Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Occupy Wall Street!


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 2,124 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
InVinoVeritas wrote:
Caineach wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:

By the way, how rich are the rich 1%? How are they defined?

My friend found this cnn link that defines the top 1% of household income at ~340K anually.
So the rich are defined by income, and not by, say, accumulated wealth? Does this measure influence?

That is why I said that is how CNN is chosing to define rich. I do not like that measurement, because it does not consider how much of the income is disposable. For instance, Doctors made up a significant portion of the list, but a significant portion of their income is dedicated to insurance and they (and lawyers) have significant student loans. Wealth <> income, but there is a very significant correlation.

Shadow Lodge

That's something I'm curious about. Are we talking about a difference between the working rich and the investing rich?


As I suggested, I think it's the investing rich that are the problem. And CEOs of some of the big companies, but they're closer to investing rich than to working rich, since much of their income usually comes from bonuses based on short term company performance.

There really aren't a lot of working rich. As I said above, I'm a lot more worried about the 0.1% than the 1%, but that's not as good a sound bite.

Edit: It should be clear from the "Wall Street" focus of the movement, that they're more concerned with the "investment rich" than the "working rich".

As for doctors, doesn't malpractice insurance count as a deductible business expense? If so, it isn't really personal income, anymore than the salaries of the nurses and rent of the building are the doctor's personal income.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Or, don't. It came up in another thread, and merits a thoughtful, informed discussion.

IMO, this is not an astroturf movement (unions are starting to get involved only now) like the Teaparty demonstrations, but a genuine organic movement; a reaction to the overreaching of entrenched power and the rigged game they've created. The police reactions to these demonstrations as opposed to the astroturfed ones gives further weight to my assertion, not less.

Occupy Wall Street has some demands. They're not entirely finalized, and your input is invited, should you wish to comment or vote.

This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".

As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)


Ilya Varison wrote:


This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".

As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)

Evidence for "created by big groups and financiers", please?

Neither of those 2 demands (maximum or minimum wage) are given on the site linked in the OP. It's quite possible that either or both have been proposed, but neither appear to be anything like official demands.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ilya Varison wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Or, don't. It came up in another thread, and merits a thoughtful, informed discussion.

IMO, this is not an astroturf movement (unions are starting to get involved only now) like the Teaparty demonstrations, but a genuine organic movement; a reaction to the overreaching of entrenched power and the rigged game they've created. The police reactions to these demonstrations as opposed to the astroturfed ones gives further weight to my assertion, not less.

Occupy Wall Street has some demands. They're not entirely finalized, and your input is invited, should you wish to comment or vote.

This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".

As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)

This is so amasingly ill-informed I don't even know where to begin...


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
This is so amasingly ill-informed I don't even know where to begin...

Well, given how coherent this movement has been, it's tough to nail down demands when the ones that have been cited/posted are then denied/refuted by others within the same movement...

That said, I'd suggest "amazingly" as a good beginning point. ;)


Ilya Varison wrote:


This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".

As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)

I, too, would love to see your sources.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
i still think there is a limit of people running based on party.

And if we had to give equal time to..

The Abe Lincoln party
Democrats
The Marihuana Reform party
The Party for Marihuana Reform
The Judian Peoples front
The Peoples front of Judea
Republicans

Sure,, why not? Sometimes people with unusual messages go away when you give them a forum -launched by their own petard in a sense. Not that I want them to just up and leave, min, i just want to have the opportunity to give them a proper listen and dismiss them after having heard all the facts.

There are certainly ways to make it work. For example, to be considered a candidate in a presidential campaign and get equal air time for your campaign, perhaps you need to collect 50,000 signatures in each of 15 states. For a senate run, perhaps you need to collect signatures equal to 2% of the number of registered voters in the state. Thresholds can be set to prevent the extremes that would harm the democratic process (i.e. so high only one candidate can meet it, or so low the ballot has hundreds or thousands of names on it). With criteria like that, you wouldn't have to have a major established party to be competitive, and I think that could only be a good thing.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
As I suggested, I think it's the investing rich that are the problem. And CEOs of some of the big companies, but they're closer to investing rich than to working rich, since much of their income usually comes from bonuses based on short term company performance.

Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?

thejeff wrote:

There really aren't a lot of working rich. As I said above, I'm a lot more worried about the 0.1% than the 1%, but that's not as good a sound bite.

Edit: It should be clear from the "Wall Street" focus of the movement, that they're more concerned with the "investment rich" than the "working rich".

What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.

Shadow Lodge

What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway?

One adds something to society while the other moves money from point A and puts slightly less money at point B.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Becasue it's everyone's business what one does with one's money.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Becasue it's everyone's business what one does with one's money.

Everyone's business? Nope. But certainly it is the IRS's business. We've had a tax code that differentiates between capital gains and income for decades.

...unless we're going to go down the "all taxation is theft/invasion of privacy" road -- in which case, I'll just get off the bus right here...

*looks for pull-cord.*


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
thejeff wrote:
As I suggested, I think it's the investing rich that are the problem. And CEOs of some of the big companies, but they're closer to investing rich than to working rich, since much of their income usually comes from bonuses based on short term company performance.

Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?

Investment may be a bad term, but it's better than working. The short term nature and the huge potential returns encourage only short-term thinking, with no concern for the long run. If I can make millions in bonuses by boosting the stock price this quarter, who cares if it's bad for the company, I'll be gone, with a few more million in my golden parachute before it crashes.

QUOTE="Aubrey the Malformed"]

thejeff wrote:

There really aren't a lot of working rich. As I said above, I'm a lot more worried about the 0.1% than the 1%, but that's not as good a sound bite.

Edit: It should be clear from the "Wall Street" focus of the movement, that they're more concerned with the "investment rich" than the "working rich".

What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.

"Investment" these days isn't like it used to be. It's not providing capital to start or grow a business, that's too risky, too slow and not profitable enough. It's gambling. Putting bets on the economy. Generally on short term movements in the markets. The real money these days is in high-frequency trading. Skimming tiny percentages off of high volumes of trades. The kind where you need your computers closer to the "trading floor" so the network lag time is less.

But anyone who's rich, even those who are still working, are likely also heavily invested in the market. What else are they going to do with their money, put it in a big vat like Uncle Scrooge?

I'd start calling you "investment rich" if half your income is coming from "investments".
Mind, as I said above, I'm really concerned with the top ~0.1%, not doctors, lawyers and others making good money.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Income vs. capital gains...seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps we're over-complicating matters?


When I, at least, talk about the 1%, I am talking about the 1% of americans who are sitting at the top of the distribution of this nation's aggregate wealth. The top 1% of net worth, not the top 1% of income.

Quote:
What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway?

Read The Great Gatsby. Old money vs. new money. IE: family money vs. income.

People who are truly wealthy don't work.

EDIT: and yes capital gains vs. income.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hudax wrote:
People who are truly wealthy don't work.

Right...they're "job creators." ;-)

Although I think many people working in the investment industry (who often accumulate vast sums using other people's money, irrespective of whether their clients prosper) are a large part of the problem. It isn't that they're "bad" people -- it's that the incentives are all wrong. Everything is about the next quarter's (or the next months, or the next DAY's) return. Get rich and GET OUT before the house of cards comes down...


bugleyman wrote:
Hudax wrote:
People who are truly wealthy don't work.
Right...they're "job creators." ;-)

Lol :)

Quote:
Although I think many people working in the investment industry (who often accumulate vast sums using other people's money, irrespective of whether their clients prosper) are a large part of the problem. It isn't that they're "bad" people -- it's that the incentives are all wrong. Everything is about the next quarter's (or the next months, or the next DAY's) return. Get rich and GET OUT before the house of cards comes down...

I'm not sure if I would call that work or not. I think it's a game to them. I'm not sure if I'd agree they're not bad people either. Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call them true neutral?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hudax wrote:
I'm not sure if I'd agree they're not bad people either. Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call them true neutral?

Let me rephrase...I should have said that they're not necessarily bad. :)


Net worth vs. income. Hm...


Freehold DM wrote:
Net worth vs. income. Hm...

Does the distinction really matter much? It's not like there isn't a lot of overlap between the 2 populations.

Especially if you consider the very elite. The 0.1% or less that are the real problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Net worth vs. income. Hm...

