5 ms·

It is exempt up to 5.25 million for individuals and 10.5 million for couples. Is between 5 and 10 million not enough? For hitting the sperm lottery? Large amoun

It is exempt up to 5.25 million for individuals and 10.5 million for couples. Is between 5 and 10 million not enough? For hitting the sperm lottery? Large amounts of generational wealth is a net negative in a democratic society as it further exacerbates the income gap.

bedhead 13y ago
I can assure you that meager transfer payments in the form of SS, Medicare, etc will do absolutely nothing to reduce the income gap. Do you really think that giving money to the government is going to magically make people wealthier? While generational wealth of the magnitude we have today certainly isn't productive, it doesn't actually do anything to impede peoples' ability to earn more for themselves, and forcing the wealthy to fork over money when they die is basically purely symbolic, because even when taken cumulatively it has zero effect.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  I disagree that it doesn't actually do anything to impede peoples' ability to earn more for themselves. If someone handed you $50 million of tax-free money, you wouldn't go volunteer somewhere or travel or whatever instead of going into the office? Maybe ever again?
  - bedhead 13y ago
    Something is getting lost in translation here. How does some kid inheriting a bunch of money adversely effect my or anyone else's ability to earn a better living? As distasteful as it may be that someone can win the genetic lottery, the reality is it doesn't preclude others from creating more wealth for themselves. This is one of the biggest economic misconceptions in the world...it's not a zero-sum game.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      Oh, I thought you meant that inheriting the money did not impede their ability to create more wealth. I understand now. However, I still disagree with you. On a micro level, that is absolutely true, there is absolutely enough wealth to be created from different places that it is not a zero-sum game. That said, on a macro level, it is a zero-sum game. Your wealth had to come from someone somewhere else. Sheldon Adelson's came from people staying and gambling at his hotel. Mine comes from clients, and theirs comes from their customers. Your wealth is determined by the amount of money you can collect from other people. As far as I know, nobody is collecting wealth from a source that is not another human being. Well, except for the Federal Reserve, but that is a totally different topic.
      - bedhead 13y ago
        The rules cannot (and in fact do not) work differently on a macro and micro level. Your argument means that no one ever becomes wealthy over time because we are collectively stuck. The wealth is fixed, it just sloshes around from one party to the next. I hope it's self-evident that this is not reality. Wealth can be created, destroyed, or transferred. You seem to be confusing "collecting" and "creating". Wealth is created by people doing things that manage to satisfy demand...it's the right combination of labor and capital. This can take many forms, whether it's a guy building a casino or a starting a social network or a law firm. These are forms of creation, not transfer (or what you seem to be referring to as "collecting"). Transfer is entirely a governmental endeavor, a social mechanism for redistribution of the wealth that's actually been created. There is no labor, capital, ideas, or hard work behind it.
        swalkergibson 13y ago
        You are right about the macro/micro point. That occurred to me during the writing of that post, but I decided to leave it in there because I was wrong and I did not want to confuse anyone else interested in the discussion. You are correct, obviously, that wealth is created by people doing things that satisfy demand. For the purposes of our discussion, wealth is measured in dollars. Let's say there are two people on earth. One has 100 dollars, the other has 0 dollars. The person with zero dollars creates some widget that the dude with 100 dollars wants and charges the other guy 80 dollars for it. Guy 1 now has 20 dollars and guy 2 now has 80 dollars. Guy 2 created his wealth (his 80 dollars) by doing/building/whatever something that guy 1 wanted. Am I thinking about this too simply? How is it possible that wealth (measured in dollars) is introduced into an economy without it coming from another participant in the market?
mh_yam 13y ago
Who are you to decide what is enough?
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  That is the beauty of our democratic system! I believe that 5-10 million is enough, so I can vote for a candidate that believes that 5-10 million is enough. Hopefully, I can get enough people who believe that 5-10 million is enough and we can get that candidate elected.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    That is also the ugly of our democratic system. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. The "99%" will always out number (and usually outvote) the "1%". How kind of us to keep voting for them to pay more taxes.
  - bedhead 13y ago
    Let me take a stab at this, and I hope you dont take this offensively. I am guessing you are somewhere between 18-24 years old, right? These are the kind of lazy ideas that get people in trouble. I emphasize lazy because to genuinely believe this is like playing a game of chess and only thinking one move ahead. Stop for a moment and seriously consider what kind of effects a theoretical wealth cap at $5-10 million would have. What are those ripple effects, the unintended consequences of this? Tell you what, and I mean this seriously and without derision, why dont you tell me what you think the big picture effects would be. Would it be all sunshine and roses? It's a worthwhile thought exercise.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      I never advocated for a wealth cap. I merely stated that I thought the $5.25 million to $10.5 million exemption from estate tax was enough. Also, you are correct that I am in that demographic. I am not exactly sure why that is relevant, however.
frogpelt 13y ago
What do "income gaps" produce? If my neighbor makes $10 million a year and I make $100,000, how does that affect my life? Many of the "poor" in our country are obese. That should tell you something. They aren't that poor. They have houses, cars, food, and clothing. Poor people can go to college for free (Pell Grant), eat for free (EBT), have housing for free (HUD), and get a check to pay for other living expenses (welfare). We have proven that providing all of these things to people with no strings attached does not lift them to a higher plane. How will it help to take another billion dollars from a family who knows how to manage money and give it to a bunch of families who don't?
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  > What do "income gaps" produce? If my neighbor makes $10 million a year and I make $100,000, how does that affect my life? Well, for one thing, you are probably not neighbors if the income disparity is that wide. Secondly, you are really not comparing apples to apples. Someone making $100K/year is by no means poor. They make relatively less than someone making $10M, and they might be just as over-extended, but they can easily meet their basic needs, whereas somebody making $15K/year may have enormous difficulties doing so and as a result, might break into your car and steal your briefcase. That is how income disparities can affect your life. The rest of your post is patently absurd. Food stamps in AZ amount to $160/month, and the maximum federal Pell Grant for this year is $5,645 [0]. For comparison, tuition for an in-state student at ASU at the college of engineering is $10k/year [1]. Not to mention that you cannot get sick or hurt, otherwise you are basically fucked. Are you suggesting that it is somehow easy to be poor? 0: http://blog.collegeup.org/maximum-federal-pell-grant-increasing-to-5645 http://blog.collegeup.org/maximum-federal-pell-grant-increas... 1: https://students.asu.edu/tuition/results?acad_year=2014&residency=RES&acad_career=UGRD&admit_term=2137&admit_level=10&campus=TEMPE&acad_prog=UGES&honors=0&program_fee= https://students.asu.edu/tuition/results?acad_year=2014&resi...

