The Giving Pledge

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I'll be completely honest - I've never understood why, upon death, the default liberal answer is that wealth should be given to the government.  It's not the government's money.  It's your money.  Shouldn't you get to dictate where it goes?  Why does the government get it?  You should be able to give it to your family and friends and they should be able to benefit from your generosity without punitive taxation.

I get that you're jealous/angry that you're not as rich as some rando Walton kid, but don't you at least like your own family/friends enough to not want to see your life's wealth squandered by the government???

I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

I doubt that.

I'm not a big "things" guy. I value the freedom and security that money brings, not the money, itself. I value not worrying about an unexpected repair bill. I value being able to give generously to my favorite charities. I value not having to worry about the price of gas or groceries. I value being able to take friends to dinner or a ball game and not worry about it.

And yes, I want to leave a legacy. I want to be able to provide for family and friends. I want to leave an impactful amount to charities of my choosing. It's an interesting question of "rights" once your dead. I guess I never considered it from that perspective. Yes, of course I have the appropriate legal structures setup that, upon my untimely demise, should distribute my remaining few nickels to my discretion. And if I could time it perfectly and spend my last dime on my last breath, that would be ideal, but of course, that can be tricky.

I guess this all to say that I'm surprised more people don't share these sentiments? I would have thought especially for people with kids of their own, that this would be a higher priority? I would have thought your own flesh and blood would take a higher priority than some ambiguous "greater good?" Wouldn't you prefer your grandkid get money for a house down payment as opposed to filling pot holes or sending weapons to the middle east? Am I really this far out of touch on this topic?

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

I doubt that.  

I'm not a big "things" guy.  I value the freedom and security that money brings, not the money, itself.  I value not worrying about an unexpected repair bill.  I value being able to give generously to my favorite charities.  I value not having to worry about the price of gas or groceries.  I value being able to take friends to dinner or a ball game and not worry about it.

And yes, I want to leave a legacy.  I want to be able to provide for family and friends.  I want to leave an impactful amount to charities of my choosing.  It's an interesting question of "rights" once your dead.  I guess I never considered it from that perspective.  Yes, of course I have the appropriate legal structures setup that, upon my untimely demise, should distribute my remaining few nickels to my discretion.  And if I could time it perfectly and spend my last dime on my last breath, that would be ideal, but of course, that can be tricky.  

I guess this all to say that I'm surprised more people don't share these sentiments?  I would have thought especially for people with kids of their own, that this would be a higher priority?  I would have thought your own flesh and blood would take a higher priority than some ambiguous "greater good?"  Wouldn't you prefer your grandkid get money for a house down payment as opposed to filling pot holes or sending weapons to the middle east?  Am I really this far out of touch on this topic?

you're not 'out of touch' - we're all free to have our own opinions (For now.. until your christian hero is elected).

we don't need our daughter to inherit a ton of money and, frankly, she doesn't want it. She's building a life of her own with the privilege she was afforded, the same way we are. We raised her to be compassionate,  and gentle, to show empathy to those who aren't as fortunate as we are, as she is.

we don't need guns and bibles and boats and houses and fancy cars and country club memberships, etc. We need each other, our health, our happiness and a desire to build a world in which everyone has access to the very same privileges we have. Work to give a voice to the voiceless.

So if that money can help less fortunate, less privileged with the down payment on house, that will help build our communities and make us all better. Not just the privileged.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I suspect you value money and 'things' much more than I do.

not everyone is as wrapped up in financial wealth (or perceived financial wealth) or the 'I worked hard to get to where I am" trope as you seem to be, dude.

by your own "I worked hard to get to where I am" platitudes, isn't that in direct opposition to someone who just inherited the wealth that you value so much?

I doubt that.

I'm not a big "things" guy. I value the freedom and security that money brings, not the money, itself. I value not worrying about an unexpected repair bill. I value being able to give generously to my favorite charities. I value not having to worry about the price of gas or groceries. I value being able to take friends to dinner or a ball game and not worry about it.

