Vox article on inheritance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all so dependent on the family situation.

Barring unforeseen massive medical expenses (which certainly could happen), my sister and I are set to inherit a couple million dollars each + a fully paid off apartment in a pre-war building in Manhattan. Clearly we are exceptionally privileged.

That said, I do think we both have worked hard. My sister is a college professor and I’m a public servant. I don’t think we’ve taken our privilege for granted.

My parents did not come from money. My dad grew up middle class on Long Island, but his parents didn’t give him a penny after he turned 14. He was told to just go out and figure out how to make money. He got his first job from a friend who worked at a movie theatre, who was willing to look the other way around the fact that my dad wasn’t 16 yet (things were different in the late 60s).

My mom grew up working class in Queens (my grandma was a waitress and my grandpa was a glass blower). My mom was first in her family to go to college. My dad’s dad did go to college, but wouldn’t pay for my dad to go, so my dad got a scholarship.

They went to a law school ranked around 100, but graduated on the law review and both got excellent jobs. My mom stopped working when my sister and I were little, and my dad has worked his butt off as a lawyer for the last 40 years. Yes, he’s made a lot of money doing it, but he worked really hard at a job he did not like, to provide for his family.

So are my sister and I privileged? For sure.

Was there a lot of hard work involved? Absolutely.

No one is disputing your hard work of you or your parents. We just think that estates should be taxed. In this country assets are taxed everytime they change hands. Why should estates be different?

[Anonymous]

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.

also this, except i've been paying that mortgage for the last decade...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

Well if we treated estates like other income there would be a step up. When I buy a stock, my basis is my purchase price not the purchase price of the seller. As I understand you, you want an inheritance to be treated as income to the heir. So the heir would pay income tax on the value when inherited, and if later sold would pay income tax on any increase in value from the time he inherited to the time he sold. Your proposal would probably be a net tax decrease for gigantic estates and would definitely be a tax increase for small estates.

Dead parents aren't selling their stock to their children. They are giving it. The basis of the stock is the purchase price. It doesn't make sense to step up the basis on death. It's a giveaway to heirs and heiresses. I think capital gains should be taxed the same for all. No capital gains tax breaks for heirs and heiresses.

Yep, I'm in favor of a flatter estate tax, even if that is a benefit to huge estates. I suspect most huge estates avoid most of these taxes anyway through careful planning. Only about 1000 estates reach the estate tax exemption each year. I would bet many, many more pass on millions under the threshold. If you have any data, please share.

Ok I’m confused about what you’re proposing then. You said you wanted to treat inheritance as income, but you also want a carryover basis, and you also want a flatter estate tax.

Yes, I want a flatter, more fair estate tax. One way to do that would be to treat inheritance as income. That would be a flatter tax than the current estate tax, which has an $11 million exemption.

Eliminating the step up in basis would also flatten estate taxes. And make them more fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baby boomers and the next generation have also completely laughed their way to the bank while leaving decaying infrastructure, large amounts of debt, voting for stupppppiddddd and costly wars, tax cuts galore, huge sprawling suburban messes. They wanted everything then and now and screw the future. Completely for oil subsidies but not subsidies for new technology to remove dependence on gas because god forbid their gas be more than $5 a gallon, which is funny considering that its low and middle income people who are most affected. You are right that the current generation of 20-40s is finished with their crap. We have climate change, infrastructure, wealth inequality to deal with why you argue about whether your kid gets 2 million or 1 million. We are a generation sandwiched by whiny needy entitled people who complain about everything that we want to do to leave our world a better place for our children. You know the generation of kids that will actually live with all of the offloading of responsibilities. And part of that goes to wanting to leave 2 million not 1 million to your kids because this is why you want to leave your kids that money. You know money will insulate them, for a time, as good paying jobs get more scarce, as college tuition increases and home values increase, etc.

Not sure what you are talking about, but aren't you the generation (currently 20-40) that are the children of Baby boomers who will inherit their wealth once they die? What are you complaining about?

