[Ignoramus29073]

The author of the article, Robert Frank, is the author of a recently
published book "Richistan", and a columnist at the Wall Street
Journal. I personally recommend the above mentioned book.

As to the question, it turns out that no, the supermajority of high
net worth estates are invested in stocks and other easily tradable
securities, not in "farms".

This is totally understandable intuitively for two reasons: one is
that farming is currently done by a very small fraction of the
population, and another is that it is hard to become wealthy from
farming.

Here's the article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/12/...ly-businesses/

Once again, the U.S. is debating the estate tax. And once again,
partisan pundits and politicians are invoking farmers and family-owned
businesses as the true estate-tax victims.

The debate is being prompted by the Obama-GOP tax deal, which calls
for taxing estates over $5 million at 35%. The Democrats want a 55%
rate on estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The Democrats argue that higher tax is needed to lower the deficit and
inequality (the latter being the real motivation). The Republicans say
the lower rate would hurt farms and family businesses.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, says that €œthis
legislative agreement makes sure the government cant take more than
half the estates of farmers and small business owners who have
scrimped, sacrificed and saved their entire lives to build up a family
business.€�

A recent IRS report, however, casts doubt on the claim that farmers
and small-businesses are the main victims. According to a white paper
by Brian Raub, an economist with the IRS Special Studies Special
Projects section, farms and family-owned business account for a small
fraction of estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The study shows that in 2007, investment real estate €” which
includes farms, undeveloped land, real-estate investment funds, real
estate partnerships and other investments €” accounted for only 15%
of total portfolios for estates over $3.5 million. Farms are only a
fraction of the 15%.

Limited partnerships and business assets account for about 5.5% of
their total assets.

So what is in the big estates? Mostly publicly traded stock. The study
found that publicly traded stock accounted for more than a third of
the assets held by estates of $3.5 million or more.

Of course, some small businesses and farmers would get hurt from a
$3.5 million rate. And there may be other good arguments for ditching
the estate tax. But its misleading to say farmers and small
businesses would bear the brunt of the tax. Unless of course, Paris
Hiltons brief stint on €œSimple Life€� makes her a farmer.

The real victim of the Democratic proposal would be wealthy
shareholders and the stock market. Yet strangely, we dont see
politicians championing the rights of the stock market and big
shareholders in their death-tax crusade.

Do you think the estate tax rate threshold go to $5 million or $3.5 million?

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message
...
The author of the article, Robert Frank, is the author of a recently
published book "Richistan", and a columnist at the Wall Street
Journal. I personally recommend the above mentioned book.

As to the question, it turns out that no, the supermajority of high
net worth estates are invested in stocks and other easily tradable
securities, not in "farms".

This is totally understandable intuitively for two reasons: one is
that farming is currently done by a very small fraction of the
population, and another is that it is hard to become wealthy from
farming.

Here's the article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/12/...ly-businesses/

Once again, the U.S. is debating the estate tax. And once again,
partisan pundits and politicians are invoking farmers and family-owned
businesses as the true estate-tax victims.

The debate is being prompted by the Obama-GOP tax deal, which calls
for taxing estates over $5 million at 35%. The Democrats want a 55%
rate on estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The Democrats argue that higher tax is needed to lower the deficit and
inequality (the latter being the real motivation). The Republicans say
the lower rate would hurt farms and family businesses.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, says that ?othis
legislative agreement makes sure the government can?Tt take more than
half the estates of farmers and small business owners who have
scrimped, sacrificed and saved their entire lives to build up a family
business.?�

A recent IRS report, however, casts doubt on the claim that farmers
and small-businesses are the main victims. According to a white paper
by Brian Raub, an economist with the IRS Special Studies Special
Projects section, farms and family-owned business account for a small
fraction of estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The study shows that in 2007, investment real estate ?" which
includes farms, undeveloped land, real-estate investment funds, real
estate partnerships and other investments ?" accounted for only 15%
of total portfolios for estates over $3.5 million. Farms are only a
fraction of the 15%.

Limited partnerships and business assets account for about 5.5% of
their total assets.

So what is in the big estates? Mostly publicly traded stock. The study
found that publicly traded stock accounted for more than a third of
the assets held by estates of $3.5 million or more.

Of course, some small businesses and farmers would get hurt from a
$3.5 million rate. And there may be other good arguments for ditching
the estate tax. But it?Ts misleading to say farmers and small
businesses would bear the brunt of the tax. Unless of course, Paris
Hilton?Ts brief stint on ?oSimple Life?� makes her a farmer.