And yes, I want to leave a legacy. I want to be able to provide for family and friends. I want to leave an impactful amount to charities of my choosing. It's an interesting question of "rights" once your dead. I guess I never considered it from that perspective. Yes, of course I have the appropriate legal structures setup that, upon my untimely demise, should distribute my remaining few nickels to my discretion. And if I could time it perfectly and spend my last dime on my last breath, that would be ideal, but of course, that can be tricky.

I guess this all to say that I'm surprised more people don't share these sentiments? I would have thought especially for people with kids of their own, that this would be a higher priority? I would have thought your own flesh and blood would take a higher priority than some ambiguous "greater good?" Wouldn't you prefer your grandkid get money for a house down payment as opposed to filling pot holes or sending weapons to the middle east? Am I really this far out of touch on this topic?

It's a complex topic in some ways.

How estates are handled is a matter of what federal and state laws allow. As for the rights of the creator of the estate, they have rights to set up the estate which (of course) cease when they die. After that the estate is a legal entity onto itself, though, I don't think it has "rights" like a person does, and the potential beneficiaries have certain rights with regard to the estate, established by law.

The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created. That is not a question in our reality.

However, if one wishes to open the question, hypnotically, then the question of the competing "goods" and how to address them with estate law could be discussed.

One counter point to the "give it all to whom the creator of the estate wants after the creator's death" is that in order for the orderly society with the laws which define how estates are handled do, Defacto, require that the creation and administration and maintenace of those laws by a government must be paid for and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

The point of is it better for society to force each member to earn their own way or is it better to create a handful of families like the Trumps, Clintons, Fords & others to have a portfolio as sort of a elite above some of the economic cares of the rest of the population is well beyond what 99% of the population's estate planning deals with.

Unless you are passing on enough money that your beneficiaries will never need to work again, unless they want to, your estate really isn't the one sociality should be concerned with. in terms of the point above.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I doubt that.  

I'm not a big "things" guy.  I value the freedom and security that money brings, not the money, itself.  I value not worrying about an unexpected repair bill.  I value being able to give generously to my favorite charities.  I value not having to worry about the price of gas or groceries.  I value being able to take friends to dinner or a ball game and not worry about it.

And yes, I want to leave a legacy.  I want to be able to provide for family and friends.  I want to leave an impactful amount to charities of my choosing.  It's an interesting question of "rights" once your dead.  I guess I never considered it from that perspective.  Yes, of course I have the appropriate legal structures setup that, upon my untimely demise, should distribute my remaining few nickels to my discretion.  And if I could time it perfectly and spend my last dime on my last breath, that would be ideal, but of course, that can be tricky.  

I guess this all to say that I'm surprised more people don't share these sentiments?  I would have thought especially for people with kids of their own, that this would be a higher priority?  I would have thought your own flesh and blood would take a higher priority than some ambiguous "greater good?"  Wouldn't you prefer your grandkid get money for a house down payment as opposed to filling pot holes or sending weapons to the middle east?  Am I really this far out of touch on this topic?

you're not 'out of touch' - we're all free to have our own opinions (For now.. until your christian hero is elected).

we don't need our daughter to inherit a ton of money and, frankly, she doesn't want it. She's building a life of her own with the privilege she was afforded, the same way we are. We raised her to be compassionate,  and gentle, to show empathy to those who aren't as fortunate as we are, as she is.

we don't need guns and bibles and boats and houses and fancy cars and country club memberships, etc. We need each other, our health, our happiness and a desire to build a world in which everyone has access to the very same privileges we have. Work to give a voice to the voiceless.

So if that money can help less fortunate, less privileged with the down payment on house, that will help build our communities and make us all better. Not just the privileged.

I understand your daughter saying she doesn't want your money. I used to tell my dad the same thing. "I don't need your money. I'm doing fine. Buy yourself a new car. Let mom re-do the kitchen. Go on a nice vacation." Fortunately - he mostly listened.

Are you worried that leaving your daughter a - let's just call it "significant" amount of money upon your death might somehow corrupt her? Change her values? I mean, you've already raised her. You sound quite proud of her. So I'm assuming she has good values now and should be able to handle an inheritance without going crazy? Why would you not want to provide for her (or her offspring) over total strangers? Or worse - see it squandered by the government?

I fully "get" that I don't value the mythical "greater good" as much as some here do. But do I really value your kids more than you do? (phrasing hyperbole - but you get the point)

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I doubt that.  

