Accountable;1417009 wrote: Matters not. Don't you give gifts as you see fit? Shouldn't you be allowed to be as generous or niggardly with your wealth as you wish? The inheritor's status or size of the inheritance isn't really relevant.
Later - too rushed now.
How rich is too rich?
How rich is too rich?
I believe when you start buying 'expensive' stuff that you don't even need, then I would say it's too rich. Live a comfortable life without having to worry about money, then it would be just right.
(advertising links removed)
(advertising links removed)
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1416995 wrote: OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed 
As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.
I see it as the business of the person leaving the wealth. As was asked earlier by Bruv
Wealth needs to be defined too.
Having huge amounts of land and bugger all cash......is that rich ?
I mention I never met a farmer who thought of himself as rich. Usually considered "land rich, cash poor". So what does a farmer have left for his children?
Land
With confiscatory death taxes it is no wonder the land must be sold and farm kids must find other paths for employment, That is also the same for anybody who works their whole lives.
When building a farm or business do we do it with the idea of how grateful the government will be when we croak? I tend to believe the average person who creates wealth usually has other ideas about where their hard earned gains should go.
All our lives we pay taxes on our earnings, and more. Even in death can't we escape it.
As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.
I see it as the business of the person leaving the wealth. As was asked earlier by Bruv
Wealth needs to be defined too.
Having huge amounts of land and bugger all cash......is that rich ?
I mention I never met a farmer who thought of himself as rich. Usually considered "land rich, cash poor". So what does a farmer have left for his children?
Land
With confiscatory death taxes it is no wonder the land must be sold and farm kids must find other paths for employment, That is also the same for anybody who works their whole lives.
When building a farm or business do we do it with the idea of how grateful the government will be when we croak? I tend to believe the average person who creates wealth usually has other ideas about where their hard earned gains should go.
All our lives we pay taxes on our earnings, and more. Even in death can't we escape it.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417009 wrote: Matters not. Don't you give gifts as you see fit? Shouldn't you be allowed to be as generous or niggardly with your wealth as you wish? The inheritor's status or size of the inheritance isn't really relevant.
The question was "is there a limit above which this becomes unreasonable".
Yes, I give gifts as I see fit but then, I've not amassed a sixty five billion dollar fortune.
Were such an amount to be inherited by someone who has done nothing to earn it and would most likely squander it (looking at examples throughout history), would that be unreasonable?
The question was "is there a limit above which this becomes unreasonable".
Yes, I give gifts as I see fit but then, I've not amassed a sixty five billion dollar fortune.
Were such an amount to be inherited by someone who has done nothing to earn it and would most likely squander it (looking at examples throughout history), would that be unreasonable?
How rich is too rich?
tude dog;1417081 wrote: I see it as the business of the person leaving the wealth. As was asked earlier by Bruv
I mention I never met a farmer who thought of himself as rich. Usually considered "land rich, cash poor". So what does a farmer have left for his children?
Land
With confiscatory death taxes it is no wonder the land must be sold and farm kids must find other paths for employment, That is also the same for anybody who works their whole lives.
When building a farm or business do we do it with the idea of how grateful the government will be when we croak? I tend to believe the average person who creates wealth usually has other ideas about where their hard earned gains should go.
All our lives we pay taxes on our earnings, and more. Even in death can't we escape it.
That's fine - but the question as put specifically related to the inheritance of money.
I mention I never met a farmer who thought of himself as rich. Usually considered "land rich, cash poor". So what does a farmer have left for his children?
Land
With confiscatory death taxes it is no wonder the land must be sold and farm kids must find other paths for employment, That is also the same for anybody who works their whole lives.
When building a farm or business do we do it with the idea of how grateful the government will be when we croak? I tend to believe the average person who creates wealth usually has other ideas about where their hard earned gains should go.
All our lives we pay taxes on our earnings, and more. Even in death can't we escape it.
That's fine - but the question as put specifically related to the inheritance of money.
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417099 wrote: That's fine - but the question as put specifically related to the inheritance of money.
If I don't think my children or their children could responsibly handle my imagined millions, it should be left to me to direct it to other purposes.
If I don't think my children or their children could responsibly handle my imagined millions, it should be left to me to direct it to other purposes.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
How rich is too rich?
flopstock;1417102 wrote: If I don't think my children or their children could responsibly handle my imagined millions, it should be left to me to direct it to other purposes.
As, indeed, Bill Gates has said he will but that is not the norm.
As, indeed, Bill Gates has said he will but that is not the norm.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417098 wrote: The question was "is there a limit above which this becomes unreasonable".
Yes, I give gifts as I see fit but then, I've not amassed a sixty five billion dollar fortune.
Were such an amount to be inherited by someone who has done nothing to earn it and would most likely squander it (looking at examples throughout history), would that be unreasonable?
"Reasonable" is irrelevant. People do unreasonable things all the time. Nevertheless, receiving a gift is in no way unreasonable.
And "most likely squander it"?? Isn't that the best thing that can be done with a fortune - sending it back into the economy to benefit everyone? Who are we to determine "reasonable" and "squander" when it involves law-abiding folk who come by something completely legally and above board?
It's none of our business. More importantly, it's none of the government's business - at least not in a land that claims to be free.
Yes, I give gifts as I see fit but then, I've not amassed a sixty five billion dollar fortune.
Were such an amount to be inherited by someone who has done nothing to earn it and would most likely squander it (looking at examples throughout history), would that be unreasonable?
"Reasonable" is irrelevant. People do unreasonable things all the time. Nevertheless, receiving a gift is in no way unreasonable.
And "most likely squander it"?? Isn't that the best thing that can be done with a fortune - sending it back into the economy to benefit everyone? Who are we to determine "reasonable" and "squander" when it involves law-abiding folk who come by something completely legally and above board?
