Question for people that hate the excessively rich...
 

I was debating a rich friend (makes like $200 K a year, that's pretty good spending money in St. Louis) of mine about his love of the Democratic Party, especially his hatred of the ultra rich. Without much rational thought he embraces ideas like taxing only the upper percentile for health care, hating people who hide their money offshore, and bitching and moaning about corporations and how they lobby to get tax breaks. But here is where he completely loses me...

This guy works the tax code with a fine tooth comb. He takes every possible tax break he can and always says "Damn right I want my money back". So why should the billionaires live any different? I don't even see this as a pro-business argument like some conservatives do ("The more money he gets back the more he will invest in the economy") I see this as a "Give me one reason why a rich guy shouldn't take every break available just like any other person who pays taxes and isn't an idiot". Not sure how anyone can rationalize my friend’s position or explain how anyone who pays taxes can hate a rich guy taking the same breaks.

Class envy seems pretty obvious in this case. He doesn't believe he'll ever catch up on his own merit, therefore he wants them pulled back to his level.

I wonder how your friend would have felt about the Dem party if Obama's camp set the dividing line for "rich" at $200K instead of $250K?

Yeah the 200K was a rough estimate by me but I bet he is close. He reminds me a lot of Bill Maher in a way, they both champion all these liberal/socialist economic issues when they benefit emmensly from the free market, the exact opposite. (Maher of course being A LOT richer and more successful but the point being that they support things against their own self interests)

I have another friend that buys into the Republican social bs and votes for them even though he actually benefits from a lot of the Democratic economic policies aimed towards the lower class. Crazy world, doesn't seem to think at all. Lets tv tell them what is important. Now tv is saying the war is important again so everyone is talking about it, next tv will take us back to health care, a few years ago it was immigration. Ever notice is isn't taxes? Shouldn't this be the number one thing people care about?

It just sounds like your friend is an opportunist and a hypocrite. Big deal, most people are.

if you support things that are against your self-interest than aren't you more of a true-believer than those that support only things that are in their self-interest?

i've always sort of looked at it that way...

Seems like a pretty valid point.

It depends on if you are aware of it or oblivious to it.

that's true

Probably most people on this message board are excessively rich on an worldwide scale. Everyone's jealous of the people ahead of them, no matter how high up their are themselves.

Instead of fretting about what the "rich" should be doing with what they have, we all should be paying closer attention to what we can do, and how we can help others (and having an opinion that taxes should be higher does NOT count as helping others, regardless of how correct such an opinion may or may not be)

I think people should worry about themselves and not other people's money or possesions. Besides, it's none of anyones business regarding how or what they spend their money on. Clear case of ugly green jealousy.

Should people get taxed equaly? Yes. What is equal? I have no idea...

I would like more focus on eliminating loopholes in the tax system than arguing about how the difference between a 33% and a 36% tax rate is the difference between pure glorious capitalism and Stalinist hell.

Yep, that's the other point I always try to explain to him. We live in the United States and are in the upper/middle class we have to rank in at least the top 10%, maybe 5% of the world's population in standard of living. Even our inner cities probably rank somewhere near the middle income wise and even though they are bad, not anyhwere near the worst for crime and murder in the world either. (Maybe I am wrong on that last point, have never really researched any of these figures but he seems to accept them all as true. It still doesn't change his mind on the original arguement but it's something)

Either a true believer or stupid.

There has always been a class hatred of the rich. Many governments and leaders try to fight it by creating other groups to hate. Blacks, Asians, Mormons, Jews, etc. They were all used as a diversion of sorts from true class warfare.

I do think the anti-rich sentiment has gone too far. I understand those who are upset at the rich people who have abused their position to fuck over people, but that's more a criminal and moral issue. There are also a lot of rich people out there who do great things with their money and live great lives. The biggest problem I see is that we aren't striving to become rich, we are just loathing them and acting entitled to a percent of their income. We aren't looking at a guy like Bill Gates and saying "I'm going to come up with an idea that will change the world" but instead saying "he should pay for everyone's lunch tomorrow".

There is also a flip-side of it where people decide that money is the true value of a person. That the rich should be held in a higher standing. That superficial belief that money will make you a better person is also unhealthy to society.