I'm not a big "things" guy.  I value the freedom and security that money brings, not the money, itself.  I value not worrying about an unexpected repair bill.  I value being able to give generously to my favorite charities.  I value not having to worry about the price of gas or groceries.  I value being able to take friends to dinner or a ball game and not worry about it.

And yes, I want to leave a legacy.  I want to be able to provide for family and friends.  I want to leave an impactful amount to charities of my choosing.  It's an interesting question of "rights" once your dead.  I guess I never considered it from that perspective.  Yes, of course I have the appropriate legal structures setup that, upon my untimely demise, should distribute my remaining few nickels to my discretion.  And if I could time it perfectly and spend my last dime on my last breath, that would be ideal, but of course, that can be tricky.  

I guess this all to say that I'm surprised more people don't share these sentiments?  I would have thought especially for people with kids of their own, that this would be a higher priority?  I would have thought your own flesh and blood would take a higher priority than some ambiguous "greater good?"  Wouldn't you prefer your grandkid get money for a house down payment as opposed to filling pot holes or sending weapons to the middle east?  Am I really this far out of touch on this topic?

It's a complex topic in some ways.

How estates are handled is a matter of what federal and state laws allow.  As for the rights of the creator of the estate, they have rights to set up the estate which (of course) cease when they die.  After that the estate is a legal entity onto itself, though, I don't think it has "rights" like a person does, and the potential beneficiaries have certain rights with regard to the estate, established by law.

The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created.  That is not a question in our reality.

However, if one wishes to open the question, hypnotically, then the question of the competing "goods" and how to address them with estate law could be discussed.

One counter point to the "give it all to whom the creator of the estate wants after the creator's death" is that in order for the orderly society with the laws which define how estates are handled do, Defacto, require that the creation and administration and maintenace of those laws by a government must be paid for and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

The point of is it better for society to force each member to earn their own way or is it better to create a handful of families like the Trumps, Clintons, Fords & others to have a portfolio as sort of a elite above some of the economic cares of the rest of the population is well beyond what 99% of the population's estate planning deals with.

Unless you are passing on enough money that your beneficiaries will never need to work again, unless they want to, your estate really isn't the one sociality should be concerned with. in terms of the point above.

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

Edit: To just simply say "The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created. That is not a question in our reality." completely negates 99.995% of issues discussed on this message board. We have laws around abortion, gun control, and taxation. And yet people want changes.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It's a complex topic in some ways.

How estates are handled is a matter of what federal and state laws allow.  As for the rights of the creator of the estate, they have rights to set up the estate which (of course) cease when they die.  After that the estate is a legal entity onto itself, though, I don't think it has "rights" like a person does, and the potential beneficiaries have certain rights with regard to the estate, established by law.

The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created.  That is not a question in our reality.

However, if one wishes to open the question, hypnotically, then the question of the competing "goods" and how to address them with estate law could be discussed.

One counter point to the "give it all to whom the creator of the estate wants after the creator's death" is that in order for the orderly society with the laws which define how estates are handled do, Defacto, require that the creation and administration and maintenace of those laws by a government must be paid for and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

The point of is it better for society to force each member to earn their own way or is it better to create a handful of families like the Trumps, Clintons, Fords & others to have a portfolio as sort of a elite above some of the economic cares of the rest of the population is well beyond what 99% of the population's estate planning deals with.

Unless you are passing on enough money that your beneficiaries will never need to work again, unless they want to, your estate really isn't the one sociality should be concerned with. in terms of the point above.

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

It is one of the disciplines in which I have been interested in 60 years, so what I typed was all me, based on decades of the study of other people's thoughts.

As a minimum you certainly consider the effect that having that lifestyle may have both on your existing beneficiaries and on whom they may pass it onto.  Will they be responsibly stewards or will they go to Vagas and blow it all?  With that amount you need the services of an estate planner for thew wealthy to minimize or eliminate taxes and insure it is widely used.  That is what the "1%" do, with various work arounds to eliminate taxes and trustees to insure wisdom.

So that is reality today.