It's none of our business. More importantly, it's none of the government's business - at least not in a land that claims to be free.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417120 wrote: "Reasonable" is irrelevant. People do unreasonable things all the time. Nevertheless, receiving a gift is in no way unreasonable.
And "most likely squander it"?? Isn't that the best thing that can be done with a fortune - sending it back into the economy to benefit everyone? Who are we to determine "reasonable" and "squander" when it involves law-abiding folk who come by something completely legally and above board?
It's none of our business. More importantly, it's none of the government's business - at least not in a land that claims to be free.
So do I take it that you're against any form of inheritance tax? Or should inheritance be treated as income and taxed accordingly or ...?
And "most likely squander it"?? Isn't that the best thing that can be done with a fortune - sending it back into the economy to benefit everyone? Who are we to determine "reasonable" and "squander" when it involves law-abiding folk who come by something completely legally and above board?
It's none of our business. More importantly, it's none of the government's business - at least not in a land that claims to be free.
So do I take it that you're against any form of inheritance tax? Or should inheritance be treated as income and taxed accordingly or ...?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417125 wrote: So do I take it that you're against any form of inheritance tax? Or should inheritance be treated as income and taxed accordingly or ...?I'm sure you and I disagree with how much in the way of services the government should be doing in the first place. I feel that my federal gov't has far more revenue than they need to do what they are allowed on paper to do already. Taxing gifts would not be necessary if the government were properly restrained.
Taxing inheritance hurts family farms more than anyone.
Taxing inheritance hurts family farms more than anyone.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417140 wrote: I'm sure you and I disagree with how much in the way of services the government should be doing in the first place. I feel that my federal gov't has far more revenue than they need to do what they are allowed on paper to do already. Taxing gifts would not be necessary if the government were properly restrained.
Taxing inheritance hurts family farms more than anyone.
Does all of you income tax go to the federal government or do you have a degree of state income tax as well?
Do the states also have far more revenue than they need?
Taxing inheritance hurts family farms more than anyone.
Does all of you income tax go to the federal government or do you have a degree of state income tax as well?
Do the states also have far more revenue than they need?
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417099 wrote: That's fine - but the question as put specifically related to the inheritance of money.
OK, got it.
Don't see the difference, but that is neither here nor there.
OK, got it.
Don't see the difference, but that is neither here nor there.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417144 wrote: Does all of you income tax go to the federal government or do you have a degree of state income tax as well?
Do the states also have far more revenue than they need?
Our history has been consistent with the federal gov't reaching beyond their written job description, gathering ever more taxes. I would LOVE to know the detailed history of how they convinced the states to give up more and more of their sovereignty, but such things aren't in the history books. Better to make believe that it has always been this way. Anyway, the federal gov't uses a large part of the tax revenue to dole out to state and local governments, with miles of strings attached to keep them in check.
Ideally, the federal gov't should be the smallest entity, with the states' governments next. IMO, the local governments should rightly be providing the lions share of government services, and collecting the most revenue.
But the "Progressives" have turned it all on its head. For instance, Texas taxes paid to the US was $225 million+ in 2007. In 2012, around 65% of Texas state gov't revenue was in federal subsidies. Why are Texans paying money to Washington to be doled back to us? The only reason is control.
Texas Net Revenue by Source - Fiscal 2012
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So no, at the moment the state and local governments aren't collecting enough direct taxes, but the reasons are very complex
Do the states also have far more revenue than they need?
Our history has been consistent with the federal gov't reaching beyond their written job description, gathering ever more taxes. I would LOVE to know the detailed history of how they convinced the states to give up more and more of their sovereignty, but such things aren't in the history books. Better to make believe that it has always been this way. Anyway, the federal gov't uses a large part of the tax revenue to dole out to state and local governments, with miles of strings attached to keep them in check.
Ideally, the federal gov't should be the smallest entity, with the states' governments next. IMO, the local governments should rightly be providing the lions share of government services, and collecting the most revenue.
But the "Progressives" have turned it all on its head. For instance, Texas taxes paid to the US was $225 million+ in 2007. In 2012, around 65% of Texas state gov't revenue was in federal subsidies. Why are Texans paying money to Washington to be doled back to us? The only reason is control.
Texas Net Revenue by Source - Fiscal 2012
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So no, at the moment the state and local governments aren't collecting enough direct taxes, but the reasons are very complex
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417182 wrote: Our history has been consistent with the federal gov't reaching beyond their written job description, gathering ever more taxes. I would LOVE to know the detailed history of how they convinced the states to give up more and more of their sovereignty, but such things aren't in the history books. Better to make believe that it has always been this way. Anyway, the federal gov't uses a large part of the tax revenue to dole out to state and local governments, with miles of strings attached to keep them in check.
Ideally, the federal gov't should be the smallest entity, with the states' governments next. IMO, the local governments should rightly be providing the lions share of government services, and collecting the most revenue.
But the "Progressives" have turned it all on its head. For instance, Texas taxes paid to the US was $225 million+ in 2007. In 2012, around 65% of Texas state gov't revenue was in federal subsidies. Why are Texans paying money to Washington to be doled back to us? The only reason is control.
Texas Net Revenue by Source - Fiscal 2012
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So no, at the moment the state and local governments aren't collecting enough direct taxes, but the reasons are very complex
So, given that state and local governments are short of tax revenue, would you be against them collecting any form of inheritance tax? Or should they treat inheritance income and tax it accordingly? Or ...?
Ideally, the federal gov't should be the smallest entity, with the states' governments next. IMO, the local governments should rightly be providing the lions share of government services, and collecting the most revenue.
But the "Progressives" have turned it all on its head. For instance, Texas taxes paid to the US was $225 million+ in 2007. In 2012, around 65% of Texas state gov't revenue was in federal subsidies. Why are Texans paying money to Washington to be doled back to us? The only reason is control.