Some may yes but we are the ones fighting for the change and older people (>50) are the ones fighting against it. So if we (20-40s) arent complaining then why are others resisting? Its also the gen before that, the silent generation. Id say its more 1920-1960 who benefited from huge increases in home values, fully funded pensions AND sometimes retirement plans for even the MOST basic occupations, huge increases in wages as well as reduced cost in goods as manufacturing increased, SS and Medicare got passed, enormous stock growth, employer-sponsored healthcare(which was actually FUNCTIONAL), unions (did you forget about those?) that pushed for dental and vision coverage.

Name 5 THINGS that have benefited the working class since the 1980s. Because all I know is that wages have grown but purchasing power is stagnant, there are few pensions, childcare costs are out the wahoo. Then add to that the birth rate is going down so how will we be funded in our SS/Medicare when there are less kids? Like how short-sighted are we going to continue to be? At some point there has to be a reckoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

If I recall correctly, a lot of farms were being lost due to the estate tax when it was lower. The land and crop alone was worth alone was worth than the then threshhold and the children of small farmers could not pay the estate tax. The limit was raised to address that issue

[Anonymous]

I think inheritances need more taxes. But we can't tax inheritance as income because that would put most people into the top bracket the year they inherit. I'd rather see something like this- you're in the 20% tax bracket based on your income. Your inheritance is thus taxed at 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baby boomers and the next generation have also completely laughed their way to the bank while leaving decaying infrastructure, large amounts of debt, voting for stupppppiddddd and costly wars, tax cuts galore, huge sprawling suburban messes. They wanted everything then and now and screw the future. Completely for oil subsidies but not subsidies for new technology to remove dependence on gas because god forbid their gas be more than $5 a gallon, which is funny considering that its low and middle income people who are most affected. You are right that the current generation of 20-40s is finished with their crap. We have climate change, infrastructure, wealth inequality to deal with why you argue about whether your kid gets 2 million or 1 million. We are a generation sandwiched by whiny needy entitled people who complain about everything that we want to do to leave our world a better place for our children. You know the generation of kids that will actually live with all of the offloading of responsibilities. And part of that goes to wanting to leave 2 million not 1 million to your kids because this is why you want to leave your kids that money. You know money will insulate them, for a time, as good paying jobs get more scarce, as college tuition increases and home values increase, etc.

Not sure what you are talking about, but aren't you the generation (currently 20-40) that are the children of Baby boomers who will inherit their wealth once they die? What are you complaining about?

Some may yes but we are the ones fighting for the change and older people (>50) are the ones fighting against it. So if we (20-40s) arent complaining then why are others resisting? Its also the gen before that, the silent generation. Id say its more 1920-1960 who benefited from huge increases in home values, fully funded pensions AND sometimes retirement plans for even the MOST basic occupations, huge increases in wages as well as reduced cost in goods as manufacturing increased, SS and Medicare got passed, enormous stock growth, employer-sponsored healthcare(which was actually FUNCTIONAL), unions (did you forget about those?) that pushed for dental and vision coverage.

Name 5 THINGS that have benefited the working class since the 1980s. Because all I know is that wages have grown but purchasing power is stagnant, there are few pensions, childcare costs are out the wahoo. Then add to that the birth rate is going down so how will we be funded in our SS/Medicare when there are less kids? Like how short-sighted are we going to continue to be? At some point there has to be a reckoning.

To play devi's advocate:
1. Globalization has led to really low prices on consumer goods. Clothes, electronics, food, toys, cars are all cheaper than they have ever been. (Yes this led to decreased wages for some.)
2. Obamacare. People have the freedom to be self-employed or take lower paying jobs and still get affordable health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Don't be dense. The federal exemption is $11.4m for 2020, and $11.7m for 2021. Combined with the stepped up basis, the exemption means that all but a tiny, tiny fraction of inheritances aren't taxed at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think inheritances need more taxes. But we can't tax inheritance as income because that would put most people into the top bracket the year they inherit. I'd rather see something like this- you're in the 20% tax bracket based on your income. Your inheritance is thus taxed at 20%.

