Obama and his affordable housing "pals"

I think the point, wacky, is not how much energy it takes to insure a 1 mil. transaction, the point is that the value of that security is more than 55% of the principal over your lifetime. If your wealth is inert, it will decay. That's reality. The idea is to have an efficient transfer. Your support, by the way, results in hyper-efficient infrastructure, and allows you to unlock and access wealth that would otherwise be unavailable. The potential gain is way beyond 55% of your principle over your expected lifetime. The benefits go way beyond the cost. You can treat all that locked up wealth as a fungible asset and borrow against it.

pretending that the social contract is not a good deal for you is ungrateful hogwash, and I daresay it is whining. Perhaps I would feel different if i had more to lose, and it's looking like in the future, I will have more to lose. I only hope that I remember this moment and have the honor and patriotism to do my part without whining about how hard it is to pass a million dollars of excess onto my offspring. I'll try to keep Warren Buffett as a role model.

I'd be curious to know what you think about my point regarding perpetutities and why they are bad for the economy and our social fabric.

 

Fyrenza, I had to read that one post, just because I thought you might have a serious point to make on one of the few threads with an actual dialogue going.

That's right, I ain't spit. Not until i accomplish something with my life. I'm working on it. My grandfather fought the Nazis (WW II, btw), not me. He is the one who died with honor. Not me. I am alive and cowardly as ever.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Maybe my head is a little foggy, but I still do not understand how you are justifying a 55% tax. Where are you getting this information? Some links to read more detail would be sweet.

Have meetings all afternoon. I'll try to respond later this evening.

 

I'm telling you that 55% is a good deal, not that it would only cost you 55% of your principle to create your own piece of infrastructure that renders your assets fungible. The cost of doing that yourself would be astronomical. You would spend your whole life defending your turf, unless you had more assets than the king.

That's why even the highest earners never made much progress under feudalism. they were constantly forced to defend their turf and assets. All you have to do is pay 55% and you get a lifetime of protection.

Hopefully the fact that your children will pay that too will lead you to do something constructive with your principle, so that neither you nor your children become aristocrats.

It's how the american dream works. It's the reason we grew so fast. it's the reason your fathers had the opportunity to give you something. had they lived in an aristocracy they would not have had the opportunity. you should be proud of them, and you should follow in their footsteps. work hard. save. and pay your taxes. and teach your children to work for what they get.

I don't know what my father's assets are, to be honest. we were never allowed to know. maybe I will inherit a good chunk. they do seem to come up with cash when my brothers are in trouble. but they tried to raise us to believe in hard work, and that being comfortable is a double edged sword.

 

I don't buy it. We'll have to see what the lawyers say. What do you think about using bogus marriages as a way of passing wealth?

 

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

 

No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.[7] For the purposes of the rule, a life is "in being" at conception.

Intersting argument for the pro-death (abortion) advocates.

Still reading........

 

Rule against perpetuities sound likes rules that prevent people from trying to avoid bullshit inheritance taxes, in a nutshell. I don't think that succeeding generations should live on the property without actually owning it. I think there should be a fair inheritance tax and legal ownership should be transferred. I also think that there are too many lawyers in this world.

 

As far as states abolishing rules against perpetuities, I think that if the inheritance taxes were more reasonable, this would not be as big of an issue. Ultimately, I have no problem with wealth being transferred from generation to generation.

 

Republicans recently tried to establish an aristcracy by eliminating the inheritance tax altogether.

I know you disagree with the social elements i've laid out, but what about the economic ones? You understand the rule was instituted to prevent further concentration of wealth into smaller and smaller groups over time?

Aristocracy has a devastating effect on a society, and on an economy.

 

Hey wacky, I can't help but notice you are ignoring this in favor of threads that aren't forcing you to answer a serious question where your motives appear near sighted and questionable. I miss you buddy.

 

Honestly, I lost interest. I posted three times in a row. What was the question you did not get an answer to?

 

the long term effects aristocracy on the economy...

don't let me down! this is like, the first real conversation we've had. sure, it started as a smear fest, but it devolved into economics and society

 

Well obviously aristocracy and democracy do not work together, and I am not promoting aristocracy. I AM protesting raising the already high inheritance tax to 55%. I would suspect that a high inheritance tax has an adverse affect on revenue, as people are more likely to use loopholes to transfer assets. Don't have any statistics on this, but I know which solution I am going to choose.

 

the one that helps your bottom line?

me too.