Texas Net Revenue by Source - Fiscal 2012
Federal tax revenue by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So no, at the moment the state and local governments aren't collecting enough direct taxes, but the reasons are very complex
So, given that state and local governments are short of tax revenue, would you be against them collecting any form of inheritance tax? Or should they treat inheritance income and tax it accordingly? Or ...?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417192 wrote: So, given that state and local governments are short of tax revenue, would you be against them collecting any form of inheritance tax? Or should they treat inheritance income and tax it accordingly? Or ...?:wah: What are you getting at, Bryn?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure if I posted it here in the Garden, but my opinion on income taxes (since they are never going away, anyway) is that all income should be taxed at the same rate, whether it be from salaries, wages, bonuses, investments, whatever.
I see no problem in taxing inherited cash in that way, but for the gov't to cap the amount of inheritance and confiscate the rest, or to tax inheritance simply because it was inherited and not "earned", or to take rich people's money when they die because the heirs might "squander" it (the implication being that only government can properly squander a fortune) is wrong, morally and ethically, and violates rights of ownership.
But that's cash. Would you treat, say, an inherited car as income and tax the value? The heir might be forced to sell the car to pay the tax, leaving them without a car again. Family farms have been decimated this way. Dad dies and leaves the generations-old farm to the son, who has to sell off part of the land to pay the taxes and is left less able to eke out a living for himself and the family.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure if I posted it here in the Garden, but my opinion on income taxes (since they are never going away, anyway) is that all income should be taxed at the same rate, whether it be from salaries, wages, bonuses, investments, whatever.
I see no problem in taxing inherited cash in that way, but for the gov't to cap the amount of inheritance and confiscate the rest, or to tax inheritance simply because it was inherited and not "earned", or to take rich people's money when they die because the heirs might "squander" it (the implication being that only government can properly squander a fortune) is wrong, morally and ethically, and violates rights of ownership.
But that's cash. Would you treat, say, an inherited car as income and tax the value? The heir might be forced to sell the car to pay the tax, leaving them without a car again. Family farms have been decimated this way. Dad dies and leaves the generations-old farm to the son, who has to sell off part of the land to pay the taxes and is left less able to eke out a living for himself and the family.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417197 wrote: :wah: What are you getting at, Bryn?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure if I posted it here in the Garden, but my opinion on income taxes (since they are never going away, anyway) is that all income should be taxed at the same rate, whether it be from salaries, wages, bonuses, investments, whatever.
I see no problem in taxing inherited cash in that way, but for the gov't to cap the amount of inheritance and confiscate the rest, or to tax inheritance simply because it was inherited and not "earned", or to take rich people's money when they die because the heirs might "squander" it (the implication being that only government can properly squander a fortune) is wrong, morally and ethically, and violates rights of ownership.
But that's cash. Would you treat, say, an inherited car as income and tax the value? The heir might be forced to sell the car to pay the tax, leaving them without a car again. Family farms have been decimated this way. Dad dies and leaves the generations-old farm to the son, who has to sell off part of the land to pay the taxes and is left less able to eke out a living for himself and the family.
The car I would - the heir didn't have that car in the first place so the fact he had to sell it is status quo but it would be different in the case of a family business (here we have different rules for a company where more than ¿50? percent of the shares are controlled by the same family) or a joint home (joint tenancy rather than tenancy in common).
For a joint home the home goes to the surviving owners with no tax. That is the current rule in the UK and I agree with it.
For a family business, if the heir is an active member of the business I would say that the same rule should apply but if (s)he has no part in the day to day business then I'd say that the deceased's portion of the business should be taxed as normal.
So, in the case of your family farm, if the son works the farm with his dad then it is his but if he's moved to the city then tough - it's not going to stay in the family anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure if I posted it here in the Garden, but my opinion on income taxes (since they are never going away, anyway) is that all income should be taxed at the same rate, whether it be from salaries, wages, bonuses, investments, whatever.
I see no problem in taxing inherited cash in that way, but for the gov't to cap the amount of inheritance and confiscate the rest, or to tax inheritance simply because it was inherited and not "earned", or to take rich people's money when they die because the heirs might "squander" it (the implication being that only government can properly squander a fortune) is wrong, morally and ethically, and violates rights of ownership.
But that's cash. Would you treat, say, an inherited car as income and tax the value? The heir might be forced to sell the car to pay the tax, leaving them without a car again. Family farms have been decimated this way. Dad dies and leaves the generations-old farm to the son, who has to sell off part of the land to pay the taxes and is left less able to eke out a living for himself and the family.
The car I would - the heir didn't have that car in the first place so the fact he had to sell it is status quo but it would be different in the case of a family business (here we have different rules for a company where more than ¿50? percent of the shares are controlled by the same family) or a joint home (joint tenancy rather than tenancy in common).
For a joint home the home goes to the surviving owners with no tax. That is the current rule in the UK and I agree with it.
For a family business, if the heir is an active member of the business I would say that the same rule should apply but if (s)he has no part in the day to day business then I'd say that the deceased's portion of the business should be taxed as normal.
So, in the case of your family farm, if the son works the farm with his dad then it is his but if he's moved to the city then tough - it's not going to stay in the family anyway.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
It's clear that you have an underlying assumption that the state owns all and allows her subjects what she allows according to arbitrary conditions that she sets. It's the opposite here, although the people forget sometimes. It's easy to forget when the politicians keep spinning the truth.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417202 wrote: It's clear that you have an underlying assumption that the state owns all and allows her subjects what she allows according to arbitrary conditions that she sets. It's the opposite here, although the people forget sometimes. It's easy to forget when the politicians keep spinning the truth.
No! The underlying assumption is that we place obligations on our government and that those obligations come with a cost. There is, therefore, a requirement for us to pay for the functions that we oblige the government to provide (roads, schools, defence, health service, welfare, etc.) and we have to chose the fairest way to raise the money to cover those costs.