Then people could just quit their jobs when they inherit and pay no taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Don't be dense. The federal exemption is $11.4m for 2020, and $11.7m for 2021. Combined with the stepped up basis, the exemption means that all but a tiny, tiny fraction of inheritances aren't taxed at all.

+1. It's pretty wild to watch people who complain about poor people not paying enough taxes argue for massive tax exemptions for the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baby boomers and the next generation have also completely laughed their way to the bank while leaving decaying infrastructure, large amounts of debt, voting for stupppppiddddd and costly wars, tax cuts galore, huge sprawling suburban messes. They wanted everything then and now and screw the future. Completely for oil subsidies but not subsidies for new technology to remove dependence on gas because god forbid their gas be more than $5 a gallon, which is funny considering that its low and middle income people who are most affected. You are right that the current generation of 20-40s is finished with their crap. We have climate change, infrastructure, wealth inequality to deal with why you argue about whether your kid gets 2 million or 1 million. We are a generation sandwiched by whiny needy entitled people who complain about everything that we want to do to leave our world a better place for our children. You know the generation of kids that will actually live with all of the offloading of responsibilities. And part of that goes to wanting to leave 2 million not 1 million to your kids because this is why you want to leave your kids that money. You know money will insulate them, for a time, as good paying jobs get more scarce, as college tuition increases and home values increase, etc.

Not sure what you are talking about, but aren't you the generation (currently 20-40) that are the children of Baby boomers who will inherit their wealth once they die? What are you complaining about?

Some may yes but we are the ones fighting for the change and older people (>50) are the ones fighting against it. So if we (20-40s) arent complaining then why are others resisting? Its also the gen before that, the silent generation. Id say its more 1920-1960 who benefited from huge increases in home values, fully funded pensions AND sometimes retirement plans for even the MOST basic occupations, huge increases in wages as well as reduced cost in goods as manufacturing increased, SS and Medicare got passed, enormous stock growth, employer-sponsored healthcare(which was actually FUNCTIONAL), unions (did you forget about those?) that pushed for dental and vision coverage.

Name 5 THINGS that have benefited the working class since the 1980s. Because all I know is that wages have grown but purchasing power is stagnant, there are few pensions, childcare costs are out the wahoo. Then add to that the birth rate is going down so how will we be funded in our SS/Medicare when there are less kids? Like how short-sighted are we going to continue to be? At some point there has to be a reckoning.

The new kids crossing the border will work to pay your SS/Medicare. BTW, childcare costs are not out the wahoo. The people who are working providing your children with childcare while you work somewhere else deserve a decent wage. Before the proliferation of daycare, young children were watched by family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all so dependent on the family situation.

Barring unforeseen massive medical expenses (which certainly could happen), my sister and I are set to inherit a couple million dollars each + a fully paid off apartment in a pre-war building in Manhattan. Clearly we are exceptionally privileged.

That said, I do think we both have worked hard. My sister is a college professor and I’m a public servant. I don’t think we’ve taken our privilege for granted.

My parents did not come from money. My dad grew up middle class on Long Island, but his parents didn’t give him a penny after he turned 14. He was told to just go out and figure out how to make money. He got his first job from a friend who worked at a movie theatre, who was willing to look the other way around the fact that my dad wasn’t 16 yet (things were different in the late 60s).

My mom grew up working class in Queens (my grandma was a waitress and my grandpa was a glass blower). My mom was first in her family to go to college. My dad’s dad did go to college, but wouldn’t pay for my dad to go, so my dad got a scholarship.

They went to a law school ranked around 100, but graduated on the law review and both got excellent jobs. My mom stopped working when my sister and I were little, and my dad has worked his butt off as a lawyer for the last 40 years. Yes, he’s made a lot of money doing it, but he worked really hard at a job he did not like, to provide for his family.