Does Bill Gates bitch about taxes? (Honest question)

fixed that for you

He is a hypocrite and just doesn't realize it yet. Rich is relative and where he may hate someone making a million, there is someone else out there there that will hate him, his $200K salary and his ability to hire someone to look for loopholes.

So, from me to him, tell him he is a rich elitist hypocritical fuck in my eyes.

I can say that because there is probably someone out there making $20K that thinks I'm a rich elitist fuck. Actually, I can think of one person - my mother-in-law.

So, its all relative.

The idea that all complaints about the rich come from envy is simplistic and often self-serving. There are genuine reasons for complaining about the rich. No one here angry at the guys who brought the World Financial system to the brink of collapse and then walked out with multimillion dollar bonuses or used bailout money to feather their own nest? Just envy, is it?

It's now generally accepted that the capitalist, free market system generates the maximum wealth overall but it also generates enormous distortions in income. Is a guy who runs out onto a football pitch or cracks corny jokes on TV worth a hundred times or more the guy who puts his life on the line every day in Afghanistan? I think you can make a fair case out for "no". You can see a reasonable complaint there that has more justification than envy.

There are many other comparisons you can find where the remuneration for one job is significantly higher than that of another, not for any reason outside of the markets that each operates in, and only if you elevate the markets to being a perfect measure can you justify these comparisons. The markets are not god and are imperfect and lead to imperfect results. Capital itself can often manipulate markets to its own ends often at the expense of the community.

In this system capital is often favoured over labour. If you're lucky to be left say $500,000 dollars then you can pick up around $25,000 a year interest without doing a day's work but another guys works three crap jobs to make that. Doubtless there will be envy in the worker's complaint but there's some other justification as well.

There are any number of tax minimisation schemes available to the rich that are not available to the poor and middle class resulting in the suoer-rich often paying a significantly less proportion of their income than the poorer in taxes.

There's often a bit more than envy to the complaints.

Well said, Mac.

I don't believe the majority of people are complaining that some hard working people are rich. There are hard working pilots out there that make 20 grand a year. Hard work simply isn't a guarantee for riches.

I'd also say that a lot of money isn't borne out of hard work, but rather nepotism. I can't necessarily fault some tycoon for leaving his/her earned wealth to his own flesh and blood. It's the nature of the system we live in. You work hard, make money, and leave it to your children, and your children's children. It doesn't make those inheriting the riches evil. It also doesn't promise that they will be hardworking and looking out for the welfare of the rest of the people.

I don't know about anybody else, but I like driving on paved roads. I like going to schools that can afford decent teachers. I like going to visit parks. I like having qualified law enforcement and firefighters that possess top of the line training and equipment. I realize that people with much more money than me pay for a lot of those things through taxes. I chip in my share, however little that may be at this point in my life. If I accumulate some sort of wealth, then I would be willing to pay more in taxes. It's really the dirty work of philanthropy, and it separates those that are just in it for good publicity from those who actually do give a shit. That's not to say all wealthy people who front charitable causes are phonies, but being eager to pay more in taxes says more about philanthropic desire, because you aren't going to get your name in the paper for it. You aren't going have a tidbit added to your Wikipedia, or your obituary, saying what tax rate you paid. That means something to me. It's patriotic at its core.

You can still give to the United Way, and pay more tax. I'm assuming that those I'm talking about aren't living a reckless life of luxury and decadence.

Yes, I agree with much of what you say. I'm not criticising the rich so much as suggesting that the system often creates differences which, on value systems other than markets, are unacceptable and contribute to the reasons for complaint.

In fact you do touch on one group that, for me, being in Australia, cannot be rewarded enough and illustrates the point of how markets often miss the point - firefighters. They receive very little - in fact some, the volunteers, receive nothing but miserable "expenses". No market exaggeration there just a complete mismatch of reward for contribution and the eternal thanks of the community.

My point is not to criticise the rich - though some, if not all, do deserve it - but to suggest that the system itself does produce results that justify complaint not characterised by envy alone.

It's not about what you have, it's about what you do with what you're given.

Very well said.

