Vox article on inheritance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Listen, folks. Just because YOUR middle class parents are/were terrible with their money (thus leaving you little to nothing) doesn’t mean that other older people who were responsible and saved/invested their money throughout their lives (thus leaving an inheritance for their children - even *gasp* one million dollars!!!) were “rich” - they saved their money, now they have money! Some of you should try it.

That being said, I am struggling to even get through that article. It is structured in such a bizarre, haphazard way that it reads almost like a stream of consciousness. I really miss editors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Anyone born in the 1940s-1960s who held a steady job and invested their money should be a multimillionaire. The Baby Boomers experienced an unprecedented economic growth.

+1 And if they invested some early in their lives and left that money in the market... they'd be doing really well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Listen, folks. Just because YOUR middle class parents are/were terrible with their money (thus leaving you little to nothing) doesn’t mean that other older people who were responsible and saved/invested their money throughout their lives (thus leaving an inheritance for their children - even *gasp* one million dollars!!!) were “rich” - they saved their money, now they have money! Some of you should try it.

That being said, I am struggling to even get through that article. It is structured in such a bizarre, haphazard way that it reads almost like a stream of consciousness. I really miss editors.

My dad was a teacher and my mom a SAHM. I grew up solidly middle class. I will inherit probably $1 million. A lot of that money will come from the sale of my childhood home that my parents bought for $50,000 and is now worth $500,000 and my dad has been receiving a decent pension and healthcare for years. My parents spend very little money and have saved all of the SS money they have received. So yes, it is possible to grow up middle class and still inherit a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Anyone born in the 1940s-1960s who held a steady job and invested their money should be a multimillionaire. The Baby Boomers experienced an unprecedented economic growth.

LOL. My parents were born in the 40s and 50s. They worked hard (solidly middle class, for real, not DCUM "middle class") and invested their money. And the stock market tanked right as they retired, cutting their retirement nest egg by a third. They are not multimillionaires. I will likely inherit almost no money. They do have a decent piece of property, which, assuming they don't end up having to sell it to move into assisted living or something, will be worth about $1 million or so. They are not poor, but the idea that everyone who worked should be a multimillionaire is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

+1 to all of this. I feel like people also really discount all the other life decisions that impact wealth. For example, divorce is expensive and raising a child alone is expensive. So do we need to "level the playing field" of people who chose different routes in their life? Those are just different life choices. It's not all silver spoons and advantages, alot of people make life decisions based on what's important to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Listen, folks. Just because YOUR middle class parents are/were terrible with their money (thus leaving you little to nothing) doesn’t mean that other older people who were responsible and saved/invested their money throughout their lives (thus leaving an inheritance for their children - even *gasp* one million dollars!!!) were “rich” - they saved their money, now they have money! Some of you should try it.

That being said, I am struggling to even get through that article. It is structured in such a bizarre, haphazard way that it reads almost like a stream of consciousness. I really miss editors.

My dad was a teacher and my mom a SAHM. I grew up solidly middle class. I will inherit probably $1 million. A lot of that money will come from the sale of my childhood home that my parents bought for $50,000 and is now worth $500,000 and my dad has been receiving a decent pension and healthcare for years. My parents spend very little money and have saved all of the SS money they have received. So yes, it is possible to grow up middle class and still inherit a lot of money.

Yes, for the children of baby boomers that were fortunate enough to own a home that had massive appreciation in value. My parents also have a home worth $1m, but if they need to go to assisted living then the house will have to be sold to pay for that.

[Anonymous]

Despite growing up in a middle class home, I won’t inherit anything. My dad died in his 50s and left some savings and life insurance that my mom is steadily gambling away. My husband grew up in a low income home and his parents spend every dime on new cars and renovations and don’t save anything.. they at least have pensions to live off of, but with their collective spending habits we are afraid of having to take care of any/all of them financially down the road. No life insurance to be had among the three of them. I sort of thought this was the normal situation until I started living in the DMV area and reading DCUM, haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

LOL that the wealthy are all "job creators." Plenty live on passive investment income. If anything, middle-class people who spend a larger percentage of their income create more jobs, because jobs come from market demand. Rich people sit on far more of their money. Also LOL that they "paid taxes on everything." Rich people cheat more on their taxes -- the Treasury Department just released a report showing that the top one percent fail to report 20-25 percent of their annual income. And even if they report it, cap gains are still treated more favorably than income that the taxpayer actually worked for. And it's really strange that you think people being less lucky (or disabled, or less intelligent) should be punished and scorned, but you seem to have a very narrow view of success. Society requires a lot of people doing a lot of different jobs, and there's no shame in any kind of honest work. You might scorn your parents and think they are drips because they didn't make enough to leave you an inheritance, but we don't all think that way.