bedhead 13y ago

I can assure you that meager transfer payments in the form of SS, Medicare, etc will do absolutely nothing to reduce the income gap. Do you really think that giving money to the government is going to magically make people wealthier? While generational wealth of the magnitude we have today certainly isn't productive, it doesn't actually do anything to impede peoples' ability to earn more for themselves, and forcing the wealthy to fork over money when they die is basically purely symbolic, because even when taken cumulatively it has zero effect.

swalkergibson 13y ago
I disagree that it doesn't actually do anything to impede peoples' ability to earn more for themselves. If someone handed you $50 million of tax-free money, you wouldn't go volunteer somewhere or travel or whatever instead of going into the office? Maybe ever again?
- bedhead 13y ago
  Something is getting lost in translation here. How does some kid inheriting a bunch of money adversely effect my or anyone else's ability to earn a better living? As distasteful as it may be that someone can win the genetic lottery, the reality is it doesn't preclude others from creating more wealth for themselves. This is one of the biggest economic misconceptions in the world...it's not a zero-sum game.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    Oh, I thought you meant that inheriting the money did not impede their ability to create more wealth. I understand now. However, I still disagree with you. On a micro level, that is absolutely true, there is absolutely enough wealth to be created from different places that it is not a zero-sum game. That said, on a macro level, it is a zero-sum game. Your wealth had to come from someone somewhere else. Sheldon Adelson's came from people staying and gambling at his hotel. Mine comes from clients, and theirs comes from their customers. Your wealth is determined by the amount of money you can collect from other people. As far as I know, nobody is collecting wealth from a source that is not another human being. Well, except for the Federal Reserve, but that is a totally different topic.
    - bedhead 13y ago
      The rules cannot (and in fact do not) work differently on a macro and micro level. Your argument means that no one ever becomes wealthy over time because we are collectively stuck. The wealth is fixed, it just sloshes around from one party to the next. I hope it's self-evident that this is not reality. Wealth can be created, destroyed, or transferred. You seem to be confusing "collecting" and "creating". Wealth is created by people doing things that manage to satisfy demand...it's the right combination of labor and capital. This can take many forms, whether it's a guy building a casino or a starting a social network or a law firm. These are forms of creation, not transfer (or what you seem to be referring to as "collecting"). Transfer is entirely a governmental endeavor, a social mechanism for redistribution of the wealth that's actually been created. There is no labor, capital, ideas, or hard work behind it.
      - swalkergibson 13y ago
        You are right about the macro/micro point. That occurred to me during the writing of that post, but I decided to leave it in there because I was wrong and I did not want to confuse anyone else interested in the discussion. You are correct, obviously, that wealth is created by people doing things that satisfy demand. For the purposes of our discussion, wealth is measured in dollars. Let's say there are two people on earth. One has 100 dollars, the other has 0 dollars. The person with zero dollars creates some widget that the dude with 100 dollars wants and charges the other guy 80 dollars for it. Guy 1 now has 20 dollars and guy 2 now has 80 dollars. Guy 2 created his wealth (his 80 dollars) by doing/building/whatever something that guy 1 wanted. Am I thinking about this too simply? How is it possible that wealth (measured in dollars) is introduced into an economy without it coming from another participant in the market?