I don't hate rich people, and I am not envious. At the same time, I have yet to understand how, as a society, we can justify paying 25 million dollars a year to someone to play a sport. This goes for athletes, musicians, actors, etc., but I am not envious of them. We live in a society that allows for this, even encourages it, and if I am unable to take advantage of it then it is my problem. It doesn't change my befuddlement regarding how some of these people can keep making the kind of money they make, but I digress...

Great example. I would also add policemen and any member of the military. As a veteran, I know first hand how little military personnel actually make, despite the general opinion that they get "free" housing and what expenses do they "really" have to worry about? I was lucky to make $25k/year while on active duty.

There's probably not a person in the U.S. that doesn't think, "If I had more money, I'd be happy to chip in more taxes". That doesn't make one morally superior to those with more money.

That's the thing that bugs me about this discussion. Someone isn't morally better just because they have less money. That's the implication of those kind of comments. Hating the rich alone doesn't fulfill your moral obligations of a human, IMO. Thinking that other people should spend their money differently doesn't make you a good person, or a compassionate person. Stop whining, get out the checkbook, and do what you can yourself with your own EXCESSIVE wealth (that everyone here has, on a worldwide scale).

I started with pretty much nothing and worked to get to somewhere around the high end of middle class, not quite upper middle class. I have some stuff I don't need, and I definitely take some trips/vacations I don't need to. I don't feel that makes me morally worse than someone who has less stuff they don't need, and takes less vacation. With that same line of thinking, I don't feel morally superior to someone who has even more stuff they don't need than me. My worth/moral value is a personal issue, and something I have to grapple with in determining how much to give to charity, etc. I don't have all the information to judge someone else's character just based on the money they have, and how they live.

I think there's this mindset: "I don't have to give to charity, I would if I had more money though". The class warfare really brings that to a different level, because caring for others is believed to be the exclusive responsibility of the rich.

Question that might somehow relate to this, at least in terms of hypocrisy.

I am against government subsidies for farms, but I definitely take them when offered. Am I a hypocrite?

Definitely not, IMO. Unless you're running your farm as strictly as ideological statement. Which I'm guessing you're not.

Huh? {rubs eyes} Am I reading that wrong?

Off hand I can't think of a single person I know well enough to have had even the vaguest of conversations with about taxes who thinks that way. From my closest friends to a cable installer who I'd never seen before nor since but the idle chit chat happened to include some general state of the economy conversation. From the wealthiest to the lowest income.

At the absolute most you might get something like "I'd begrudge it a little less than I do" but even if you get past rate or methodology there's too much dissatisfaction with how the money is spent to ever get anywhere near "happy to" or even in the same area code with "I don't really mind".

I think I've almost gotta be reading what you meant wrong or something, because how I understood what you said is about as far from my own experience as anything I've ever seen here at FOFC (and that's some pretty broad company).

As much as it disturbs me, I had pretty much the exact same reaction as Jon.

:+1:

I also find this comment to be rather odd. *shrug*

Geez, that went over well...

I guess I meant taxes as a part of my overall point about the poor feeling morally superior to the rich. They feel that if they were in the same shoes, they'd "behave better" - be more charitable, live a more "reasonable" lifestyle, not be obsessed with tax loopholes, etc. Making that point with the tax comment was a poor choice, since many people do have their own independent aversion to government taking and wasting their money, regardless of how much they make.

And I'd back off from "everyone" and say, "those that hate the rich".

Where are all the excessively-rich haters to answer this question?

In the U.S, there's dozens or more firefighter association charities that assist with things like funerals, labor negotiations, etc.

Capitalism works far, far, better if people are charitable. Charity fills the gap of the parts of capitalism that feel "unfair". The great thing is, its up to the people, not the government, to decide where those pockets of unfairness are. The answer isn't always "raise taxes!". A dollar to a good charity will go further than any dollar to the government.

It doesn't make much sense for a government to pay a firefighter 5 times what they need to have a fire department, when there's so many other pressing needs.

Somebody brought up the salaries of athletes as some kind of injustice, but isn't that a sign of progress? Years ago, the owners just kept all the money. Now, the players fought back, and are finally fairly compenstated for their contributions to the business of sports. Firefighters have made a lot of gains in recent years too, some places more than others.

Sometimes they can't admit that this is how they feel, but its very obvious, even from posts in this thread.

Since you clearly have the ability to see into people's hearts and tell who hates the rich, why don't you name names? What posts in this thread make it clear that the poster hates the rich?