No! The underlying assumption is that we place obligations on our government and that those obligations come with a cost. There is, therefore, a requirement for us to pay for the functions that we oblige the government to provide (roads, schools, defence, health service, welfare, etc.) and we have to chose the fairest way to raise the money to cover those costs.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
But clearly ownership needs to be justified and permitted, rather than assumed. It's a common thread through all your explanations lately.
Our society is set up so that justification is up to the government. If there is no justification, then the gov't can take no action.
** I stipulate that while this is the way the nation and gov't were initially established, and this is the way the Constitution is written, it is no longer the universal rule. Rule of Law does not hold sway in the USA anymore, and we as a society are becoming more and more subject of the gov't, less and less free individuals.
Our society is set up so that justification is up to the government. If there is no justification, then the gov't can take no action.
** I stipulate that while this is the way the nation and gov't were initially established, and this is the way the Constitution is written, it is no longer the universal rule. Rule of Law does not hold sway in the USA anymore, and we as a society are becoming more and more subject of the gov't, less and less free individuals.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417204 wrote: But clearly ownership needs to be justified and permitted, rather than assumed. It's a common thread through all your explanations lately.
Our society is set up so that justification is up to the government. If there is no justification, then the gov't can take no action.
** I stipulate that while this is the way the nation and gov't were initially established, and this is the way the Constitution is written, it is no longer the universal rule. Rule of Law does not hold sway in the USA anymore, and we as a society are becoming more and more subject of the gov't, less and less free individuals.
This is nothing whatsoever to do with ownership, it is purely a matter of economics.
Firstly, a statement of my position on ownership :-
I own everything I own and no-one has the right to take it off of me without legally proving I do not have the right of ownership. I do not need to justify that right and I expect the law to uphold it in all cases.
Does that cover off this red herring?
Now back to the issue of inheritance :-
Do we agree that some form of taxation is required in order for the country to have those services that we require the country to provide?
If we do agree on the above, can we agree that each citizen should be expected to share the cost of those services.
If we agree on both of the above, do we agree that the share expected from each citizen should be "fair" - that is based in some way on his ability to pay?
We are not at this point discussing the levels of taxation or the levels or types of services provided by the government and certainly not discussing the form of government that should be providing each type of service - just trying to get a basic agreement on the subject matter.
Our society is set up so that justification is up to the government. If there is no justification, then the gov't can take no action.
** I stipulate that while this is the way the nation and gov't were initially established, and this is the way the Constitution is written, it is no longer the universal rule. Rule of Law does not hold sway in the USA anymore, and we as a society are becoming more and more subject of the gov't, less and less free individuals.
This is nothing whatsoever to do with ownership, it is purely a matter of economics.
Firstly, a statement of my position on ownership :-
I own everything I own and no-one has the right to take it off of me without legally proving I do not have the right of ownership. I do not need to justify that right and I expect the law to uphold it in all cases.
Does that cover off this red herring?
Now back to the issue of inheritance :-
Do we agree that some form of taxation is required in order for the country to have those services that we require the country to provide?
If we do agree on the above, can we agree that each citizen should be expected to share the cost of those services.
If we agree on both of the above, do we agree that the share expected from each citizen should be "fair" - that is based in some way on his ability to pay?
We are not at this point discussing the levels of taxation or the levels or types of services provided by the government and certainly not discussing the form of government that should be providing each type of service - just trying to get a basic agreement on the subject matter.
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1416995 wrote: OK, as a response to the OP let's try ten times average income should be the max allowed
As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.
How about the rights of the person who succeeds and plans well ahead and desires the best for his/her heirs? Just because they did not "earn" the money, why does the state have the right to take away something given and planned for? Does the interpretation of "earning" somehow justify the state's confiscation of wealth? This seems very old school and mean.
As a related question, as y'all appear to be against taking legally earnt money from the worker, how much money would you say it was legitimate for a person to inherit? After all, the inheritor has done nothing to earn them money.
How about the rights of the person who succeeds and plans well ahead and desires the best for his/her heirs? Just because they did not "earn" the money, why does the state have the right to take away something given and planned for? Does the interpretation of "earning" somehow justify the state's confiscation of wealth? This seems very old school and mean.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
halfway;1417313 wrote: How about the rights of the person who succeeds and plans well ahead and desires the best for his/her heirs? Just because they did not "earn" the money, why does the state have the right to take away something given and planned for? Does the interpretation of "earning" somehow justify the state's confiscation of wealth? This seems very old school and mean.
Any form of taking money off of a person is confiscation of wealth and mean but the country has to run somehow. Treating inheritance as income and taxing it is no "meaner" than taxing your salary in the first place.
Any form of taking money off of a person is confiscation of wealth and mean but the country has to run somehow. Treating inheritance as income and taxing it is no "meaner" than taxing your salary in the first place.
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417315 wrote: Treating inheritance as income and taxing it is no "meaner" than taxing your salary in the first place.
Agreed...within a reasonable tax rate. Farmers children losing farms because the appraisal of the land creates an inheritance tax that cannot be paid is confiscation. We have some tax code issues to work out.
There are those that feel as you eluded to earlier...."inherited money is not earned". With that mindset, politicians have salivated over those people and have helped stir a "class warfare" and Wealth resentment" atmosphere to get their hands on it.
Disgusting.
Agreed...within a reasonable tax rate. Farmers children losing farms because the appraisal of the land creates an inheritance tax that cannot be paid is confiscation. We have some tax code issues to work out.
There are those that feel as you eluded to earlier...."inherited money is not earned". With that mindset, politicians have salivated over those people and have helped stir a "class warfare" and Wealth resentment" atmosphere to get their hands on it.
Disgusting.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
halfway;1417316 wrote: Agreed...within a reasonable tax rate. Farmers children losing farms because the appraisal of the land creates an inheritance tax that cannot be paid is confiscation. We have some tax code issues to work out.
There are those that feel as you eluded to earlier...."inherited money is not earned". With that mindset, politicians have salivated over those people and have helped stir a "class warfare" and Wealth resentment" atmosphere to get their hands on it.