My personal viewpoint of matching these large estates to the creed that "all men (people) are created equal and the idea that people advance through merit, not via the power of money their ancestors gave them causes me to feel that not breaking up these large estates upon their creator's death goes against the ideals of the United States.  There are still work arounds where if the estate is a business, then the beneficiaries can, by merit, become part of said businesses employees and advance to a position of leadership on merit.

As I noted earlier, we now have, with this amassment of wealth, a moneyed elite, who may or may not have the skills that the originator of the wealth had, but who do via that wealth, have the power to dictate to society what said society will be.

To your added edit. Yes. There is a practical side to messages on this board, and a speculative side. I am trying to split those apart as it seems to me both sides are being addressed in this thread right now.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

It is one of the disciplines in which I have been interested in 60 years, so what I typed was all me, based on decades of the study of other people's thoughts.

As a minimum you certainly consider the effect that having that lifestyle may have both on your existing beneficiaries and on whom they may pass it onto.  Will they be responsibly stewards or will they go to Vagas and blow it all?  With that amount you need the services of an estate planner for thew wealthy to minimize or eliminate taxes and insure it is widely used.  That is what the "1%" do, with various work arounds to eliminate taxes and trustees to insure wisdom.

So that is reality today.

My personal viewpoint of matching these large estates to the creed that "all men (people) are created equal and the idea that people advance through merit, not via the power of money their ancestors gave them causes me to feel that not breaking up these large estates upon their creator's death goes against the ideals of the United States.  There are still work arounds where if the estate is a business, then the beneficiaries can, by merit, become part of said businesses employees and advance to a position of leadership on merit.

As I noted earlier, we now have, with this amassment of wealth, a moneyed elite, who may or may not have the skills that the originator of the wealth had, but who do via that wealth, have the power to dictate to society what said society will be.

Yeah yeah yeah.  I know how estate planning works.  Have a lawyer for that and everything.

It simply comes down to - do you really put your personal political views above the well being of your own kids?  That just boggles my mind.

Edit: Very impressive post for someone who is hung over. I don't know many people who talk that way. Nicely done.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you're not 'out of touch' - we're all free to have our own opinions (For now.. until your christian hero is elected).

we don't need our daughter to inherit a ton of money and, frankly, she doesn't want it. She's building a life of her own with the privilege she was afforded, the same way we are. We raised her to be compassionate,  and gentle, to show empathy to those who aren't as fortunate as we are, as she is.

we don't need guns and bibles and boats and houses and fancy cars and country club memberships, etc. We need each other, our health, our happiness and a desire to build a world in which everyone has access to the very same privileges we have. Work to give a voice to the voiceless.

So if that money can help less fortunate, less privileged with the down payment on house, that will help build our communities and make us all better. Not just the privileged.

I understand your daughter saying she doesn't want your money. I used to tell my dad the same thing. "I don't need your money. I'm doing fine. Buy yourself a new car. Let mom re-do the kitchen. Go on a nice vacation." Fortunately - he mostly listened.

Are you worried that leaving your daughter a - let's just call it "significant" amount of money upon your death might somehow corrupt her? Change her values? I mean, you've already raised her. You sound quite proud of her. So I'm assuming she has good values now and should be able to handle an inheritance without going crazy? Why would you not want to provide for her (or her offspring) over total strangers? Or worse - see it squandered by the government?

I fully "get" that I don't value the mythical "greater good" as much as some here do. But do I really value your kids more than you do? (phrasing hyperbole - but you get the point)

I doubt you value her more than I do. A) that would be weird and B) republicans/libertarians generally don't value anyone other than themselves.

But my point is, she's okay. She would be the first to tell you she's okay. I believe in building community, as that strengthens us all.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I understand your daughter saying she doesn't want your money. I used to tell my dad the same thing. "I don't need your money. I'm doing fine. Buy yourself a new car. Let mom re-do the kitchen. Go on a nice vacation." Fortunately - he mostly listened.

Are you worried that leaving your daughter a - let's just call it "significant" amount of money upon your death might somehow corrupt her? Change her values? I mean, you've already raised her. You sound quite proud of her. So I'm assuming she has good values now and should be able to handle an inheritance without going crazy? Why would you not want to provide for her (or her offspring) over total strangers? Or worse - see it squandered by the government?