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to our politicians. ;)

:popcorn:

Why do you hate firefighters?

Obviously my point is that, while there are some who look at these things simplistically, you can have opinions about the amount the rich are taxed without hate, and starting this conversation on that note seems a little silly to me.

I think good points are made above, about valid criticisms of the rich. I would add that there are those, myself among them, who have a more philosophical problem with the rich. Beyond all the talk of who works hard, and whether they get what they deserve, how our market works, blah, blah, blah, I just can't imagine being ethically okay with having as much money as the ultra rich do. In a world with as much problems as we have, I have a moral issue with people sitting on boatloads of money and spending it on extravagance. They certainly have every right in the world to do what they want with their money, and I know most people don't agree with me. But I would say that that is a big component of my problem with the rich, and it also doesn't have anything to do with envy.

The thread is about people that hate the excessively rich. No, that doesn't include anyone with an opinion about how they should be taxed. I'm just expressing an opinion that some of those opinions, and other comments I read here, are rooted in a jelously and hatred, which manifests itself in a feeling of moral superiority, which is damaging to our country. As long as you hate the rich, and want them to pay more taxes, you can feel like a good person. People think they're compassionate because they want the rich to pay more money, and I think that desire can be as easily rooted more in jelousy and hatred, than compassion.

I don't understand the point about the firefighters. I think everyone should get what they can in the market.

I don't see the contradiction between saying that charity is good and should be encouraged while also saying that given the level of services the majority of people seem to want from the federal government, taxes should be raised to at least come closer to a balanced budget, and given that the most rich are paying an historically low percentage of their income in overall tax burden, they should be able to absorb a modest increase in their federal income tax.

Believing that doesn't mean I hate anybody.

This.

I'm not saying one necessarily hates someone if they want the rich to pay higher taxes. I'm just identifying a mindset in the U.S that, in my opinion, exists. That's all.

Is usually bugs me mostly in the context of Democrats claiming that they're the "compassionate" party because they want other people to pay more money. Nobody's made that claim here, so that sentiment is out of left field and not responsive to anything here. But it relates closely to class warfare and a hatred of the rich, which is the other half of that drug that's sold to the masses to win votes.

There's a common misconception that Democrats as a whole hate the excessively rich as a grouped class, which I don't think is true. What I think is true is that Democrats as a whole are more likely than Republicans as a whole to point to abuses made primarily by the excessively rich which creates a perception of the Democratic Party as being anti-rich. Conversely I'd suggest that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to point to abuses made primarily by the poor (i.e. welfare abuse).

It's tempting to think this is largely electorally-driven, but the "excessively rich" simply aren't a large enough voting bloc upon which the Republicans to rely. Thus we get the scenario where Democrats point to large swathes of the GOP electorate voting against their economic interests and paint them as "stupid" while the GOP can paint groups in the Democratic party as "lazy & poor, but voting in their economic interest" and "over-privileged and dumb for voting against their economic interest", both of which ignore the nuanced and principled reasons why people vote certain ways.

Yay politics.


Yep. Although we're taking panerd's depiction of his friend as read, and it's a pretty negative depiction, almost a caricature.


I'm not defending this guy, but you're conflating a lot of disparate examples in your characterization of him.

For instance, if you're saying that he wants the top percent taxed more to provide for health care but that he, if he was in the top percent, wouldn't want to be taxed for that reason, then yes, that's hypocritical.

Hating people who hide money offshore doesn't seem unreasonable in the sense that doing this to avoid paying taxes is actually illegal. Are you criticizing someone for "hating" illegal activity, or are you implying that if he had the means he would do the same thing? If it's the latter, and if you know for sure he'd do this, then yes, he's being hypocritical.

As for the concept of tax breaks and loopholes, I see it as the same as lungs' example. I may want the tax system cleaned up of tax breaks and loopholes (for both individuals and for corporations) but while they exist I'm going to take advantage of them. I honestly don't view that as being hypocritical.

The core issue here, as others have noticed, is the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing by witnessing people vote/act against their economic interests. Put simply, there are a wide array of reasons why people would vote against their economic interests, and not all of them (the people or the reasons) are crazy. That's not to say that some people clearly voting against their economic interests aren't doing it because they're idiots and/or fundamentally misunderstand their economic position, but to say, instead, that it's a much more nuanced concept for most people than you're portraying here.


