going to throw more money at schools in the hopes of a better education?
See, that is the problem with taxes and govt. No accountability. They always tells us a low ball figure to get people on the hook when the real cost is 10x that. Suppose I told you I would paint your house for 10 bucks. After 3 months of me playing PS3 and drinking beer I bill you 1,000 bucks. Are you going to be cool with that/ That is basically what the govt does.
I'm not saying the contrary Anthony. But were the govt somehow to become efficient and we were still tapped out, I would happily pay more taxes.
Ok, I agree. If the govt was efficient I would give it more money also.
I used to joke with my father and ask him "what do you think would happen if I mailed the DoD a check for a grand". Maybe I could get a once a month fly over or something.
I am without a doubt the exception. Luckily for me, my father is an ashkenazi jew, and I inherited my intelligence from him. Even more importantly, I inherited my Brad-Pitt esque good looks and charm from my mother's side of the family (Irish Catholic). I'm different enough that I stand out, but I'm similar enough to fit in. I'm as comfortable hobnobbing with the jet-set as I am hanging out on a porch drinking malt liquor. I have friends in high places to pull me up to the top, and I have friends in low places to break the legs of those who would try to stop me. Women want me and men want to be me.
I grew up with just enough money to make me understand it's true value, but not enough to make me lazy. I have an elite education. I am a combat sports athlete who knows true competition.
I will do whatever it takes, wherever it takes me, for however long it takes me. I am THE apex predator. No one can fuck with me.
Well thanks for noting your chief weakness when outlining your strengths. :)
I kid, I kid.
Definitely feel you on the first few parts of that. Growing up without too much made me pretty hungry. God I remember seeing my mother when I was seven crying over the mortgage payments. But I had more than enough to give me a bit of leverage. The result, I'm in a nominally good place in life, even if I would jump ship to a BB in a second for idiosyncratic reasons.
Hahaha that was good fun, thanks for the self-esteem boosting exercise Eddie. I read the Felix Dennis book you recommended the other day, great read.
Can you give me a short list of other recommendations? I've already read 4HWW.
Umm, ok, I'm going to address the elephant in the room here:
The WEALTHY are what is being addressed by the original poster. The WEALTHY are not taxed--there is no tax on wealth in this country until you die. So the argument about not feeling sorry for billionaires, etc. is a bit pecular in the context of this post. Even so, the WEALTHY don't pay a particularly high tax rate--with real estate, preferred stock, private equity, capital gains, dividends, municpal bonds, overseas accounts, etc., most of the truly wealthy are totally unaffected by increases in the marginal tax rate, which belies this "new money Republican" foolishness addressed above. Guys like Buffett and Gates can talk all they want about supporting higher tax rates, but it's because guys like Buffett and Gates don't pay materially higher taxes when income taxes are raised on the so-called rich.
The ones affected by increases in the marginal tax rate on the so-called rich are small business owners, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals--in other words, people most affected by marginal tax increases on "the rich" are professionals who employ others. The real delusion is thinking that the top 400 richest people in the United States give a damn about the marginal income tax bracket of the "top 1%" of earners. I believe it was Ross Perot, a billionaire, who noted in the 1992 presidential campaign that his effective tax rate on his income was somewhere around 1%.
In sum, what liberals simply cannot seem to grasp is that the truly wealthy in America are NOT the ones who are "punished" by punitive taxation. Punitive taxation affects high earners who are mostly people who employ others and have spent a lot of time and money training for their professions and/or taking huge risks with their livelihoods. A rich, manhattan hedge fund manager will be virtually unaffected by increasing marginal tax rates--but his doctor will be.
Let's not forget that if you are relatively rich/wealthy you will be able to afford to have an armada of money managers and lawyers that work for you full time to find loopholes in the taxation system :) I had a conversation with a tax adviser in beijing telling me about one of his french clients bringing back about 500m euros in france from china and didn't pay shit in taxes thanks to "loie scellier" investments, investments on "Association loi de 1901" (probably managed by the wife during her free time) etc etc..
On a different note though, we are always talking about being rich and wealthy on a monetary term, I think its a fallacy. We shouldn't forget the "goodwill" of one's life such as having the time to relax, true friends that are there for you and not the money or strong family ties. Money doest always buy happiness. Personally i'd rather earn 80k a year, be considered as "poor" for some of you guys here, and be truly happy rather than earning 80k a week and feeling lonely and eaten by my work.... but that's just my two cents.
you bring up an issue that never gets any attention. basically, youre bang on. wealth is what should really be taxed more, not income. my opinion is the entire tax system needs to be overhauled...just my opinion.
having an income bracket at the top 1% of america doesnt mean you are top 1% wealthy in america.
still, 250k/yr is a comfortable living anywhere in america. america was fine before the bush tax cuts, america will be fine after they expire.