I fully "get" that I don't value the mythical "greater good" as much as some here do. But do I really value your kids more than you do? (phrasing hyperbole - but you get the point)

I doubt you value her more than I do. A) that would be weird and B) republicans/libertarians generally don't value anyone other than themselves.

But my point is, she's okay. She would be the first to tell you she's okay. I believe in building community, as that strengthens us all.

Well, I did say it was phrasing hyperbole.

But OK, cool. I respect your opinion. I don't share it, but I respect your right to have it.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It's a complex topic in some ways.

How estates are handled is a matter of what federal and state laws allow.  As for the rights of the creator of the estate, they have rights to set up the estate which (of course) cease when they die.  After that the estate is a legal entity onto itself, though, I don't think it has "rights" like a person does, and the potential beneficiaries have certain rights with regard to the estate, established by law.

The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created.  That is not a question in our reality.

However, if one wishes to open the question, hypnotically, then the question of the competing "goods" and how to address them with estate law could be discussed.

One counter point to the "give it all to whom the creator of the estate wants after the creator's death" is that in order for the orderly society with the laws which define how estates are handled do, Defacto, require that the creation and administration and maintenace of those laws by a government must be paid for and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

The point of is it better for society to force each member to earn their own way or is it better to create a handful of families like the Trumps, Clintons, Fords & others to have a portfolio as sort of a elite above some of the economic cares of the rest of the population is well beyond what 99% of the population's estate planning deals with.

Unless you are passing on enough money that your beneficiaries will never need to work again, unless they want to, your estate really isn't the one sociality should be concerned with. in terms of the point above.

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

Edit:  To just simply say "The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created. That is not a question in our reality."  completely negates 99.995% of issues discussed on this message board.  We have laws around abortion, gun control, and taxation.  And yet people want changes.  

My current theory is that Trapper is actually an extremely poorly programmed AI, sent here by Trevor to annoy us all in an effort to sabotage tSwill.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It is one of the disciplines in which I have been interested in 60 years, so what I typed was all me, based on decades of the study of other people's thoughts.

As a minimum you certainly consider the effect that having that lifestyle may have both on your existing beneficiaries and on whom they may pass it onto.  Will they be responsibly stewards or will they go to Vagas and blow it all?  With that amount you need the services of an estate planner for thew wealthy to minimize or eliminate taxes and insure it is widely used.  That is what the "1%" do, with various work arounds to eliminate taxes and trustees to insure wisdom.

So that is reality today.

My personal viewpoint of matching these large estates to the creed that "all men (people) are created equal and the idea that people advance through merit, not via the power of money their ancestors gave them causes me to feel that not breaking up these large estates upon their creator's death goes against the ideals of the United States.  There are still work arounds where if the estate is a business, then the beneficiaries can, by merit, become part of said businesses employees and advance to a position of leadership on merit.

As I noted earlier, we now have, with this amassment of wealth, a moneyed elite, who may or may not have the skills that the originator of the wealth had, but who do via that wealth, have the power to dictate to society what said society will be.

Yeah yeah yeah.  I know how estate planning works.  Have a lawyer for that and everything.

It simply comes down to - do you really put your personal political views above the well being of your own kids?  That just boggles my mind.

Edit: Very impressive post for someone who is hung over. I don't know many people who talk that way. Nicely done.

Spend a few years reading philosophy or working with a management which is dominated by personal politics, and you become accustomed to dropping into that mode of expression.

As to our children, if we brought them up correctly then they should be standing on their own and therefore do not "need" the pass on of wealth. If they aren't then are they really ready for the responsibility of wealth.

But my concern. expressed above, is about what kind of country the passing on of wealth, real wealth, not what the "99%" have, creates politically. Take Trump (please) as an example of someone who should have not inherited wealth and the negative effects he has had on the country.

Cameron wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

Edit: To just simply say "The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created. That is not a question in our reality." completely negates 99.995% of issues discussed on this message board. We have laws around abortion, gun control, and taxation. And yet people want changes.

My current theory is that Trapper is actually an extremely poorly programmed AI, sent here by Trevor to annoy us all in an effort sabotage tSwill.