If you're going to do this, could you at least bold the parts you changed? Sorry, pet peeve. :D

That's fair - I don't think any of the bad stuff is really at the root of the intended message of either party as a whole, but it's very, very easy to use the bad stuff to get people riled up for the wrong reason.

Members of the Democratic party, as a whole, are better educated than members of the Republican party, so the deception/tricks have to be a little more subtle. But they need scapegoats and enemies too. You can't sell that without selling moral superiority also. Obviously with Repubilcans, that dynamic is way less subtle.

Republicans can feel morally superior to the godless and the sinners and the criminals, and sadly, in some cases, the minorities and the gays.

Democrats can feel morally superior to the rich, the uneducated, and the religious. How can one be "right" and be so sure the other side is "wrong", unless they're somehow better than the other side?

I don't know if political parties can exist without that dynamic.

No problem, some of the stuff that gets fixed is rather lengthy.

I don't envy the rich because I plan to be like them myself(money wise) in the next 10 years.

I think we need to define what is meant by "hating the excessively rich".

In the course of several threads that have touched on this topic it seems to me that this phrase has been used to describe:

People who hate people who use their money to engineer the tax code to their advantage.
People who hate people who illegally hide their income from the IRS.
People who hate people with more money than them (or some arbitrary threshold of "wealth").
People who hate people who run wealthy corporations.
People who want the tax rate on top earners raised (at all, or by a certain percent, etc...).
People who want to repeal Bush's tax cuts.
Etc, etc, etc....

I've complained enough about the filthy rich, so I guess I could put my point out there.

I think as Rainmaker said, a big deal of my hate is actually at criminal, or at least what I consider unethical and inefficient, behavior. I'm not sure which side actually wins out, despite the typical emphasis being on morality and such, I think I'm actually offended most by the simple inefficiency of a lot of the actions the dirty rich are taking.

In my opinion it is all well and good to make a billion dollar fortune and live like a king AND NEVER GIVE A DIME TO CHARITY. In fact, I can guarantee if I made a billion dollars or even a trillion dollars, I would probably not donate any sort of noticeable fraction of it to charity. I would, and have, volunteered my time to causes I am interested in, and I was the annoying guy working twice as fast as everyone else and taking on all the dirty/hard jobs while everyone else was chit-chatting and feeling good at themselves for showing up. But I don't believe in giving money away, and while I think people need and deserve help, and shouldn't be left to the wolves, if I'm not directly doing the work myself I do not care to give a few hundred or a few million to some organization and pat myself on the back as a good person.

So considering I'd sit on a trillion dollars and never donate to all the causes people say a rich person should, I'd fall right into the 'hated by all' section. Fine by me!

But seeing a multi-million dollar golden parachute for dumb-fucking your way through bad business decision after bad decision... that makes me want to break out the guilllotine. I also hate people hiding behind capitalism to justify cruelty or defensive fuedal structures to preserve the aristocracy. We have so much wealth because we let poor losers like myself have an idea of 'sky is the limit'. Now it seems to a large degree it is a carrot being held in front of everyone, but everyone sort of dumb scheme is being done behind backdoors to subvert that power for mostly petty reasons (the current class of super rich being fat and weak, turning towards manipulation and extraction to preserve wealth, rather than genius or hard work to create wealth, two very different things with differing end results).

Sadly in a lot of ways I qualify as the beast I'm railing against. Probably a hypocrite in general, although I think I've managed to avoid specific offenses. For instance, I have profited off of stock market hijinks, similar to most of the folk that I hate, but at the same time I justify it that I didn't use stupid excesses of power to extract the profit, I just noticed someone else doing so and arranged my bets to take advantage of it. And sure I shorted the banks, no doubt contributing in my small way to their stock crashing, but in truth they were overpriced and had made bad decisions, so they created the misery and I just profited off of it.