I'm sure there are many people here that are going to freak out and call me a liar/idiot/retard, but I know for a fact that a nurse can make almost 250k so I feel like that has to be more attainable than this statistics make it seem. (Not that I am questioning your stats, Ed just saying).
My gf works at a hospital and she has told me some surprisingly high salary numbers. She just graduated from undergrad last spring and is replacing an RN who made about 90-100k, worked 10-4, had lots of vacations and great benefits. Said RN only did research work in an obscure disease, so if she didn't have patients to see, she could basically just cruise all day. Granted, that's after a whole career, but it still goes to show you how other fields have their perks as well. Oh and everyone is always happy at her office.
That said, those RNs are probably higher up in the food chain and specialized.
Where did you get your income numbers from? Are these household, or individual numbers?
^^I would agree with the higher up portion but not necessarily specialized, simply spending 30 years at the same facility with a moderate supervisory role would almost do it. And thats with a 4 year degree from a mediocre (at best) undergrad.
someotherguy asked my question - household or individual #s?
I live in a pretty decent area of the Chicago suburbs. Not a rich area, but middle to upper middle class. At the high schools in my area if 2 teachers with 10-15 years experience (mid 30s) married they could be close to $250k. Admittedly they'd both probably have to coach a sport or do some tutoring on the side to get there, but considering many say teachers are underpaid it makes me question the $250k unless that is stricly for individuals.
If the $250k is for individuals (which I tend to think it is) I wonder what is the household income for the top 1%.
According to wikpedia, 1.5% of US HOUSEHOLDS make 250,000 or more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
higher RNs are probably CRNAs or nurse practitioners vs your standard nurse but even still it isnt too uncommon for a 'normal' RN to reach close to six figures-- for whatever thats worth
issues with taxation come in especially when it doesnt account for geographic reasons on the federal level -- the often quoted '250k is middle class in NYC'.
goodbread why did you go into finance if not for the money? to save the whales? i mean i like finance and think it is interesting but i will call bullshit on every single person who says the money isnt a large chunk of why we are in this profession.
i was going to call out the 'new money republican' idea because as it was stated before, OLD money aka wealth or family inheritance isnt going to be taxed repeatedly like the risk taking entrepreneurs income is. the top percent dont care about taxation rates on the 'middle' and neither do the flock at the bottom which is why you tend to see the huge disparities in how certain groups stereotypically feel about things.
i'll definitely echo anthonys comments that the government is inefficient in spending -- you can take a look at cash for clunkers or the mortgage program that ended recently and look at what multiple of government spending vs the underlying benefit to the economy or recipient of the tax credit
one interesting socioeconomic principle i always was curious about was what happens if you look at the political beliefs of someone who came up from money vs someone who had nothing -- assuming they both become successful. will the former tend to be more liberal and think hand outs are the best thing since sliced bread since they had everything afforded to them by their parents a la hand outs while the latter who had nothing who struggled and worked hard to succeed and made it on their own accord feel like anything is possible with effort and thus be more 'low tax' and fiscally onservative?
I worked as a bouncer ("orderly") in a psyche ward during college, those nurses were as run of the mill as they come and more than 7 of the 19 nurses that worked there made greater than 95k. Fucking ridiculous. And in an area that Cost of Living was minimal.
1.) I don't support the tax cuts. I hate socialism, but a 40% maximum tax rate isn't socialism. 55-60%? Ok, now we're starting to talk about socialism, though the tax rate is still lower than it was between 1945 and 1980 when the US was considered the capitalist country. It makes no sense to be running up deficits while holding taxes on the richest down below unsustainable levels.
2.) At the same time, it never hurts to have rich people here in the US- spending their money here and investing in our economy. Even if I never become filthy rich myself, my livelihood- and much of the middle class's livelihood- depends on rich people and even if it's not always feasible to tax them at 35%, we need to make sure they feel like they're at least getting treated fairly.
Great. You seem like the thousands of other analysts coming to Wall Street- if you can get in. Half of them probably believe they're going to be billionaires, probably at least 3/4 of them have a higher SAT score than you, which I notice went unmentioned.What they don't realize is that they probably will become billionaires- probably sooner than they think, but they won't hit the top tax bracket.