So if Trevor had just answered his phone we wouldn't have Trapper here bugging us?

Dayyyymn..... Mind = blown.

Cameron wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere or come up with it all on your own?

Also, for the hypothetical purposes of this discussion, yes, let's say it's enough for peeps to never work again.

Edit:  To just simply say "The value question of what is best for society has been answered at this moment by the laws that have been established by the governments which the society have created. That is not a question in our reality."  completely negates 99.995% of issues discussed on this message board.  We have laws around abortion, gun control, and taxation.  And yet people want changes.  

My current theory is that Trapper is actually an extremely poorly programmed AI, sent here by Trevor to annoy us all in an effort to sabotage tSwill.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah.  I know how estate planning works.  Have a lawyer for that and everything.

It simply comes down to - do you really put your personal political views above the well being of your own kids?  That just boggles my mind.

Edit: Very impressive post for someone who is hung over. I don't know many people who talk that way. Nicely done.

Spend a few years reading philosophy or working with a management which is dominated by personal politics, and you become accustomed to dropping into that mode of expression.

As to our children, if we brought them up correctly then they should be standing on their own and therefore do not "need" the pass on of wealth. If they aren't then are they really ready for the responsibility of wealth.

But my concern. expressed above, is about what kind of country the passing on of wealth, real wealth, not what the "99%" have, creates politically. Take Trump (please) as an example of someone who should have not inherited wealth and the negative effects he has had on the country.

As I mentioned to Bob, it's not that your kids would "need" money, it's that YOU would want to leave it to them. But apparently not.

Again - I fully appreciate your honesty and respect your right to have that opinion. I still don't get it, but more power to you.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Spend a few years reading philosophy or working with a management which is dominated by personal politics, and you become accustomed to dropping into that mode of expression.

As to our children, if we brought them up correctly then they should be standing on their own and therefore do not "need" the pass on of wealth. If they aren't then are they really ready for the responsibility of wealth.

But my concern. expressed above, is about what kind of country the passing on of wealth, real wealth, not what the "99%" have, creates politically. Take Trump (please) as an example of someone who should have not inherited wealth and the negative effects he has had on the country.

As I mentioned to Bob, it's not that your kids would "need" money, it's that YOU would want to leave it to them. But apparently not.

Again - I fully appreciate your honesty and respect your right to have that opinion. I still don't get it, but more power to you.

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence. What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Spend a few years reading philosophy or working with a management which is dominated by personal politics, and you become accustomed to dropping into that mode of expression.

As to our children, if we brought them up correctly then they should be standing on their own and therefore do not "need" the pass on of wealth. If they aren't then are they really ready for the responsibility of wealth.

But my concern. expressed above, is about what kind of country the passing on of wealth, real wealth, not what the "99%" have, creates politically. Take Trump (please) as an example of someone who should have not inherited wealth and the negative effects he has had on the country.

As I mentioned to Bob, it's not that your kids would "need" money, it's that YOU would want to leave it to them. But apparently not.

Again - I fully appreciate your honesty and respect your right to have that opinion. I still don't get it, but more power to you.

there's a lot of stuff I don't 'get'.

I would argue that I don't 'get' most things that otherwise seemingly normal people engage in. I think I just accepted that a long time ago.

I think under the system we have I would like to have my daughters inherit whatever is left over after my wrinkly body is given to Hershey Med. Yes, TM if that can be a downpayment on a house or a college fund that seems great to me.

What I suggested is that there should be a limit. Now I'm no Sam Walton so I won't be turning my kids into Lukas Waltons so they can play keep-away with their inheritances.

I am not an economist or a moral philosopher either. I do understand that money in equities is part of our economy. But a lot of liquid capital that billionaires own came from the little folk and by itself it never goes back. We have economic productivity that outpaces by far the benefits to the labor force that drives that productivity. I guess I just don't understand throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, nothing can be done."

As a thought experiment just think about what putting a limit on such inheritances could mean. Philosophically it could mean that we still believe in merit... hard work if you want. That "it takes money to make money" is not at the heart of our economic philosophy.