So are my sister and I privileged? For sure.

Was there a lot of hard work involved? Absolutely.

No one is disputing your hard work of you or your parents. We just think that estates should be taxed. In this country assets are taxed everytime they change hands. Why should estates be different?

If my parents have already paid taxes on all of that money as they earned it, why should that money be taxed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baby boomers and the next generation have also completely laughed their way to the bank while leaving decaying infrastructure, large amounts of debt, voting for stupppppiddddd and costly wars, tax cuts galore, huge sprawling suburban messes. They wanted everything then and now and screw the future. Completely for oil subsidies but not subsidies for new technology to remove dependence on gas because god forbid their gas be more than $5 a gallon, which is funny considering that its low and middle income people who are most affected. You are right that the current generation of 20-40s is finished with their crap. We have climate change, infrastructure, wealth inequality to deal with why you argue about whether your kid gets 2 million or 1 million. We are a generation sandwiched by whiny needy entitled people who complain about everything that we want to do to leave our world a better place for our children. You know the generation of kids that will actually live with all of the offloading of responsibilities. And part of that goes to wanting to leave 2 million not 1 million to your kids because this is why you want to leave your kids that money. You know money will insulate them, for a time, as good paying jobs get more scarce, as college tuition increases and home values increase, etc.

Not sure what you are talking about, but aren't you the generation (currently 20-40) that are the children of Baby boomers who will inherit their wealth once they die? What are you complaining about?

Some may yes but we are the ones fighting for the change and older people (>50) are the ones fighting against it. So if we (20-40s) arent complaining then why are others resisting? Its also the gen before that, the silent generation. Id say its more 1920-1960 who benefited from huge increases in home values, fully funded pensions AND sometimes retirement plans for even the MOST basic occupations, huge increases in wages as well as reduced cost in goods as manufacturing increased, SS and Medicare got passed, enormous stock growth, employer-sponsored healthcare(which was actually FUNCTIONAL), unions (did you forget about those?) that pushed for dental and vision coverage.

Name 5 THINGS that have benefited the working class since the 1980s. Because all I know is that wages have grown but purchasing power is stagnant, there are few pensions, childcare costs are out the wahoo. Then add to that the birth rate is going down so how will we be funded in our SS/Medicare when there are less kids? Like how short-sighted are we going to continue to be? At some point there has to be a reckoning.

The new kids crossing the border will work to pay your SS/Medicare. BTW, childcare costs are not out the wahoo. The people who are working providing your children with childcare while you work somewhere else deserve a decent wage. Before the proliferation of daycare, young children were watched by family members.

NP. You mean before women started entering the workforce in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think inheritances need more taxes. But we can't tax inheritance as income because that would put most people into the top bracket the year they inherit. I'd rather see something like this- you're in the 20% tax bracket based on your income. Your inheritance is thus taxed at 20%.

Then people could just quit their jobs when they inherit and pay no taxes.

Then you get taxed based on the highest rate you had while working.

[Anonymous]

The working class and middle class who invested their money over the 30+ years should have the money unless some kind of emergency wiped it out. The working and middle class who stayed away from the market (like my parents would have), probably don't have the money. It didn't take a lot of money invested to make it. It's the 30+ years that helped the money grow.
My parents grew up in SU and don't know anything about markets. They are quite frugal and always had some savings. They never really had a chance to buy anything that would go up in value. They refused to buy a house and continued to live in apartment. The houses ofcourse did go up at some point, but it's the next generation that will get the money from the houses.
I think the question is, why didn't your parents invest in the markets? Ask them. I know what mine said. I don't want my children to ask why I didn't. Specially now that I can invest from my phone with literally no fees. My kids won't see the money any time soon, maybe in their 40s.
There we so many opportunities to in vest in the last 20,10, 5 and even the last year, but people don't. You can shout from the rooftops all you want, some people simply won't. Long term investing pays off, simple as that.