IlliniProgrammer: "1.) I don't support the tax cuts. I hate socialism, but a 40% maximum tax rate isn't socialism. 55-60%? Ok, now we're starting to talk about socialism, though the tax rate is still lower than it was between 1945 and 1980 when the US was considered the capitalist country. It makes no sense to be running up deficits while holding taxes on the richest down below unsustainable levels."
Where does one even begin to address the fallacy of this view? It's a 40% federal tax rate, in addition to payroll and state and local taxes. One could easily have an effective tax rate above 50%, particularly in states like New York and New Jersey.
Also, a common liberal myth is the "higher" marginal tax rates for the highest bracket before the last 30 years. That is true--given that in the 1940s, $400,000+ was the highest tax bracket, which would have been equivalent to millions of dollars in annual earnings today. It's almost like liberals purposely ignore material facts like this when making their case for higher taxes "on the rich."
Also, I addressed your terminology about taxation on the "rich" a few posts earlier. The wealthy do NOT pay taxes--there is no tax on wealth until death. The wealthy avoid taxation of their INCOME through municipal bonds, real estate, capital gains, trusts, expensive accountants and overseas accounts. Marginal tax rates will NOT be increasing on the "richest" among us--they will be increasing on the highest gross taxable earners among us, unadjusted for cost of living. As I've already stated, Ross Perot indicated in 1992 that his effective income tax rate was about 1%.
In many ways, the rich in Europe have it better.
Haha this is definitely true, at least in the long run. Although we might not see this runaway inflation for a while, so who knows how long it'll be before all these guys get to become 'billionaires'.
I hate to just jump in and jump out here, but I thought I'd give you guys this link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-22/new-york-hawaii-top-earners-fa…
If the proposed increases pass, NYC residents will be over 50% in taxes and top earners in 4 other states will be right at 50%.
LOL. FICA isn't a tax? Yeah, I guess if you live to 85 you will "get it back", assuming it's still there. It's also interesting that the self-employment TAX (that I pay as a business owner) is the employer AND employee's portion of FICA. So FICA is a tax, no matter how you slice it or dice it. It's even referred to as a tax.
Add state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and gas taxes and self-employment taxes if you're a business owner and it's qutie easy for amount of one's earnings going to government rather than private sector spending to exceed 50%.
Also, come on, man--you have no leg to stand on. The top marginal bracket was $5 million in 1941, $400,000 in the 1950s, $200,000 in the 1960s and 1970s and $212,000 in 1980.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
So let's not pretend like we have lower taxes today because of the lower marginal tax rates--those lower rates are on FAR less income than what it had been historically.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1980.pdf (page 44)
After adjusting for inflation and everything else, taxes today are lower across the board than they were in 1980- even on the middle class.
Our income taxes are dramatically lower today than they were in 1980.should tax people on welfare bc they just use the money to spend on drugs
It would be far more efficient to tax the homeless...
Well, the average American lives to age 76. And in order to save Social Security, they will raise the retirement age, so no, the money is not returned to us.
Consumption tax, income tax--a tax is a tax. We had a revolution over liquor taxes and taxes on tea. A tax comes from the private earner and goes to the government. Again, you claim the "rich" are those who earn over $250,000. That's a questionable claim given what Forbes indicates is true wealth.
Yes, my statistics are for those filing jointly. Yours are for those filing individually. It's $250,000 today and $212,000 in 1980 for those filing jointly.
You can slice or dice it however you want, but even with differences in state income taxes and social security, income taxes today are dramatically lower than they were in 1980. People who are whining about a 40% tax on the rich have really short memories.
In any case, the bigger threat to capitalism right now isn't taxes but what's going on with healthcare in California. It looks like the CA legislature might be trying to penalize insurance companies who chose to stop offering policies rather than letting anyone with a pre-existing condition sign up for coverage.
What is the life expectancy on the average working person rather than infant? Also, Social Security bails you out if you become disabled and bails your family out if you die unexpectedly before hitting 65.I was gunning for an argument, but now I'm too bored to fight.
It doesn't matter if I am not one of them. I am not homosexual, but I defend them. I am not a republican but I will defend them if they are censored/removed. I am not a women, but I am a feminist. It's all about being an adherent of egalitarianism or 'a dirty stinking liberal'.