The implication being net worth is built by carefully saving income?

Unfortunately, that very often isn't so, especially in the case of the very rich. Just look at some of the toys:

* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.
* IPOs -- many, many people get rich off selling shares of a company that never makes a dime -- that is, a company that destroys wealth. I've never seen anyone even *try* to explain how that is good for the economy...
* For those that do work, deriving the vast majority of compensation from stock, which when sold is a capital gain.
* Commissions (make big money off trades, even if the investor later loses his shorts). See: Mortgage-backed securities.
* Cronyism
* Lobbying

The idea that everyone plays by the same rules is a nice story -- but that's exactly what it is: A story. :(


I would be interested in seeing the average hours spent doing their "job" for some of these "elite" investment brokers and such. I mean if quite a few of them are are putting in 14 hour days, 6 days a week. Yeah, it might be a "game" to them, but I'd have a hard time suggesting that they weren't also working.

Now if they got up at noon, did some online trading for 4 hours, once every three days, and then spent the rest of the day playing video games and doing smack, then sure I can see how they wouldn't be considered working.

Cheliax

bugleyman wrote:
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.

Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.

Just sayin'.

I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.

I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.

You can't get rid of inheritance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DΗ wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.

Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.

Just sayin'.

I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.

I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.

You can't get rid of inheritance.

I agree that inheritance means that someone had to get wealthy at some point. Was it through hard work? Sometimes. Sometimes not. See above. :)

As for inheritance: I agree you can't get rid of it -- but you can sure tax it. Very progressively. As someone recently observed, nobody gets wealthy on their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DΗ wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.

Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.

Just sayin'.

The latter is the case more often than not. Where there is great wealth, there is great crime.

Quote:

I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.

When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.

The estate tax will never, ever be a real concern for you or the rest of us 99% (or 99.9% or whatever).

Quote:

I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.

You can't get rid of inheritance.

No you can't, nor does anyone want to. But you can tax the hell out of the billions some families leave their children. While you and I spend our lifetimes busting our butts to leave the kids a few hundred thousand dollars (if we're lucky), the Walton kids are each as rich as a small nation, just for being born.


bugleyman wrote:
As someone recently observed, nobody gets wealthy on their own.

Some commie, the way I heard it. :P

Cheliax

Hmm. Pretty true I suppose.

Sidenote~

I'm canadian. there is no tax on inheritance in my country.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DΗ wrote:

Hmm. Pretty true I suppose.

Sidenote~

I'm canadian. there is no tax on inheritance in my country.

Canadian? Well, this is all your fault then. ;-)

How is the weather up there? I visited Calgary once -- beautiful area.

Cheliax

bugleyman wrote:
DΗ wrote:

Hmm. Pretty true I suppose.

Sidenote~

I'm canadian. there is no tax on inheritance in my country.

Canadian? Well, this is all your fault then. ;-)

How is the weather up there? I visited Calgary once -- beautiful area.

I live in Ontario. lately (the past week or so) the weather is like 10 degrees and raining. It's pretty crap. That's in celcius btw. lol.

And from what I hear, calgary is a terrible place nowadays. big problem with drugs, and muggings, and violent crimes. They had to cut down the trees along the roads because people were hiding in them and jumping out to attack people as they walked by, and they started finding junkies who froze to death in the trees/bushes in the winter.

When I hear my dad talk about calgary from 15 years ago, it sounds like it was a beautiful city. Its a shame.


DΗ wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.

Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.

Just sayin'.

I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.

I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.

You can't get rid of inheritance.

In addition to the other comments, what do you mean by your kids starting out in a better position? Hopefully, they'll be well past starting out by the time they inherit. You get them started by raising them well, educating them well, maybe making sure they don't have $60K in student loans and maybe helping them get their first jobs, not by leaving them a huge chunk of money when you die and they're hopefully in their 50s or even 60s.

The estate tax is not, and has never been, about giving the kids a better start. It's about preserving and growing dynastic wealth and power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DΗ wrote:

And from what I hear, calgary is a terrible place nowadays. big problem with drugs, and muggings, and violent crimes. They had to cut down the trees along the roads because people were hiding in them and jumping out to attack people as they walked by, and they started finding junkies who froze to death in the trees/bushes in the winter.