So in short, I guess I'm a self-loathing wanna be trillionaire (no where close of course). I'm still going to hate on the rich (although I believe I've shown my respects to Gates and Buffett among others) for being dumb and complaining when they have enough to live comfortably while others have to scrap to survive. In this case my past is more responsible for my feelings than my present (and my hopes for the future are irrelevant, I don't believe the government should pull down people richer than me for my own benefit, I believe the government should get the fuck out of my way as I try to get myself filthy rich for my own benefit, instead of basically acting as a thug for the filthy rich of a few generations ago).

This was why I thought the whole "hate" thing a little ridiculous. It's kind of like Democrats calling Republicans racist because they're against affirmative action/busing plans.

Absolutely. In fact, one could argue that it's not just "very easy" to use this stuff, it's basically required in order to secure electoral victory. In short, electoral strategy in the U.S. today has generally done away with the concept of presenting your ideas as better than those of your opponent, and now relies on the concept of characterizing your opponent as negatively as possible, which is why these techniques are front and center.

That's the way it's always been. Look at the Jefferson vs. Adams campaign. It's almost always easier to motivate against something than for something.

OK, fair enough.

Edit: I just think we're going through a specific cycle where the actors in this electoral game are particularly unconcerned about their use of sweeping mis-characterizations and over-generalizations to achieve victory. I'd argue that in the past (and, again, it goes in cycles) there would be a little more self-awareness of the fraudulence of this kind of activity but the operators who ushered in the current cycle (and yes, let's pick on Karl Rove specifically) have seem to done away with this.

+1

Not only could I probably more easily quickly name 10 things I'm against than that I'm for, a significant part of the things I'm for would be perceived as against something.

Read that slow enough & it should make sense.

edit to add: To some extent, that kind of highlights the adversarial relationships that exist with most positions, sort of like Carlin's explanation of the difference between my stuff and your shit.

....and this is why I have fired every last Democratic or left leaning client I had.

I'm not interested in helping someone pay less in tax when they want me to pay more.

Oddly enough, I'm looking at taking a different approach to left-leaning clients. The way I figure it, better I make a profit off them & use it for good instead of letting them hand it to a kindred spirit that will use it for evil.

I understood it just fine at the first pass. :D

Having said that, I think this too is a function of where we've gotten to as a nation and culture. Everyone's so conditioned to be reactive instead of proactive these days that when asked how we would change something we tend to focus on correcting the negative elements first, instead of starting by drawing a picture of the ideal state and figuring out how to get there.

It's probably a reflection of political reality. Sweeping change is no longer realistically possible, so all we're left with is incremental (and heavily compromised) change.

I, for one, welcome our ultra-rich overlords.

Good, 'cause by the time I was finished typing I wasn't sure if I even understood it anymore ;)


Now that one is totally not me. I know what I want & I'm pretty far along the plan required to get there. Just not sure whether there's enough enlightened people to pitch in to get 'er done.

I suppose you gave these guys the key to the city too, eh? :eek:

The state is the problem.

Which state? Because if you're thinking North Dakota, I'm with you there.

I'd be the opposite. I'd figure out what I needed to live comfortably on, what I could put away for the next couple generations, and the rest would go to causes I feel important.

Sure it's everyone's right to hoard the money, but what's the point? It's not going to be used and comes across more like a "it's my ball and no one else can play with it". At some point, you just have too much money to ever spend in the next 100 lifetimes.

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

I'd buy my own island, and then surround it with an electric fence with a remote control.

:D

I wonder how much money that would even take. I bet if you set your mind to it, you could accomplish this goal.

People who have power over others should be under severe skepticism. Constantly.

A reason why self-made rich people are disliked is that in order to attain extreme wealth, you need to sell your soul. You need to trample other human beings who are less fortunate (read: not less skilled, less intelligent, or less worthy, but less lucky in their birth and other matters entirely out of their control). Trampling the inherently weak is uncooperative behavior and most people think it tends to hurt a bourgeois society. It is perceived as unfair behavior.

Being privileged from birth generally engenders a lot of negative personality traits, and so is perceived negatively (but envied, because you, with your positive traits, would be a worthier recipient of the fortune than they would).

Also, when you reach a certain wealth level (probably a few million dollars), the marginal utility of each dollar drops significantly as you become wealthier. Ideally, everyone should have a similar marginal utility for their next dollar when balanced against their contribution to society. Currently, this balance is WAY off. Only in smaller, more homogeneous societies is it different (Sweden, perhaps).