The real victim of the Democratic proposal would be wealthy
shareholders and the stock market. Yet strangely, we don?Tt see
politicians championing the rights of the stock market and big
shareholders in their death-tax crusade.

Do you think the estate tax rate threshold go to $5 million or $3.5
million?

All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

[Karl Townsend]

All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

If our fearless leaders are going to continue spending money they
don't have like a drunken sailor, where else can they go? China and
Saudi Arabia aren't going to continue to finance our foolishness
forever.
Karl

[Ignoramus29073]

On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children. If both parents and children are productive persons, then
inheritance is distributing wealth from productive persons to
prductive. If the children are not productive, then inheritance means
distributing wealth from productive to unproductive.

Productive is a big word, too. I am productive when it comes to
computer programming. If, hypothetically, my parents owned a large
farm, then I would not be a productive owner of said farm. If I did
not sell it, the hypothetical farm would probably decline.

On balance, based on my economics education, I think that auctioning
off a part of an estate to the highest bidder, leads to more
productive use of the property than passing wholly to children, who
are essentially random persons (winners of the ovarian lottery) when
it comes to managing property.

Since taking 100% of the wealth at death is a too big deterrent to
saving, the golden middle probably lies somewhere in between taxing
all and taxing nothing. Personally, I think that the fairest tax is
somewhere under 50%, but close, I would settle on 45%.

Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

i

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children. If both parents and children are productive persons, then
inheritance is distributing wealth from productive persons to
prductive. If the children are not productive, then inheritance means
distributing wealth from productive to unproductive.

Productive is a big word, too. I am productive when it comes to
computer programming. If, hypothetically, my parents owned a large
farm, then I would not be a productive owner of said farm. If I did
not sell it, the hypothetical farm would probably decline.

On balance, based on my economics education, I think that auctioning
off a part of an estate to the highest bidder, leads to more
productive use of the property than passing wholly to children, who
are essentially random persons (winners of the ovarian lottery) when
it comes to managing property.

Since taking 100% of the wealth at death is a too big deterrent to
saving, the golden middle probably lies somewhere in between taxing
all and taxing nothing. Personally, I think that the fairest tax is
somewhere under 50%, but close, I would settle on 45%.

Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

i

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset conservatives
helping their families.

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

Ignoramus29073 wrote:
On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.

That's one way of looking at it, but it's THEIR OWN MONEY, to do with as
they wish.

The socialists want to steal it and give it to the undeserving.

Thanks,
Rich

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29073 wrote:
On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.

That's one way of looking at it, but it's THEIR OWN MONEY, to do with as
they wish.

The socialists want to steal it and give it to the undeserving.

Thanks,
Rich


Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel your
benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going
to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives and
those by liberals.

Republicans are only a little less dangerous and can't be trusted with OUR
money either.

[RBnDFW]

On 12/22/2010 3:54 PM, Ignoramus29073 wrote:
The author of the article, Robert Frank, is the author of a recently
published book "Richistan", and a columnist at the Wall Street
Journal. I personally recommend the above mentioned book.

As to the question, it turns out that no, the supermajority of high
net worth estates are invested in stocks and other easily tradable
securities, not in "farms".

This is totally understandable intuitively for two reasons: one is
that farming is currently done by a very small fraction of the
population, and another is that it is hard to become wealthy from
farming.

Here's the article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/12/...ly-businesses/

Once again, the U.S. is debating the estate tax. And once again,
partisan pundits and politicians are invoking farmers and family-owned
businesses as the true estate-tax victims.

The debate is being prompted by the Obama-GOP tax deal, which calls
for taxing estates over $5 million at 35%. The Democrats want a 55%
rate on estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The Democrats argue that higher tax is needed to lower the deficit and
inequality (the latter being the real motivation). The Republicans say
the lower rate would hurt farms and family businesses.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, says that €œthis
legislative agreement makes sure the government can€„¢t take more than
half the estates of farmers and small business owners who have
scrimped, sacrificed and saved their entire lives to build up a family
business.€�

A recent IRS report, however, casts doubt on the claim that farmers
and small-businesses are the main victims. According to a white paper
by Brian Raub, an economist with the IRS Special Studies Special
Projects section, farms and family-owned business account for a small
fraction of estates worth $3.5 million or more.