When I hear my dad talk about calgary from 15 years ago, it sounds like it was a beautiful city. Its a shame.

That's horrible! Gah, you did more damage to my fond memories than George Lucas! ;-)

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

In addition to the other comments, what do you mean by your kids starting out in a better position? Hopefully, they'll be well past starting out by the time they inherit. You get them started by raising them well, educating them well, maybe making sure they don't have $60K in student loans and maybe helping them get their first jobs, not by leaving them a huge chunk of money when you die and they're hopefully in their 50s or even 60s.

The estate tax is not, and has never been, about giving the kids a better start. It's about preserving and growing dynastic wealth and power.

Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.

Okay. Grandkids then. lol.

If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?

I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.

Does it mean someone might get a free ride? Yeah. that can happen.

But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

Just another POV. I'm against taxing inheritance, even if it means some people are getting a free ride because of something their great-great-great grandfather did.

And in most of the other ways, I agree wwith the concept of OWS. Some people made some retarded decisions, and should be held accountable. Likewise, the legislation that protects people doing those illegal or stupid things by making corporations count as people? I'm against that.

I didnt have any problems with the other arguments. Just the complaint about inheritance.


DΗ wrote:


If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?

I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.

Does it mean someone might get a free ride? Yeah. that can happen.

But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

Suppose you hire somebody to do something and pay them a chunk of your money to do it. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

What makes it any different?

To the kids, it's income. If it was taxed as income, far more people would be affected by it than under any recent US estate tax laws. Though it would be less at the highest end.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

Suppose you hire somebody to do something and pay them a chunk of your money to do it. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

What makes it any different?

To the kids, it's income. If it was taxed as income, far more people would be affected by it than under any recent US estate tax laws. Though it would be less at the highest end.

Hmm.

Well in canada you dont pay an inheritance tax on cash, but for things like stocks and such(anything canada doesnt let you transfer), I believe they're sold, and taxed as income before they go toward inheritance.

For things that are directly transferrable that are not cash? I'm not sure how that works here.

Though I suppose to the kids, its income.

What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.

Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DΗ wrote:
But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

Actually, the government does say it has a right to that. It counts as "income" for the person receiving it. I guess the concern might be that you could give me a diamond ring as a "gift" and I could give you $5,000 as a "present" and we wouldn't have to pay tax because you didn't sell me the ring.

Honestly though, there are most likely ways around it that I'm sure wealthy people know how (I don't since I'm not wealthy). Things like setting up a corporation or something having the money in that and having the people that are going to inherit be on the "board" or some such. Like I said, I don't know, but I'm sure there is ways. Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.


DΗ wrote:


What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.

Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?

I think there are exceptions for couples, largely because they tend to hold things in common. If her name is already on the account, it's not an inheritance, it's not even income.


pres man wrote:
Honestly though, there are most likely ways around it that I'm sure wealthy people know how (I don't since I'm not wealthy). Things like setting up a corporation or something having the money in that and having the people that are going to inherit be on the "board" or some such. Like I said, I don't know, but I'm sure there is ways. Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.

Family farms and small businesses are the standard line the rich use to argue against the estate tax. It's very hard to find actual examples where the promised dire consequences actually happen though.

The rich may be able to get around a lot of the tax, but that generally involves tying the money up in various ways. Trust funds and the like. They'd really rather not do that. Having the money more readily available is important.

And make no mistake, it's a handful of the richest families in America behind the attack on estate taxes.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
DΗ wrote:


What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.

Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?

I think there are exceptions for couples, largely because they tend to hold things in common. If her name is already on the account, it's not an inheritance, it's not even income.

True, but lots of couples have some shared accounts, and some individual accounts.

Anyways guys I'm off to work. It's been interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pres man wrote:
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.

Even if that is true, it seems to me that an exception (say the first few million in 2011 dollars) would solve the problem.

In any case, no one said the point was to "harm the super rich." You seem to have come up with that.

Taldor

DΗ wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Suppose you hire somebody to do something and pay them a chunk of your money to do it. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.

What makes it any different?

To the kids, it's income. If it was taxed as income, far more people would be affected by it than under any recent US estate tax laws. Though it would be less at the highest end.

Hmm.