And while someone may have earned enough money to leave an inheritance, their kids didn't. They aren't creating jobs or building value. They are just spending money someone else made.

I want a confiscatory estate tax on estates over a couple million dollars. It's not good for society overall to create a class based on generational wealth. Passing down a home or something is fine. But even if I could leave my kid millions of dollars, I don't think I would be leaving her a good world to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Anyone born in the 1940s-1960s who held a steady job and invested their money should be a multimillionaire. The Baby Boomers experienced an unprecedented economic growth.

This. Middle class refers to annual household income, not net worth. You can have a middle class income at 2M invested easily. Try a retirement calculator to see what this looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

LOL that the wealthy are all "job creators." Plenty live on passive investment income. If anything, middle-class people who spend a larger percentage of their income create more jobs, because jobs come from market demand. Rich people sit on far more of their money. Also LOL that they "paid taxes on everything." Rich people cheat more on their taxes -- the Treasury Department just released a report showing that the top one percent fail to report 20-25 percent of their annual income. And even if they report it, cap gains are still treated more favorably than income that the taxpayer actually worked for. And it's really strange that you think people being less lucky (or disabled, or less intelligent) should be punished and scorned, but you seem to have a very narrow view of success. Society requires a lot of people doing a lot of different jobs, and there's no shame in any kind of honest work. You might scorn your parents and think they are drips because they didn't make enough to leave you an inheritance, but we don't all think that way.

And while someone may have earned enough money to leave an inheritance, their kids didn't. They aren't creating jobs or building value. They are just spending money someone else made.

I want a confiscatory estate tax on estates over a couple million dollars. It's not good for society overall to create a class based on generational wealth. Passing down a home or something is fine. But even if I could leave my kid millions of dollars, I don't think I would be leaving her a good world to live in.

Then get ready to hike the social security tax and medicare on everyone at all income levels. What you are suggesting will increase demands on the social safety net dramatically- more than you would collect from confiscating other people's wealth.

There isn't an obvious way to differentiate between a bank account in your name or a home in your name, so your reasoning is falling apart there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Anyone born in the 1940s-1960s who held a steady job and invested their money should be a multimillionaire. The Baby Boomers experienced an unprecedented economic growth.

LOL. My parents were born in the 40s and 50s. They worked hard (solidly middle class, for real, not DCUM "middle class") and invested their money. And the stock market tanked right as they retired, cutting their retirement nest egg by a third. They are not multimillionaires. I will likely inherit almost no money. They do have a decent piece of property, which, assuming they don't end up having to sell it to move into assisted living or something, will be worth about $1 million or so. They are not poor, but the idea that everyone who worked should be a multimillionaire is absurd.

Market has more than recovered from all past "tankings." Did they sell at the bottom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your parents were not very middle class if you will inherit $1million and so will your sister.

My parents are lower middle class. I may one day inherit a house worth $20k with a $120k mortgage on it.

https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/
The median net worth of someone aged 65-69 is $270k. At a net worth of $10k each, your parents are in the bottom 10% for this age group.

WOW. I didn't realize it would be that low. 270k is nothing to retire on. Yikes.

Most people depend on Social Security and Medicare. And that is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really surprised by this, the net worth of the top 10% is >1M so why not a 500k+ inheritance?

This. My parents were very middle class, and my sister I should inherit about $1m each.

Listen, folks. Just because YOUR middle class parents are/were terrible with their money (thus leaving you little to nothing) doesn’t mean that other older people who were responsible and saved/invested their money throughout their lives (thus leaving an inheritance for their children - even *gasp* one million dollars!!!) were “rich” - they saved their money, now they have money! Some of you should try it.

That being said, I am struggling to even get through that article. It is structured in such a bizarre, haphazard way that it reads almost like a stream of consciousness. I really miss editors.

My dad was a teacher and my mom a SAHM. I grew up solidly middle class. I will inherit probably $1 million. A lot of that money will come from the sale of my childhood home that my parents bought for $50,000 and is now worth $500,000 and my dad has been receiving a decent pension and healthcare for years. My parents spend very little money and have saved all of the SS money they have received. So yes, it is possible to grow up middle class and still inherit a lot of money.

Yes, for the children of baby boomers that were fortunate enough to own a home that had massive appreciation in value. My parents also have a home worth $1m, but if they need to go to assisted living then the house will have to be sold to pay for that.

For middle class people a lot of inheritance is driven by whether your parents owned a home in an area where property values have increased coupled with how much (if anything) your parents end up spending on long term care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.