I don't have an inherent distrust in government like a lot of people do. But what if individual inheritance over, say 50M went to social security. What would be the consequence of that? Or medicare or medicaid or education, or NIH, NSF, or FEMA...? That's what the common good means to me. It would even be good for Lukas Walton because then maybe the world he lives in might look a little more prosperous around him when he ventures outside of Jackson. And he'd still have plenty of party money and seed funding to give.

Rick Saunders wrote:I think under the system we have I would like to have my daughters inherit whatever is left over after my wrinkly body is given to Hershey Med.  Yes, TM if that can be a downpayment on a house or a college fund that seems great to me.  

What I suggested is that there should be a limit.  Now I'm no Sam Walton so I won't be turning my kids into Lukas Waltons so they can play keep-away with their inheritances.

I am not an economist or a moral philosopher either.  I do understand that money in equities is part of our economy.  But a lot of liquid capital that billionaires own came from the little folk and by itself it never goes back.  We have economic productivity that outpaces by far the benefits to the labor force that drives that productivity.  I guess I just don't understand throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, nothing can be done."

As a thought experiment just think about what putting a limit on such inheritances could mean.  Philosophically it could mean that we still believe in merit... hard work if you want.  That "it takes money to make money" is not at the heart of our economic philosophy.  

I don't have an inherent distrust in government like a lot of people do.  But what if individual inheritance over, say 50M went to social security.  What would be the consequence of that?  Or medicare or medicaid or education, or NIH, NSF, or FEMA...?  That's what the common good means to me.  It would even be good for Lukas Walton because then maybe the world he lives in might look a little more prosperous around him when he ventures outside of Jackson. And he'd still have plenty of party money and seed funding to give.

I'm not real bright so I don't know much about anything you said, but I do get a kick out of the people who have an "inherent distrust in government" as they worship at the alter of corporations.

that said, at least we get to elect who represents us in government. Granted, it's corrupt because of rampant corporate involvement and the willful stupidity of the average American, but at least they are, in theory, a reflection of the electorate.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As I mentioned to Bob, it's not that your kids would "need" money, it's that YOU would want to leave it to them. But apparently not.

Again - I fully appreciate your honesty and respect your right to have that opinion. I still don't get it, but more power to you.

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence. What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

The world is a big place. I can think of 3-4 countries I’d move to and not miss the U.S. in the slightest.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence. What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

The world is a big place. I can think of 3-4 countries I’d move to and not miss the U.S. in the slightest.

only 3-4?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As I mentioned to Bob, it's not that your kids would "need" money, it's that YOU would want to leave it to them.  But apparently not.

Again - I fully appreciate your honesty and respect your right to have that opinion.  I still don't get it, but more power to you.

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence.  What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

good point.

If TM's christian hero wins, my daughter could have all the money in the world, but she would still be relegated to basically being a domesticated animal under republican/libertarian rule.

which kinda goes back to my stated importance of building a strong community. Strong communities generally act in support of others and the 'greater good', i.e. not voting for republicans/libertarians.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence. What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

The world is a big place. I can think of 3-4 countries I’d move to and not miss the U.S. in the slightest.

If the United States collapsed every other country on the globe would be significantly affected. Those countries may not admit refugees from the former US

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I put is down to the idea that I know that the existence of the United States is not guaranteed and thus we all need to do what we can to ensure its existence.  What good does it do your kid to have that money if the country doesn't exist?

good point.

If TM's christian hero wins, my daughter could have all the money in the world, but she would still be relegated to basically being a domesticated animal under republican/libertarian rule.

which kinda goes back to my stated importance of building a strong community. Strong communities generally act in support of others and the 'greater good', i.e. not voting for republicans/libertarians.

One of the kids churches is gathering supplies to take to TN for relief for the storm. We are visiting soon so will be contributing.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The world is a big place. I can think of 3-4 countries I’d move to and not miss the U.S. in the slightest.

If the United States collapsed every other country on the globe would be significantly affected. Those countries may not admit refugees from the former US

I've got it covered. Thanks.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The world is a big place. I can think of 3-4 countries I’d move to and not miss the U.S. in the slightest.

If the United States collapsed every other country on the globe would be significantly affected. Those countries may not admit refugees from the former US

remember when Ted Cruz fled the United States to seek a better life in Mexico?