Well in canada you dont pay an inheritance tax on cash, but for things like stocks and such(anything canada doesnt let you transfer), I believe they're sold, and taxed as income before they go toward inheritance.

For things that are directly transferrable that are not cash? I'm not sure how that works here.

Though I suppose to the kids, its income.

What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.

Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?

There is no tax on inheritances (although the provinces have a very modest probate fee) - what you are thinking about here is called the "terminal tax return".

Effectively on death you are deemed to have sold all your capital property for its fair market value - if this triggers a capital taxable gain, then the estate has to pay it. (Capital gains are taxed at 1/2 the rate of income).

Avoiding this terminal year is trivial (by design) You can transfer just about everything to your spouse without tax.

Basically this set up allows you to look after your spouse when you die, and ensures that any gain on the capital property will be taxed at some point (capital being taxed only on sale, not on an accrual basis like income).

Farms and fishing property given to children are also tax exempt. There is also a massive small business capital gains exemption you can use.

Taldor

bugleyman wrote:
pres man wrote:
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.

Even if that is true, it seems to me that an exception (say the first few million in 2011 dollars) would solve the problem.

In any case, no one said the point was to "harm the super rich." You seem to have come up with that.

Avoiding taxing small business and farms is pretty trivial. We've been doing it since '72 up here, and I imagine you folks have been too.

Not sure where I stand on inheritance taxes. Haven't spent much time thinking about it.


pres man wrote:
DΗ wrote:
But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.
Actually, the government does say it has a right to that. It counts as "income" for the person receiving it. I guess the concern might be that you could give me a diamond ring as a "gift" and I could give you $5,000 as a "present" and we wouldn't have to pay tax because you didn't sell me the ring.

In the US anyway you're taxed on gifts received above a certain amount.

Like it has been said, inheretence was at one point tax free-a transferrance of accumulated wealth. Shouldn't it be taxed as income for the recipient? Perhaps not, because the rate would be high, and inheretence/death tax rates are lower than income taxes.


DΗ wrote:

Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.

Okay. Grandkids then. lol.

If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?

I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.

Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.


pres man wrote:
DΗ wrote:
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.

This. If you look into the matter, you will see that some of the biggest proponents of huge inheritance taxes are "big farming" corporations, who stand to make a sizable profit when the original owners of these small farms who haven't yet sold out to them die, and their progeny are forced to sell off the land in a hurry in order to pay the inheritance taxes.


Moro wrote:
pres man wrote:
DΗ wrote:
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.
This. If you look into the matter, you will see that some of the biggest proponents of huge inheritance taxes are "big farming" corporations, who stand to make a sizable profit when the original owners of these small farms who haven't yet sold out to them die, and their progeny are forced to sell off the land in a hurry in order to pay the inheritance taxes.

Interesting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Moro wrote:
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.

Clearly this is the only possibility.

*sigh*


Freehold DM wrote:
Moro wrote:
pres man wrote:
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.
This. If you look into the matter, you will see that some of the biggest proponents of huge inheritance taxes are "big farming" corporations, who stand to make a sizable profit when the original owners of these small farms who haven't yet sold out to them die, and their progeny are forced to sell off the land in a hurry in order to pay the inheritance taxes.
Interesting.

No. Not interesting. Propaganda.

This isn't epidemic. It probably doesn't happen at all, certainly not enough to make a difference.
From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

CBPP wrote:
Opponents of the estate tax have not been able to produce a single case in which a family farm had to be sold to pay the tax. In 2001, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes, and this was before the estate tax exemption level was more than tripled and the top rate was reduced.

If there can be shown to be an issue with small farms and/or businesses, the proper fix would be a larger exemption for that specific purpose, not repeal of the tax entirely.

The biggest proponents are those few families who currently possess great wealth and foundations and think tanks funded they fund.


Good news, some banks are getting what's coming to them. Now we just need to get the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.

10-20% of Americans are just sitting at home, stoically refusing to work, because they're jealous of rich children.

-OR-

Propoganda inflates and obfuscates an issue that means nothing whatsoever to almost anyone to such a large degree that nearly everyone in its target audience imagines they are somehow affected by it.

601 to 650 of 2,124 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Occupy Wall Street! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.