mh_yam 13y ago

Who are you to decide what is enough?

swalkergibson 13y ago
That is the beauty of our democratic system! I believe that 5-10 million is enough, so I can vote for a candidate that believes that 5-10 million is enough. Hopefully, I can get enough people who believe that 5-10 million is enough and we can get that candidate elected.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  That is also the ugly of our democratic system. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. The "99%" will always out number (and usually outvote) the "1%". How kind of us to keep voting for them to pay more taxes.
- bedhead 13y ago
  Let me take a stab at this, and I hope you dont take this offensively. I am guessing you are somewhere between 18-24 years old, right? These are the kind of lazy ideas that get people in trouble. I emphasize lazy because to genuinely believe this is like playing a game of chess and only thinking one move ahead. Stop for a moment and seriously consider what kind of effects a theoretical wealth cap at $5-10 million would have. What are those ripple effects, the unintended consequences of this? Tell you what, and I mean this seriously and without derision, why dont you tell me what you think the big picture effects would be. Would it be all sunshine and roses? It's a worthwhile thought exercise.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    I never advocated for a wealth cap. I merely stated that I thought the $5.25 million to $10.5 million exemption from estate tax was enough. Also, you are correct that I am in that demographic. I am not exactly sure why that is relevant, however.

frogpelt 13y ago

What do "income gaps" produce? If my neighbor makes $10 million a year and I make $100,000, how does that affect my life? Many of the "poor" in our country are obese. That should tell you something. They aren't that poor. They have houses, cars, food, and clothing. Poor people can go to college for free (Pell Grant), eat for free (EBT), have housing for free (HUD), and get a check to pay for other living expenses (welfare). We have proven that providing all of these things to people with no strings attached does not lift them to a higher plane. How will it help to take another billion dollars from a family who knows how to manage money and give it to a bunch of families who don't?

swalkergibson 13y ago
> What do "income gaps" produce? If my neighbor makes $10 million a year and I make $100,000, how does that affect my life? Well, for one thing, you are probably not neighbors if the income disparity is that wide. Secondly, you are really not comparing apples to apples. Someone making $100K/year is by no means poor. They make relatively less than someone making $10M, and they might be just as over-extended, but they can easily meet their basic needs, whereas somebody making $15K/year may have enormous difficulties doing so and as a result, might break into your car and steal your briefcase. That is how income disparities can affect your life. The rest of your post is patently absurd. Food stamps in AZ amount to $160/month, and the maximum federal Pell Grant for this year is $5,645 [0]. For comparison, tuition for an in-state student at ASU at the college of engineering is $10k/year [1]. Not to mention that you cannot get sick or hurt, otherwise you are basically fucked. Are you suggesting that it is somehow easy to be poor? 0: http://blog.collegeup.org/maximum-federal-pell-grant-increasing-to-5645 http://blog.collegeup.org/maximum-federal-pell-grant-increas... 1: https://students.asu.edu/tuition/results?acad_year=2014&residency=RES&acad_career=UGRD&admit_term=2137&admit_level=10&campus=TEMPE&acad_prog=UGES&honors=0&program_fee= https://students.asu.edu/tuition/results?acad_year=2014&resi...