Disgusting.
I dealt with that in post #65
in the case of a family business (here we have different rules for a company where more than ¿50? percent of the shares are controlled by the same family) or a joint home (joint tenancy rather than tenancy in common).
For a joint home the home goes to the surviving owners with no tax. That is the current rule in the UK and I agree with it.
For a family business, if the heir is an active member of the business I would say that the same rule should apply but if (s)he has no part in the day to day business then I'd say that the deceased's portion of the business should be taxed as normal.
So, in the case of your family farm, if the son works the farm with his dad then it is his but if he's moved to the city then tough - it's not going to stay in the family anyway.
There are those that feel as you eluded to earlier...."inherited money is not earned". With that mindset, politicians have salivated over those people and have helped stir a "class warfare" and Wealth resentment" atmosphere to get their hands on it.
Disgusting.
I dealt with that in post #65
in the case of a family business (here we have different rules for a company where more than ¿50? percent of the shares are controlled by the same family) or a joint home (joint tenancy rather than tenancy in common).
For a joint home the home goes to the surviving owners with no tax. That is the current rule in the UK and I agree with it.
For a family business, if the heir is an active member of the business I would say that the same rule should apply but if (s)he has no part in the day to day business then I'd say that the deceased's portion of the business should be taxed as normal.
So, in the case of your family farm, if the son works the farm with his dad then it is his but if he's moved to the city then tough - it's not going to stay in the family anyway.
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417318 wrote: I dealt with that in post #65
Good job!!!!
Good job!!!!
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
halfway;1417342 wrote: Good job!!!!
Do you have any comments on the suggestion to continue the discussion?
Do you have any comments on the suggestion to continue the discussion?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
I'll have to come back later, but to me, this:
Bryn Mawr;1417199 wrote: The car I would - the heir didn't have that car in the first place so the fact he had to sell it is status quo
Does not jive with this:
Bryn Mawr;1417312 wrote: I own everything I own and no-one has the right to take it off of me without legally proving I do not have the right of ownership.
I apologize for the difficulty. I'll have to read back through to figure out what you're calling a red herring. It wasn't intentional, if it was a red herring at all.
Bryn Mawr;1417199 wrote: The car I would - the heir didn't have that car in the first place so the fact he had to sell it is status quo
Does not jive with this:
Bryn Mawr;1417312 wrote: I own everything I own and no-one has the right to take it off of me without legally proving I do not have the right of ownership.
I apologize for the difficulty. I'll have to read back through to figure out what you're calling a red herring. It wasn't intentional, if it was a red herring at all.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417312 wrote: If we agree on both of the above, do we agree that the share expected from each citizen should be "fair" - that is based in some way on his ability to pay?
"From each according to his ability"? The term "fair" is too subjective a term to use. Many people think it fair to take a larger portion of a person's income when it rises over a certain point, the rationale being that the person has so much that taking a little more won't be missed. That's just greedy. Taxing everyone at the same percentage is far more fair, imo, excluding a certain amount of income for subsistence of course. The rich still pay substantially more than the poor, and are not dinged extra for financial success. If the gov't has swollen so large that a 10 or 15 percent income tax from all is not enough, then I would argue that it has grown too large.
"From each according to his ability"? The term "fair" is too subjective a term to use. Many people think it fair to take a larger portion of a person's income when it rises over a certain point, the rationale being that the person has so much that taking a little more won't be missed. That's just greedy. Taxing everyone at the same percentage is far more fair, imo, excluding a certain amount of income for subsistence of course. The rich still pay substantially more than the poor, and are not dinged extra for financial success. If the gov't has swollen so large that a 10 or 15 percent income tax from all is not enough, then I would argue that it has grown too large.
How rich is too rich?
500, 000, 000. After that you become too dangerous to the society you live in. You begin to control the government, a republic turns into a plutocracy. The theory is that the rich will make more jobs for the poor...but they don't. They just keep storing it up like a squirrel and get an isolated attitude towards everyone else (let them eat cake!)
When a small group controls all the wealth and everyone else is poor...heads will roll. (See: The French Revolution)
When a small group controls all the wealth and everyone else is poor...heads will roll. (See: The French Revolution)
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417369 wrote: I'll have to come back later, but to me, this:
Does not jive with this:
I apologize for the difficulty. I'll have to read back through to figure out what you're calling a red herring. It wasn't intentional, if it was a red herring at all.
Separate the fact of ownership from the economics of selling the car to pay for the tax.
The ownership of the car is not in question, the question is whether inheritance should be viewed as income and therefore taxed.
If it is taxed then, as a consequence of economics, the heir might chose to sell the car to raise the tax he own on the inheritance as a whole - it's not obligatory, he might chose to sell some shares he was holding for a rainy day rather than part with any of his inheritance.
The choice of how to raise the tax dollars is the same whatever the source of the tax and is not related to inheritance.
Does not jive with this:
I apologize for the difficulty. I'll have to read back through to figure out what you're calling a red herring. It wasn't intentional, if it was a red herring at all.
Separate the fact of ownership from the economics of selling the car to pay for the tax.
The ownership of the car is not in question, the question is whether inheritance should be viewed as income and therefore taxed.
If it is taxed then, as a consequence of economics, the heir might chose to sell the car to raise the tax he own on the inheritance as a whole - it's not obligatory, he might chose to sell some shares he was holding for a rainy day rather than part with any of his inheritance.
The choice of how to raise the tax dollars is the same whatever the source of the tax and is not related to inheritance.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417377 wrote: "From each according to his ability"? The term "fair" is too subjective a term to use. Many people think it fair to take a larger portion of a person's income when it rises over a certain point, the rationale being that the person has so much that taking a little more won't be missed. That's just greedy. Taxing everyone at the same percentage is far more fair, imo, excluding a certain amount of income for subsistence of course. The rich still pay substantially more than the poor, and are not dinged extra for financial success. If the gov't has swollen so large that a 10 or 15 percent income tax from all is not enough, then I would argue that it has grown too large.