I'd train monkeys to ride the alligators and shoot arrows at all potential intruders.

And I'd get some of those fainting goats. Just because.

I would just have both.

I would disagree that a lot of wealth today is old money, but instead it is new money. In most cases, the new money is worth a lot more than the old money crowd.

Wanted to add, I just wonder what the "fair" share is. I don't see that right now through our federal income tax code.

How does this work? Does the fence go in the water, where it would short out? Or does it go on the beach, which means you can't enjoy the beach?

:p

I believe that the IRS has a special computer just to do his taxes.
IRS Computers Can't Handle Gates' Taxes - Forbes.com

I think it gets tricky with Bill Gates. Bill and Warren Buffett are fighting to keep the estate/death tax, but they've are giving all their wealth to charity (which would avoid the death tax). Through their annual donations and with the ability to deduct charitable donations, it would be interesting to see how much they pay (I'm not a hate-the-rich person).

There's only one person that I consider to be excessively rich: Wade Redden. And I definitely hate that fucker.

Fence goes on an artificial reef which circles the island. :)

Eh, one of my wife's favorite sayings is about how "money only lasts three generations". I've seen that prove out often enough to consider it a decent rule of thumb. Sultans and a few mega-moguls might stretch it further than that but overall it does seem to hold up pretty good best I've been able to tell.

Ain't no such thing as too much money.

OK, that's pretty sweet. :D

I don't know man. If you put a billion in the bank and your next 3 generations blow through it, they deserve to be broke.

I mean a horrible 3% return on a billion is $30 million a year to live off of without touching the principal. Maybe I'm just someone who doesn't need much, but even if I had unlmiited financial resources, there's only so much shit I would want.

Or build a stadium.

I didn't say they didn't often bring it on themselves, now did I? ;)

The failings usually lie in either not putting money back into the pile (i.e. just totally doing nothing with the assets), bad decisions (divorce settlements can trim a pile, multiple settlements can trim it quite a bit), bad investments and/or bad business decisions. The other can be having too many kids & dividing the pile into too many smaller piles (my son's favorite reason for being an only child is knowing that he won't be splitting any inheritance).

Often enough in subsequent generations, one or more of those things happen & you end up with a generation starting somewhere between Baltic Ave and Oriental Ave instead of being up in at least the green spaces.

If their planning was done properly, and I suspect it was, they won't pay a dime in estate tax. What I've read of their plans, and general knowledge of how these things are structured, the only way the IRS can really get any sort of tax on the estate is by challenging his gift and gst exclusions..which means nothing to all of you, but suffice it to say it will be difficult. I am quite sure the IRS will put their best people on it though, considering the size of the estates.

Personally I'm fascinated with the Michael Jackson estate. The disposition of which is controlled by a trust document and those are generally not public, but these court proceedings are giving little glimpses. Man, did he hate his father.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

I'd want that narcoleptic wiener dog, to hang out with the fainting goats.

:eek:

Watch your back, man. Oh, and check the brakes on your car before driving it. Seriously.

How to lose your money 101.

Lottery Winner Loses $114 Million In Four Years - Plus A Look At The The Biggest Winners Of All Time | Karemar

Dola

Another good story. Granted these are lottery winnings, but the end result is the same and the means of getting there is bad advice, greedy friends/relatives, and stupidity.

Teenage Lottery Winner Callie Rogers Says She's Broke

What you said. Throw in the estate tax as well (federal and state).

One thing that drives me nuts is a lot of people don't understand assets vs. cash. Just because a guy or girl may be worth $200 million or $2 billion, it doesn't mean they have that in cash. It's what the businesses and other assets are worth.

I always thought you could structure it so you can extend not paying on it (such as setting up trusts that won't tax it until your spouse dies), but you still get hit.

What about the large debts in the Jackson estate? How does that work?

Eventually the government will get theirs. This is a fact. (or a well constructed opinion based upon the ridiculous methods the government extracts our hard-earned money from us in the name of taxes)

from the article:


That's where I stopped reading.

I admire the excessively rich, especially the people that are entirely responsible for their own riches. Not those that were born into it.