Taxes aren't dramatically lower today than in 1980. You can google it--the EFFECTIVE federal income tax rate is only a few ponts lower for all tax payers than 30 years ago--they were high then and they're still high now.
If you want to "punish" people for their success, punish wealth, not income. If the American Left wants to sleep better at night, it will find ways of "punishing" the wealthy, not the 38-year-old newly minted surgeon who has $500,000 in student debt to pay off. Not the small business owner who employs 10 people. Again, your definition of rich basically ignores all circumstances, including marital status, children, cost of living, debt, security of income, etc. For example, in 2010, I will make around $200,000--but that was a goddamn hard amount of money to earn--I risked $100,000 of my own money to make it, put in COUNTLESS hours, and the guarantee of me being able to do the same thing next year simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if I have $10 million and I'm earning $200,000 in easy cash flow off that, then yeah, I'm definitely "wealthy." But liberals throwing out numbers with no context needs to stop.
LIBOR, I read your post and I agree 100%--but I'm hoping we can have a secure gov't and freedom without anyone anywhere in our borders paying over 50% of their earnings in taxes in any form.
Haha yah I know me too. While I made some points about us living in a safe country, who knows if that will remain as our government continues to consolidate power. This is something that I fear, as do most people on this board.
For me, the bigger issue here is whether or not it's "right" or even LOGICAL for ANYONE to pay almost half of their earned income to the government. We can all debate the definition of rich, whether people should be taxed based on income vs. wealth, but at the end of the day, I think it's highway robbery that ANYONE has to pay half of their income to the government. Think about it logically...it's basically saying that for every hour a person works, half of that time they spent working is simply to pay their tax bill. $.50 of every dollar they earn they don't see, because it goes directly to the government. Am I the only person who sees the lunacy in this?
The other thing that's crazy about the top bracket income earners paying 50% of their income to the government is that they're paying for services that the majority of them will never use, for instance: public transportation, unemployment, medicare, bills for people who GET FREE MEDICAL CARE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO HEALTH INSURANCE, etc. I'm not saying that these programs aren't good, or that they shouldn't be in place, I realize there would be severe ramifications if these programs weren't in place. All I'm saying is, if you were paying half of your earned income to the government, and that money was being used for programs/services that YOU HAVE NEVER USED NOR WILL YOU EVER, wouldn't you be a bit upset?
Do the poor use the SEC? or the CFTC?
Do the rich?
I don't think that this argument is that strong, considering that the rich will use certain services that the poor don't even know about (and vice versa)
So then put my argument regarding the services used by the rich/poor aside, and return to the original question....Is it fair, just, reasonable, logical, FOR ANYONE to pay half of their income to the government?
Agree with that wealth should be taxed more than income yet I seem to remember a few months back people arguing against inheritance tax, government can never win. Than again the UK government is as far as i know not as infefficent as wasting 90% of the money
personally, i am for the inheritance tax.
here is a cool tax widget for you more dorky guys:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/tax-cuts/tax-cuts-terminal.html
[quote=mr1234]personally, i am for the inheritance tax.
I couldn't disagree with you more in regards to the inheritance tax. This is (another) example of robbery by the government. Let's just say for the sake of argument that most of those affected by the inheritance tax were presumably in the higher (or at least one of the higher tax brackets) to begin with. This means that their regular income was already taxed somewhere between 40-50%, and that once they die, the government will again take half of anything they managed to save throughout their lives.
Explain to me again how this makes any sense? I'd like to hear a solid argument for the inheritance / estate tax.
blablahblah robbery by the gov blablahblah unfair blahblahblah im sick of hearing it.
you would be dead, so you probably wouldnt care anyway.
you want to close the federal deficit, right? estate tax is an effective way of increasing gov revenue, and it wont burden the middle-class nor impact productivity.
and ill leave that at that.
You might not care, but your wife/children/relatives sure as hell will. Problem with the estate tax is it includes non liquid assets. People have to sell family houses or heirlooms.
I get real tired of all the justifications of the government taxing the hell out of us. The govt gets plenty of money. They need to learn how to spend it efficiently and not waste it.
You guys are gonna force me to do it, even though I wanted to end the class warfare bullshit with today's post.
Tomorrow: The truth about the Estate Tax.
nah i don't drink koolaide...i drink city juice, fool.
I went to a public elementary school and high school. I got my B.S. and M.S. from a public school on full rides. I am getting a PhD from a private school, but my stipend and research funding is coming partly from NSF (and partly from BigOil). Essentially I will have 23 years of schooling funded by the largess of the taxpayer.