This is exactly why I put the word "fair" in quotes and then put a rider about not discussing level or methods of taxation at this point.
I would like to get a base agreement before we start to discuss what "fair" means and how the cost of the services we require should be met.
This is exactly why I put the word "fair" in quotes and then put a rider about not discussing level or methods of taxation at this point.
I would like to get a base agreement before we start to discuss what "fair" means and how the cost of the services we require should be met.
How rich is too rich?
Saint_;1417416 wrote: 500, 000, 000. After that you become too dangerous to the society you live in. You begin to control the government, a republic turns into a plutocracy. The theory is that the rich will make more jobs for the poor...but they don't. They just keep storing it up like a squirrel and get an isolated attitude towards everyone else (let them eat cake!)
When a small group controls all the wealth and everyone else is poor...heads will roll. (See: The French Revolution)
What happened to those who started the revolution?
Agreed. 500 million it is. $500,000,001 and you become a sadistic, abusive tyrant capable of swaying governments. At $499,999,999...you are only a wannabe. Sounds about right.
When a small group controls all the wealth and everyone else is poor...heads will roll. (See: The French Revolution)
What happened to those who started the revolution?
Agreed. 500 million it is. $500,000,001 and you become a sadistic, abusive tyrant capable of swaying governments. At $499,999,999...you are only a wannabe. Sounds about right.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417423 wrote: This is exactly why I put the word "fair" in quotes and then put a rider about not discussing level or methods of taxation at this point.
I would like to get a base agreement before we start to discuss what "fair" means and how the cost of the services we require should be met.
You actually fail to realize that point of the thread was to generate thoughts about a number or an array of wealth. The process of how one human believes they should have a say as to "how much success is too much". It was simply a thread about human nature. How you interpreted the question was informative as well.
Thanks for those that responded clearly with your educated and thought-out opinions.. You did not have a number amount because you had a belief that it was not your place to place dollar amounts on such a subject.
Thanks to others for attempting to get to a black and white number on which you could further argue. That may simply say that a dollar amount validates the debate that people should have a reign over other peoples' success. Or maybe it is simply a method of dodging putting a position or opinion in the public light.
Regardless, thanks for a good thread.
Please close this thread.
I would like to get a base agreement before we start to discuss what "fair" means and how the cost of the services we require should be met.
You actually fail to realize that point of the thread was to generate thoughts about a number or an array of wealth. The process of how one human believes they should have a say as to "how much success is too much". It was simply a thread about human nature. How you interpreted the question was informative as well.
Thanks for those that responded clearly with your educated and thought-out opinions.. You did not have a number amount because you had a belief that it was not your place to place dollar amounts on such a subject.
Thanks to others for attempting to get to a black and white number on which you could further argue. That may simply say that a dollar amount validates the debate that people should have a reign over other peoples' success. Or maybe it is simply a method of dodging putting a position or opinion in the public light.
Regardless, thanks for a good thread.
Please close this thread.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
halfway;1417431 wrote: "how much success is too much". .
Actually, that's a loaded way to put that question, since money is, very literally, power in this country, the question you are asking is, "How much power is too much power?" that's what I was getting at in my previous answer.
And halfway, you, who are very vocally against a too powerful government, should be just as much against a society that allows too powerful people to exist. Don't the hyper-rich do the very thing that you despise in the government? Control the corporations? Control the jobs? Control the policies of the country? Heck, with the Supreme Court's decision, they can even control the electoral process now, basically making it a moot point.
Don't the hyper-rich control the very lives of the public? Your life and mine? ( I can list lots of ways that they do!)
If you don't like that in a government, why advocate it for private citizens? I'm trying to be on your side for once. I don't like anyone, a government or a tycoon to have too much power over me. Isn't that an American attitude?
Actually, that's a loaded way to put that question, since money is, very literally, power in this country, the question you are asking is, "How much power is too much power?" that's what I was getting at in my previous answer.
And halfway, you, who are very vocally against a too powerful government, should be just as much against a society that allows too powerful people to exist. Don't the hyper-rich do the very thing that you despise in the government? Control the corporations? Control the jobs? Control the policies of the country? Heck, with the Supreme Court's decision, they can even control the electoral process now, basically making it a moot point.
Don't the hyper-rich control the very lives of the public? Your life and mine? ( I can list lots of ways that they do!)
If you don't like that in a government, why advocate it for private citizens? I'm trying to be on your side for once. I don't like anyone, a government or a tycoon to have too much power over me. Isn't that an American attitude?
How rich is too rich?
halfway;1416745 wrote:
My question was simple (I thought).
Thank you for those who understood the question and participated.
Thanks much.halfway;1416789 wrote:
I know this is a bit off the main topic, but let's consider it an evolution of the original question. By the way, there is no "correct" answer...just an expressing of viewpoints.
halfway;1417431 wrote: You actually fail to realize that point of the thread was to generate thoughts about a number or an array of wealth. The process of how one human believes they should have a say as to "how much success is too much". It was simply a thread about human nature. How you interpreted the question was informative as well.
Thanks for those that responded clearly with your educated and thought-out opinions.. You did not have a number amount because you had a belief that it was not your place to place dollar amounts on such a subject.
Thanks to others for attempting to get to a black and white number on which you could further argue. That may simply say that a dollar amount validates the debate that people should have a reign over other peoples' success. Or maybe it is simply a method of dodging putting a position or opinion in the public light.
Regardless, thanks for a good thread.
Please close this thread.Seriously, HW, troll on.
My question was simple (I thought).
Thank you for those who understood the question and participated.
Thanks much.halfway;1416789 wrote:
I know this is a bit off the main topic, but let's consider it an evolution of the original question. By the way, there is no "correct" answer...just an expressing of viewpoints.
halfway;1417431 wrote: You actually fail to realize that point of the thread was to generate thoughts about a number or an array of wealth. The process of how one human believes they should have a say as to "how much success is too much". It was simply a thread about human nature. How you interpreted the question was informative as well.
