Vox article on inheritance

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Why on earth would you keep paying a mortgage of $120k on a house worth $20k???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your parents will pay taxes on all their capital gains before you inherit stocks? Why should you get a stepped up basis? Can I step up the basis on my investments to avoid paying capital gains taxes? No.

When money changes hands, it is taxed. That's how taxes work. When I pay my kids daycare, that money is taxed. Even though I already paid taxes on it. And my employer paid taxes on it before they paid me.

[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.

You grew up middle class but your parents are not middle class now. They are upper class in terms of the money they saved. It's not a criticism it's a descriptor that is accurate.

[Anonymous]

How is it fair to heavily tax an estate but not life insurance proceeds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it fair to heavily tax an estate but not life insurance proceeds?

I'm open to taxing life insurance appropriately. But as it stands now, most life insurance pay outs are WELL below the $11 million dollar estate tax exemption. There is no point in taxing life insurance without changing the estate tax exemption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand this sentiment. Black women have always been in the workforce. Poor women of all the other races, including white, have also been in the workforce. The women left their children with their mothers, aunts, and neighbors pre-kindergarten. White middle-class women joined the other women in the workforce in the 60's and 70's. Daycare centers expanded when white, middle-class women joined the workforce. The women working in those daycare centers require reasonable payment. It is a supply and demand problem and that's why the care is expensive according to the PPP.

[Anonymous]

So just to be clear, specifically what estate tax are we proposing here?

Bernie has the most extreme proposal out that’s out there at the moment — 45% on estates between $3.5M and $10M and 77% for anything above $1 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/the-estate-tax

Now, you may say that $3.5M is unequivocally a rich person’s estate (and on many metrics, it is), but it isn’t hard to imagine a lot of people in this area hitting that. If someone has a fully paid off home, and has invested relatively well over a 30-year career, it isn’t at all hard to imagine all of that coming out to at least $3.5M.

So people need to be ok with their kids paying 45% in taxes off of the sale proceeds from a home they inherited + any investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand this sentiment. Black women have always been in the workforce. Poor women of all the other races, including white, have also been in the workforce. The women left their children with their mothers, aunts, and neighbors pre-kindergarten. White middle-class women joined the other women in the workforce in the 60's and 70's. Daycare centers expanded when white, middle-class women joined the workforce. The women working in those daycare centers require reasonable payment. It is a supply and demand problem and that's why the care is expensive according to the PPP.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand this sentiment. Black women have always been in the workforce. Poor women of all the other races, including white, have also been in the workforce. The women left their children with their mothers, aunts, and neighbors pre-kindergarten. White middle-class women joined the other women in the workforce in the 60's and 70's. Daycare centers expanded when white, middle-class women joined the workforce. The women working in those daycare centers require reasonable payment. It is a supply and demand problem and that's why the care is expensive according to the PPP.

Yes, I’m well aware of that. Perhaps I should’ve been more specific.

[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.

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.) I addressed this. Wages increased but purchasing power is stagnant even with consumer goods decreasing. Globalization mostly benefit the wealthy and corporations mostly because with increased access to multiple markets and increased wealth they can manipulate legislation in their favor.
2. Obamacare. People have the freedom to be self-employed or take lower paying jobs and still get affordable health insurance.

[b]The ACA was a response to healthcare cost inflation. It was passed but was a half measure because single payer health care, which has been attempted since Nixon, seems to be the antichrist for Republicans. Id also bring up the point that companies are not required to pay out the healthcare benefit if you dont use it. For example, a married couple works for two organizations. They choose a family plan from person A. Person B would be offered 70% of their plan if they enroll in healthcare. Person B should be paid that 70% since it is a part of the compensation package. Employees (with the exception of fed government) also get no say in what coverage is selected, what insurance is used, etc. Thats not effective and the cost saving is almost entirely on business since they get to write it off. Id much rather have universal health care coverage for all and have the portion of health coverage "compensation" be income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If they were keeping the money, it wouldn't be. But they aren't - it's being transferred to you. You are not the same as your parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just to be clear, specifically what estate tax are we proposing here?

Bernie has the most extreme proposal out that’s out there at the moment — 45% on estates between $3.5M and $10M and 77% for anything above $1 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/the-estate-tax

Now, you may say that $3.5M is unequivocally a rich person’s estate (and on many metrics, it is), but it isn’t hard to imagine a lot of people in this area hitting that. If someone has a fully paid off home, and has invested relatively well over a 30-year career, it isn’t at all hard to imagine all of that coming out to at least $3.5M.

So people need to be ok with their kids paying 45% in taxes off of the sale proceeds from a home they inherited + any investments.

I’m trying to figure out what they want too. The current estate tax exempts everyone except the very rich. I thought that’s what liberals wanted. Progressive taxation that hits the very rich the hardest. But I seem to be hearing a lot of complaints that the estate tax doesn’t hit people who inherit small estates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to be clear, specifically what estate tax are we proposing here?

Bernie has the most extreme proposal out that’s out there at the moment — 45% on estates between $3.5M and $10M and 77% for anything above $1 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/the-estate-tax

Now, you may say that $3.5M is unequivocally a rich person’s estate (and on many metrics, it is), but it isn’t hard to imagine a lot of people in this area hitting that. If someone has a fully paid off home, and has invested relatively well over a 30-year career, it isn’t at all hard to imagine all of that coming out to at least $3.5M.

So people need to be ok with their kids paying 45% in taxes off of the sale proceeds from a home they inherited + any investments.

I’m trying to figure out what they want too. The current estate tax exempts everyone except the very rich. I thought that’s what liberals wanted. Progressive taxation that hits the very rich the hardest. But I seem to be hearing a lot of complaints that the estate tax doesn’t hit people who inherit small estates.

I'm a conservative who wants to see the estate tax changed. I don't want to tax the rich into oblivion. But I think that the step up in basis on capital gains PLUS an $11 million estate tax exemption is too little taxation. I would be in favor of something like this:

1. Eliminating step up in basis, reduce estate tax exemption to $3 million dollars AND lower the estate tax rate to 30-35%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand this sentiment. Black women have always been in the workforce. Poor women of all the other races, including white, have also been in the workforce. The women left their children with their mothers, aunts, and neighbors pre-kindergarten. White middle-class women joined the other women in the workforce in the 60's and 70's. Daycare centers expanded when white, middle-class women joined the workforce. The women working in those daycare centers require reasonable payment. It is a supply and demand problem and that's why the care is expensive according to the PPP.

You could do that before because those women WERENT in the workforce. I cant think of any of the families we know that have a family member available for child care. Either the parents are working or ill/retired.
Again see my point about purchase power stagnation. Childcare cost is prohibitive to employment for some families. And childcare costs are quite expensive considering in 28 US states and DC the cost of a year childcare is more expensive than a year at a 4 year public university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just to be clear, specifically what estate tax are we proposing here?

Bernie has the most extreme proposal out that’s out there at the moment — 45% on estates between $3.5M and $10M and 77% for anything above $1 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/the-estate-tax

Now, you may say that $3.5M is unequivocally a rich person’s estate (and on many metrics, it is), but it isn’t hard to imagine a lot of people in this area hitting that. If someone has a fully paid off home, and has invested relatively well over a 30-year career, it isn’t at all hard to imagine all of that coming out to at least $3.5M.

So people need to be ok with their kids paying 45% in taxes off of the sale proceeds from a home they inherited + any investments.

We have a net worth over 4 mil at age 40 and we’re continuing to work into our sixties so it stands to reason we will have more by the time we die, assuming we live til an old age.

I’m cool with this.