@athousandyoung saidAny outside individuals would not be a part of the income or expenses, assets or liabilities. Don't quite get you there.
What is this supposed to be an analogy of?!
So we have 6 taxable citizens but also a priest’s congregation and enough businesses running with employees to provide an income for this stockbroker parasite. Why are they excluded from “expenses”? What is the house supposed to represent? What about the parents? They get a free ride? Who owns the house?
What are you going to do do punish the brother who can’t afford to pay 1/6?
Easier to say what is 'included' in expenses. Utilities, maintenance, property taxes, homeowner insurance, city sanitation taxes, termite bond, groceries....maybe a few more items, like a weekly maid.
The house represents their primary residence,,,,big house. They all own the house equally, I guess mom and dad live free......
So, how do you weigh in? Should rich guy shoulder the bulk of the money flowing out of that house? We can for the sake of argument say he could have inherited the money from his deceased rich wife, or got it in a lottery, or bought that stock. Source would be irrelevant, I would think. You call him a parasite....have you ever called a lottery winner, for instance, a parasite? Don't get you there, either.
@averagejoe1 saidIt’s a stupid question
Let us all stipulate that the rich guy did indeed get his money from stock he bought which increased in value big time. So, what is your answer to the main question?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidIm assuming “the house” is supposed to represent the Federal government of the USA which means the congregation are Mexican nationals who the priest crosses borders to provide services to and the stockbroker is buying only European stocks. Meanwhile 100% of the elderly population is on welfare.
Any outside individuals would not be a part of the income or expenses, assets or liabilities. Don't quite get you there.
Easier to say what is 'included' in expenses. Utilities, maintenance, property taxes, homeowner insurance, city sanitation taxes, termite bond, groceries....maybe a few more items, like a weekly maid.
The house represents their primary residen ...[text shortened]... te....have you ever called a lottery winner, for instance, a parasite? Don't get you there, either.
Is that the analogy you’re trying to make?
@averagejoe1 saidlol we're 4 pages in and still trying to explain your analogy?
Any outside individuals would not be a part of the income or expenses, assets or liabilities. Don't quite get you there.
Easier to say what is 'included' in expenses. Utilities, maintenance, property taxes, homeowner insurance, city sanitation taxes, termite bond, groceries....maybe a few more items, like a weekly maid.
The house represents their primary residen ...[text shortened]... te....have you ever called a lottery winner, for instance, a parasite? Don't get you there, either.
I dunno what is happening on your weird island with a hybrid economy/socialist paradise, but I think the issue that irks me the most about the reality of wealth is that it breeds laziness. In a very real and literal sense, I work my butt off all day every day and my house (which just sits there and does nothing) made more money than I did last year.
Hypothetically, I graduate high school this year. My Dad put aside $100,000 for my high school graduation and invested in an index fund for the last 18 years. While I was in school, that money went through multiple recessions but just sat there and still made more money on average than a minimum wage job. In other words, a similar person who flipped burgers 40 hours a week, every week, for 18 years would make less money than a modest inheritance.
There's something wrong with that system, I think.
@wildgrass saidNow wait a minute, I have explained it in earnest, as best I could.Prob is, y'all are still trying to understand it.
lol we're 4 pages in and still trying to explain your analogy?
I dunno what is happening on your weird island with a hybrid economy/socialist paradise, but I think the issue that irks me the most about the reality of wealth is that it breeds laziness. In a very real and literal sense, I work my butt off all day every day and my house (which just sits there and does nothi ...[text shortened]... uld make less money than a modest inheritance.
There's something wrong with that system, I think.
Regarding burger flipping, earnings from that would be approx $38k/annual. At 18 years, that is $680K total. The $100,000 invested at 6% compound interest, 18 years, would be worth $304K after the 18 years. But the rub is that you have to live on the burger money so it is not really invested,... it pretty much will be used up each year. So, your premise compares the two sources of money, but they cannot be compared if the burger money is not invested. My 2 cents. I don't understand how you relate the hourly wage (and hopefully job-betterment as years go on)to invested money.