Thanks for those that responded clearly with your educated and thought-out opinions.. You did not have a number amount because you had a belief that it was not your place to place dollar amounts on such a subject.
Thanks to others for attempting to get to a black and white number on which you could further argue. That may simply say that a dollar amount validates the debate that people should have a reign over other peoples' success. Or maybe it is simply a method of dodging putting a position or opinion in the public light.
Regardless, thanks for a good thread.
Please close this thread.Seriously, HW, troll on.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
How rich is too rich?
Saint_;1417436 wrote: Actually, that's a loaded way to put that question,
To be frank, to me it was a simple enough question. Seemed to garner enough response.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: since money is, very literally, power in this country, the question you are asking is, "How much power is too much power?" that's what I was getting at in my previous answer.
How much power is another question.
If you care, maybe start another thread on your chosen subject.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: And halfway, you, who are very vocally against a too powerful government, should be just as much against a society that allows too powerful people to exist. Don't the hyper-rich do the very thing that you despise in the government? Control the corporations? Control the jobs? Control the policies of the country? Heck, with the Supreme Court's decision, they can even control the electoral process now, basically making it a moot point.
hmm, you seem to have a lot of issues, maybe better addressed separately.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: Don't the hyper-rich control the very lives of the public? Your life and mine? ( I can list lots of ways that they do!)
Yea, but that is another subject.
To be frank, to me it was a simple enough question. Seemed to garner enough response.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: since money is, very literally, power in this country, the question you are asking is, "How much power is too much power?" that's what I was getting at in my previous answer.
How much power is another question.
If you care, maybe start another thread on your chosen subject.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: And halfway, you, who are very vocally against a too powerful government, should be just as much against a society that allows too powerful people to exist. Don't the hyper-rich do the very thing that you despise in the government? Control the corporations? Control the jobs? Control the policies of the country? Heck, with the Supreme Court's decision, they can even control the electoral process now, basically making it a moot point.
hmm, you seem to have a lot of issues, maybe better addressed separately.
Saint_;1417436 wrote: Don't the hyper-rich control the very lives of the public? Your life and mine? ( I can list lots of ways that they do!)
Yea, but that is another subject.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
How rich is too rich?
tude dog;1417470 wrote: To be frank, to me it was a simple enough question. Seemed to garner enough response.
How much power is another question.
If you care, maybe start another thread on your chosen subject.
hmm, you seem to have a lot of issues, maybe better addressed separately.
Yea, but that is another subject.You and HalfWit, who go around doing nothing but trolling and taking threads off topic and babble incoherently say that? Wow!
How much power is another question.
If you care, maybe start another thread on your chosen subject.
hmm, you seem to have a lot of issues, maybe better addressed separately.
Yea, but that is another subject.You and HalfWit, who go around doing nothing but trolling and taking threads off topic and babble incoherently say that? Wow!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
How rich is too rich?
rich (rch)
adj. rich·er, rich·est
1. Possessing great material wealth: "Now that he was rich he was not thought ignorant any more, but simply eccentric" (Mavis Gallant).
2. Having great worth or value: a rich harvest of grain.
3. Magnificent; sumptuous: a rich brocade.
4.
a. Having an abundant supply: rich in ideas.
b. Abounding, especially in natural resources: rich land.
5. Meaningful and significant: "a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader" (William Zinsser).
6. Very productive and therefore financially profitable: rich seams of coal.
7.
a. Containing a large amount of choice ingredients, such as butter, sugar, or eggs, and therefore unusually heavy or sweet: a rich dessert.
b. Having or exuding a strong or pungent aroma: "Texas air is so rich you can nourish off it like it was food" (Edna Ferber).
8.
a. Pleasantly full and mellow: a rich tenor voice.
b. Warm and strong in color: a rich brown velvet.
9. Containing a large proportion of fuel to air: a rich gas mixture.
10. Informal Highly amusing.
n. (used with a pl. verb)
Wealthy people considered as a group. Often used with the: "Were there, indeed, a sure appeal to the mercies of the rich, the calamities of the poor might be less intolerable" (Charlotte Smith).
In my opinion, a person is too rich when he/she is isolated from the real world and thinks of himself/herself as the world.
adj. rich·er, rich·est
1. Possessing great material wealth: "Now that he was rich he was not thought ignorant any more, but simply eccentric" (Mavis Gallant).
2. Having great worth or value: a rich harvest of grain.
3. Magnificent; sumptuous: a rich brocade.
4.
a. Having an abundant supply: rich in ideas.
b. Abounding, especially in natural resources: rich land.
5. Meaningful and significant: "a rich sense of the transaction between writer and reader" (William Zinsser).
6. Very productive and therefore financially profitable: rich seams of coal.
7.
a. Containing a large amount of choice ingredients, such as butter, sugar, or eggs, and therefore unusually heavy or sweet: a rich dessert.
b. Having or exuding a strong or pungent aroma: "Texas air is so rich you can nourish off it like it was food" (Edna Ferber).
8.
a. Pleasantly full and mellow: a rich tenor voice.
b. Warm and strong in color: a rich brown velvet.
9. Containing a large proportion of fuel to air: a rich gas mixture.
10. Informal Highly amusing.
n. (used with a pl. verb)
Wealthy people considered as a group. Often used with the: "Were there, indeed, a sure appeal to the mercies of the rich, the calamities of the poor might be less intolerable" (Charlotte Smith).
In my opinion, a person is too rich when he/she is isolated from the real world and thinks of himself/herself as the world.
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
How rich is too rich?
along-for-the-ride;1417481 wrote:
In my opinion, a person is too rich when he/she is isolated from the real world and thinks of himself/herself as the world.
"Let them eat cake!" My thoughts exactly.