When I graduate, I will not complain about the government stealing my money. Instead, I believe that they are collecting on their investment. The government and its taxpayers provided me with wonderful opportunities to better myself, learn, have a better life than my parents, and advance the state of the art in my field. I don't mind returning the favor.
Freaking awesome post!
I am not sure how I am going to make it. If I don't even have the hope, the life will be just too dull. But this is really something we or I need to think about when you sacrifice health, family time and other hobbies in pursuit of the goal to be that 1%. You do all that your life and at the end of it you in 99% of the cases haven't succeed but have surely missed on lot of things. Just sad!
As quoted in The Prestige "Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."
This thread reminds me why I dislike self-righteous "moral elite" continental Europeans, and prefer Anglo-Saxon capitalism.
Economic/financial freedom and personal freedom go hand-in-hand.
Whenever the balance swings from wealth creation to wealth distribution, the end result is bad.
Most of history has been a struggle to reduce government and increase personal freedom.
Just because we give government legitimacy (via democracy) doesn't make politic self-interest more noble than economic self-interest.
Free enterprise has consistently proved to be the best way to allocate resources and provide goods and services.
A little reach of comparison, but I shall attempt to link the two.
Back in old America when south was all about sectionalism, who hated all taxes and wanted to own slaves, only a really small percent owned the slaves. But the majority of the south supported slavery back in the day, it was apart of the "American Dream" for the south to one day own a huge plantation and own many slaves. And when the emergence of the republicans (Abe Lincoln) came and slightly threatened that, they revolted (extreme).
Back to modern America. It is all about maintaining that American Dream, and maybe one day owning a lot of wealth and not being taxed. Sure almost all of them are not ever going to see that much wealth, but it is like the South/ American dream.
A little far-fetched but it came to mind whenever I read about the Tea Party.
Possimus saepe deserunt voluptatibus expedita vero sit et. Voluptates laborum in voluptatem est est adipisci reprehenderit. Itaque ipsum quia molestiae nihil sit. Nihil nesciunt molestiae fuga et voluptas sunt voluptatem cum.
Vitae quia aspernatur est temporibus eligendi consequatur. Ut cumque similique sint qui. Velit est laudantium delectus rerum ut facilis. Corporis a dolorem facere officia ad.
Blanditiis consequatur veritatis atque quia corrupti itaque est. Ut autem et soluta architecto omnis ipsum. Quod est alias natus asperiores. Molestiae est dolore et ut rerum explicabo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Magnam optio et sint omnis. Autem vel fugiat doloribus autem qui laudantium. Qui et consequatur sint.
Quidem consectetur deserunt quasi. Culpa tenetur accusantium aut assumenda. Et et et culpa cupiditate et explicabo suscipit. Odit dolorum id sit fugiat. Quia omnis quis unde animi alias. Voluptatem unde et atque qui aut voluptas et.
Placeat similique labore quae libero voluptatem libero voluptatem et. Harum qui est laudantium et quibusdam aut. Unde ea nobis ipsa et eaque.
Aut laborum qui eos. Et perspiciatis qui minima est voluptatibus. Et dolores ullam totam quidem voluptas. Quia et suscipit eum maxime sapiente.
Odio omnis quis veniam. Nesciunt quo et voluptates ratione voluptatibus velit. Quam et tempore officiis. Nihil assumenda deleniti et ullam magnam quia eligendi. Commodi totam repellendus reiciendis.
Ducimus aperiam neque nihil ea est facilis. Rerum temporibus delectus corporis voluptates blanditiis amet.
Beatae magnam officia corporis a. Voluptatem aperiam non consequatur suscipit perferendis ratione. Ut vel ex rem dolorum dolorem.
Fugit iure molestias amet voluptatum consequatur voluptatem laboriosam suscipit. Molestias delectus vel rem quos porro sed.
Ab et est cumque expedita dolorum provident magnam. Tempore voluptas eaque amet distinctio reiciendis. Id nesciunt voluptatem est quis possimus. Rerum qui beatae quia praesentium dolorum nemo quod. Nemo dolor et quam dolorem id eaque qui aut.
Placeat expedita ipsum ipsa qui. Nihil iusto iusto eveniet soluta autem itaque qui. Ad possimus cupiditate nisi odit. Ratione temporibus adipisci eum omnis tempora facilis unde consectetur. Ea sit blanditiis qui doloremque. Magnam ipsum autem commodi labore sint est exercitationem aut.