Cool, that you have a house, get good advice as your young years roll on. My first money was buying (with bank money) small houses, renting them, etc etc. Good books on it. Personally I think it is a great system.
PS: I know some sorry-ass rich lazy guys, but life aint fair. One of them, admitting his lot in life, told us once,,,,"My (rich) daddy once told me, Son, life ain't fair, and you better be dam glad!!"
2 edits
@averagejoe1 said
Now wait a minute, I have explained it in earnest, as best I could.Prob is, y'all are still trying to understand it.
Regarding burger flipping, earnings from that would be approx $38k/annual. At 18 years, that is $680K total. The $100,000 invested at 6% compound interest, 18 years, would be worth $304K after the 18 years. But the rub is that you have to live on the bu ...[text shortened]... , told us once,,,,"My (rich) daddy once told me, Son, life ain't fair, and you better be dam glad!!"
So, your premise compares the two sources of money, but they cannot be compared if the burger money is not invested. My 2 cents. I don't understand how you relate the hourly wage (and hopefully job-betterment as years go on)to invested money
38k is taxable income, though.
Work earns income. Inherited wealth earn income. One is taxed but the other is not.
Incentivization should be on work, not inherited wealth. Flip the equation and tax the wealth and not the income, and you would have a work force incentivized to work instead of playing video games hoping their crypto accounts don't crash.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI see what you are saying, then. That is one hell of an observation, seriously . I think that you are in the area of thinking of many economists who are searching for just such fair taxation. The two most likely ideas are , first, the Fair tax, which is a national sales tax, everyone pays taxes on goods and services when they spend money. Everyone has skin in the game. ILOVE that. A consumption tax. The other is the Flat tax, where there is one tax, like 19%, on everything you earn from any source.So, your premise compares the two sources of money, but they cannot be compared if the burger money is not invested. My 2 cents. I don't understand how you relate the hourly wage (and hopefully job-betterment as years go on)to invested money
38k is taxable income, though.
Work earns income. Inherited wealth earn income. One is taxed but the other is not.
...[text shortened]... force incentivized to work instead of playing video games hoping their crypto accounts don't crash.
Yours entails a BIG change when it comes to inheritance. Tax them, but not income from work. I have a problem with that, because, ,once again, the govt wants to control the money that someone has worked for all of his life......they tax it for his 80 years, and the it is taxed AGAIN, double taxation. An uphill battle.
But still, the present system has made people successful , families saw an increase of over $5k/yr in the last several years. I dont think it should all be fiddled with. Here again, you suggest a socialist remedy to equality, Marxism in the end. The workers take all their money home and spend it, while those with inherited money are taxed, the money from which being used to pay tuition abortions, all the stuff which we are aghast about. Rich support the average person who is not rich. Does not ring well, Remember, we need rich people to truly make America great, and to provide jobs. Libs want money to be provided, but that might not square well with the rich, but they WILL provide jobs, forever. Not money. Nor McDonalds or Burger King. Libs best be careful what they wish for.
@averagejoe1 saidLOL it's not about fairness. Tax code has always, ALWAYS, been about incentivizing activities that the US government wishes to promote. If they choose to promote wealth over work, then that's their game and I guess if you're wealthy and you're a political donor then that's something you support. I don't like it.
I see what you are saying, then. That is one hell of an observation, seriously . I think that you are in the area of thinking of many economists who are searching for just such fair taxation. The two most likely ideas are , first, the Fair tax, which is a national sales tax, everyone pays taxes on goods and services when they spend money. Everyone has skin in the ...[text shortened]... jobs, forever. Not money. Nor McDonalds or Burger King. Libs best be careful what they wish for.
It's not socialism, though, to suggest the tax code should be written to promote work. That's silly, Joe. Take it back.