Here's an excellent Newsweek article called "Ah, the Secluded Life."
by Emily Vencat, newsweek,
"With security concerns growing and Internet gossip capable of trashing global reputations in an instant, those with money are increasingly locking their entire lives behind closed doors. Rather than attend media-heavy events, they arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes. They shop afterhours and have their neighbors (and potential friends) vetted for class and cash."
Private Islands for Super Rich - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
In my opinion, a person is too rich when he/she is isolated from the real world and thinks of himself/herself as the world.
"Let them eat cake!" My thoughts exactly.
Here's an excellent Newsweek article called "Ah, the Secluded Life."
by Emily Vencat, newsweek,
"With security concerns growing and Internet gossip capable of trashing global reputations in an instant, those with money are increasingly locking their entire lives behind closed doors. Rather than attend media-heavy events, they arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes. They shop afterhours and have their neighbors (and potential friends) vetted for class and cash."
Private Islands for Super Rich - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
"Too rich" implies that we as a society should do something to rectify the situation. Should we find these people who arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes and confiscate some of their wealth so that they can no longer afford to do such things?
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417510 wrote: "Too rich" implies that we as a society should do something to rectify the situation. Should we find these people who arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes and confiscate some of their wealth so that they can no longer afford to do such things?
This is the core. Eliminate freedom because "someone" or some "group" believes they know the limits or extremes of a person's success?
I personally feel we pay movie celebrities WAY too much money, but what gives me the right to put or suggest a limit on a person's goals?
If it is a matter of political sway or corruption, we have laws for that. If judges are paid off, they have to pay for their actions at some point, but the elimination of this type of human nature will NEVER fully happen.
Enforce laws against the white-collar type crimes if we are to respect them.
This is the core. Eliminate freedom because "someone" or some "group" believes they know the limits or extremes of a person's success?
I personally feel we pay movie celebrities WAY too much money, but what gives me the right to put or suggest a limit on a person's goals?
If it is a matter of political sway or corruption, we have laws for that. If judges are paid off, they have to pay for their actions at some point, but the elimination of this type of human nature will NEVER fully happen.
Enforce laws against the white-collar type crimes if we are to respect them.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
How rich is too rich?
What about the mind set that equates wealth with success ?
ie I am the richest person in the whole world......that is how successful I am
ie I am the richest person in the whole world......that is how successful I am
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
How rich is too rich?
Bruv;1417591 wrote: What about the mind set that equates wealth with success ?
ie I am the richest person in the whole world......that is how successful I am
I do that all the time, equate success with wealth.
But then I equate a lot of other things with success.
ie I am the richest person in the whole world......that is how successful I am
I do that all the time, equate success with wealth.
But then I equate a lot of other things with success.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
How rich is too rich?
Saint_;1417505 wrote: "Let them eat cake!" My thoughts exactly.
Here's an excellent Newsweek article called "Ah, the Secluded Life."
by Emily Vencat, newsweek,
"With security concerns growing and Internet gossip capable of trashing global reputations in an instant, those with money are increasingly locking their entire lives behind closed doors. Rather than attend media-heavy events, they arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes. They shop afterhours and have their neighbors (and potential friends) vetted for class and cash."
Private Islands for Super Rich - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
Gee how horrible it must be to be super rich, what ever that means.
We live a pretty isolated life here and it saved us millions of dollars to do so, as opposed to the so called 'supper rich'.
Please, don't let the word out as we are already overpopulated.
Here's an excellent Newsweek article called "Ah, the Secluded Life."
by Emily Vencat, newsweek,
"With security concerns growing and Internet gossip capable of trashing global reputations in an instant, those with money are increasingly locking their entire lives behind closed doors. Rather than attend media-heavy events, they arrange concerts, fashion shows and art exhibitions in their own homes. They shop afterhours and have their neighbors (and potential friends) vetted for class and cash."
Private Islands for Super Rich - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
Gee how horrible it must be to be super rich, what ever that means.
We live a pretty isolated life here and it saved us millions of dollars to do so, as opposed to the so called 'supper rich'.
Please, don't let the word out as we are already overpopulated.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
How rich is too rich?
It's impossible to say, moderately wealthy in one country may be the same as insanely rich in another. It could be that too rich is just much much much richer than everyone around you.
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
Minxing the world! @ Nothing Exchange
How rich is too rich?
Fiend;1417682 wrote: It's impossible to say, moderately wealthy in one country may be the same as insanely rich in another. It could be that too rich is just much much much richer than everyone around you.
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
Nicely said.:yh_peace
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
Nicely said.:yh_peace
How rich is too rich?
Fiend;1417682 wrote: It's impossible to say, moderately wealthy in one country may be the same as insanely rich in another. It could be that too rich is just much much much richer than everyone around you.
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
That is certainly my definition. Wealth can only be measured relative to the society you live in.
Or maybe it's having so much that sharing a large % of your wealth would still leave you living quite comfortably, and still not doing it.
That is certainly my definition. Wealth can only be measured relative to the society you live in.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
It's the "Too" that gets to me. It implies that it's breaking some kind of law or rule & that we should take some kind of punitive action.
How rich is too rich?
Accountable;1417858 wrote: It's the "Too" that gets to me. It implies that it's breaking some kind of law or rule & that we should take some kind of punitive action.
If you have a hypothetical society where a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend then I would say that society was broken and action needed to be taken to remedy the situation.
If you have a hypothetical society where a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend then I would say that society was broken and action needed to be taken to remedy the situation.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How rich is too rich?
Bryn Mawr;1417861 wrote: If you have a hypothetical society where a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend then I would say that society was broken and action needed to be taken to remedy the situation.
Thank you. So no such society exists today, at least not in the developed world, so that we have to invoke hypotheticals to discuss it. I can agree with that.
Thank you. So no such society exists today, at least not in the developed world, so that we have to invoke hypotheticals to discuss it. I can agree with that.