It all depends where the assets end up as to when/where they are taxed. You're thinking of something like this:

If Bill Gates were to die tomorrow and leave everything to his wife, none of those assets would be taxed when he dies under the marital exemption. They would be taxed when she dies (but taxed on the value they were when he died), assuming she does no estate planning on her own.

This is a very simple example. And very inefficient one. There are ways to better structure the estate in order to eliminate estate tax liability at both his death and hers.

As far as debts go...it depends. :) If it's a debt secured by an asset, say like a mortgage, it is possible to have the debt follow the asset. So a beneficiary who was left the house could get the house, but also be liable for the remaining debt. In the Jackson estate, it is more likely assets will be sold out of the estate to settle his debts. In most trust documents, the trustee has powers to do so without court or beneficiary approval.

Funny, that's where I became interested. In any case, this guy was beyond irresponsible with his money, and deserved to lose it all, at least in my opinion.

Oh heck yea. An island with an electric fence and then a moat with aligators with monkees shooting arrows and as each arrow is slung, a goat woud faint for no apparent reason. There would also be miles of underground tunnels to hide from zombies in the off chance they breach through the main perimiter and you HAVE to assume that they will break through or your plans are doomed to fail.

This of course would cost millions, if not billions of dollars due to the high cost of R&D, finding the right contract labor, scouting for the best location, sparing no expense just like old family friend John Hammond, and of course the retainers for only the best top notch lawyers money can buy.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with thinking the rich should pay more in taxes and trying to get everything you can out of the tax code. I also agree with whoever said that people say "If I had millions of dollars I wouldn't mind giving more in taxes." I do disagree that there are a lot of people out there that say such things, but it is certainly said.

So, anyway, to continue my rambling.. I have no problem with a gradated(is that the right word?) tax system. However, if I can get a few bucks back by claiming everything I can on my taxes, I'm going to do it. I think lungs's example is perfect -- he doesn't believe in farm subsidies, but if they're there, he's going to use them. You work within the system you live in. Hypothetical person Jim believes that the rich should have higher taxes. Jim makes $200k per year (which, btw, is not "rich" nor the "rich" that "liberals" want to raise taxes on) and believes the rich should be taxed higher. Hell, he believes those that make $200k per year should be taxed higher. However, he lives in the United States, and if he pays a mortgage he can claim the interest. I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical with that.

I'm not sure it's possible to have another opinion.

I'm pretty sure Lotto-Dude could've bought the Pink Pony strip club in Cross Lanes, WV for $100,000.

My problem is when you look at the stats of the federal income taxes (the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers don't pay a cent, or even receive money back, once they take their credits). Then people think the rich should pay even more.

I couldn't have said it better myself though you don't seem to realise the argument you've just made.

That families of men who put their lives on the line for the benefit of the community then have to go cap in hand to charity for funds for such basis human needs as funerals is appalling.


Unfortunately "a dollar" doesn't do the job. Charity simply can't raise enough money. Only government can raise the amounts needed. It's because you rely on charity that 50 million people in the world's richest country have no worthwhile health cover!!!!!


That is indeed the market argument.

But it is not unreasonable to expect that contribution to the community should play some role in determining the remuneration for that contribution - at least in a community that cares something for its citizens. Markets are a cold, heartless economic measure that care nothing for citizens and need at times to be tempered by a touch of humanity if you are to avoid a soulless society where dog eat dog is the only game in town.


Are you suggesting that there is some similarity in the gains made by the two - athletes and firefighters? :eek: The best of the first can pick up a million dollars a game and the best of the second may now be able to pay for his mothers funeral himself?

Which illustrates my point perfectly that markets generate enormous distortions in remuneration that leads to complaints about the rich that are not solely envy.

So what's the alternative - make it solely up to the few in power to decide the "worth" of various professions? How do we know that firefighters will be the ones valued? I'm sure that they wouldn't be.

Capitalism, if properly regulated at least has a neutrality to it. What alternative government pays firefighters whatever Mac Howard personally thinks they deserve - only a dictatorship run by you, presumably.

You're not reading what I've written, molsen. I have said nothing about government control over wages. I'm pointing out that there are reasons beyond envy for complaints about the rich or, to be more exact, the system that creates these enormous distortions. You cannot reasonably put down all complaints about the rich as being motivated by envy alone. The system generates many reasons of a different kind.