There seems to be an inclination to say that everything you don't like is socialism whether it fits the definition or not. Think before you type, please.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidPoint taken, but lets agree that libs are all into 'fair', so I intersperse that word on occasion so they can relate to the issue of a post. I do find it to be a little strange that libs will say that things should be fair, but there is an old adage, which is true,... that Life Ain't Fair. But libs think that they can make it that way. Like Kamala, saying that at the end of the day, we all need to end up at the same place. Ha. Is there a committee working on that in the White House?
LOL it's not about fairness. Tax code has always, ALWAYS, been about incentivizing activities that the US government wishes to promote. If they choose to promote wealth over work, then that's their game and I guess if you're wealthy and you're a political donor then that's something you support. I don't like it.
It's not socialism, though, to suggest the tax code should ...[text shortened]... ng you don't like is socialism whether it fits the definition or not. Think before you type, please.
You mention incentive to work? How can one survive if he does not work and make money with which to support himself? I do not even know how that phrase, inventive to work, makes any sense. It takes zero incentive to eat, so it follows that one has to work to get his eats. Dont get you there.
You are probably thinking now, about the people that dont work, but if you bring that up, then you get into me using my money to support the person. Hey....is THAT fair?
You thus see how your post does not close.
@averagejoe1 said
Point taken, but lets agree that libs are all into 'fair', so I intersperse that word on occasion so they can relate to the issue of a post. I do find it to be a little strange that libs will say that things should be fair, but there is an old adage, which is true,... that Life Ain't Fair. But libs think that they can make it that way. Like Kamala, saying that at the ...[text shortened]... y money to support the person. Hey....is THAT fair?
You thus see how your post does not close.
How can one survive if he does not work and make money with which to support himself?
... by inheriting a stable income generating money from itself.
Wealth is a multi-generational snowball, a sentient being, an ever-increasing wad of cash that compounds on itself. Have you ever met a trust fund kid? I met a few in college, never lifted a finger doing a hard labor job in high school, never life guarded. Lot of vacations for them, Europe and yachts, these kids failed to launch until they were 40 when they inherited their grandpa's car dealership.
I've got nothing against the lifestyle or inheritances per se. Really. Please don't mischaracterize my sentiments here. But the income stream coming from wealth should be taxed. It should be taxed at a higher rate than work income, to incentivize work.
@wildgrass saidA nice post. I know a slew of those guys, we call them Trustafarians. I could talk about them here, as you have above, but they are what they are. The key to all my posts...we are who WE are. How do libs find us connected to those rich losers? Or Rich winners, for that matter? Why write about them? Why not write about obtaining success, what is the latest good investment you know about? Should we open a deli in Chinatown,NYC?How can one survive if he does not work and make money with which to support himself?
... by inheriting a stable income generating money from itself.
Wealth is a multi-generational snowball, a sentient being, an ever-increasing wad of cash that compounds on itself. Have you ever met a trust fund kid? I met a few in college, never lifted a finger doing a h ...[text shortened]... m wealth should be taxed. It should be taxed at a higher rate than work income, to incentivize work.
To your point, if you think we have to bitch about the rich, the only thing that can be done that would satisfy the liberal goals, is , quite frankly,, to stop thinking about making it big with our deli, and concentrate more on getting money from the successful (and lucky trstafarian) rich. How much do you think we shoul tax them? Do you think we should tax the wealth that they are sitting on? Like if they have $5B, tax it this year, and next year when it has compounded to $6B, tax the $6B? That is what Eliz Warren wants to do, BTW. And what if it goes from $5B to $4B, do we tax the $4B in the 2nd year? So what do you think about this proposal that is in the works. (Note that they were taxed on the corpus the year that they received it.) Lotta tax here. Give 'em hell. I hope they leave my rich friends alone so they can fill jobs. You know, Musk says he can get to Mars in 10 years. I frankly think govt regs will hold him back. Why cant people leave other people alone....My underlying theme of all my posts.