The study shows that in 2007, investment real estate €€� which
includes farms, undeveloped land, real-estate investment funds, real
estate partnerships and other investments €€� accounted for only 15%
of total portfolios for estates over $3.5 million. Farms are only a
fraction of the 15%.

Limited partnerships and business assets account for about 5.5% of
their total assets.

So what is in the big estates? Mostly publicly traded stock. The study
found that publicly traded stock accounted for more than a third of
the assets held by estates of $3.5 million or more.

Of course, some small businesses and farmers would get hurt from a
$3.5 million rate. And there may be other good arguments for ditching
the estate tax. But it€„¢s misleading to say farmers and small
businesses would bear the brunt of the tax. Unless of course, Paris
Hilton€„¢s brief stint on €œSimple Life€Â� makes her a farmer.

The real victim of the Democratic proposal would be wealthy
shareholders and the stock market. Yet strangely, we don€„¢t see
politicians championing the rights of the stock market and big
shareholders in their death-tax crusade.

Do you think the estate tax rate threshold go to $5 million or $3.5 million?

Neither. The right number is Zero.
It's their money, they've paid taxes on it. They should be able to leave
it to whomever they wish.
I'm sure the Hollywood Democrat millionaires name the US Treasury in
their wills, correct?


--
I can see 2012 from my front porch

[cavelamb]

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29073 wrote:
On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.
Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.
That's one way of looking at it, but it's THEIR OWN MONEY, to do with as
they wish.

The socialists want to steal it and give it to the undeserving.

Thanks,
Rich


Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel your
benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going
to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?


Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?




There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives and
those by liberals.

Republicans are only a little less dangerous and can't be trusted with OUR
money either.




--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[Ignoramus30015]

On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message
Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning.

That, and the super-rich (well over 10 mils).

Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in general,
I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes of
the unproductive leaches on society.

The typical heirs are sometimes unprodictive leeches too.

Why not make the tax voluntary? All liberals can donate all their
wealth and that would offset conservatives helping their families.

I think that this is what a few honest billionaires are doing. They
promise to give away over half of their wealth to charity.

http://givingpledge.org/

Check out their list, it is impressive.

So it is not like the billionaires never give back, they do. But some
narrow minded people never think of being grateful to the society that
enabled them to be successful.

Warren Buffett was the person who started it. Conrad Hilton said "it
is the duty of successful people to give back to the society from
which their success was derived". This is how I feel, as well.

i

[Ignoramus30015]

On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel your
benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going
to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?

If no tax revenues are found, something will have to be cancelled,
with mathematical certainty.

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives and
those by liberals.

These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

i

[Steve Lusardi]

"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message ...

Given proper avoidance measures it shouldn't hurt, but too often those
measures are not taken in time and if the "Enterprise" in total exceeds the
cap, the enterprise very often must be sold to pay the tax and the business
is then lost to the family. The death tax is immoral and should be abolished
in its entirety. It is double taxation and our country experienced a
revolution over the very same thing.
Steve

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Ignoramus30015" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message
Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined
with
poor planning.

That, and the super-rich (well over 10 mils).

Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in general,
I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes of
the unproductive leaches on society.

The typical heirs are sometimes unprodictive leeches too.

Why not make the tax voluntary? All liberals can donate all their
wealth and that would offset conservatives helping their families.

I think that this is what a few honest billionaires are doing. They
promise to give away over half of their wealth to charity.

http://givingpledge.org/

Check out their list, it is impressive.

So it is not like the billionaires never give back, they do. But some
narrow minded people never think of being grateful to the society that
enabled them to be successful.

Warren Buffett was the person who started it. Conrad Hilton said "it
is the duty of successful people to give back to the society from
which their success was derived". This is how I feel, as well.

i

So, I take it that your children will NOT receive anything from you because
you will donate everything to the government? You seem to think that
anybody that has any money stole it from somebody else or that if someone
has something it's because somebody else didn't get their fair share. You
think the pie is one-sized. I think the pie is as big as the pie makers
want it to be. There is not a finite supply of wealth only finite minds
that can't grasp that. Like you say "it is not like the billionaires never
give back" and "this is what a few honest billionaires are doing.: You
imply that they TOOK something and those that don't give it back are
dishonest.

It's only fair to confiscate wealth from families because the heirs MIGHT be
unproductive leeches? Are you the one that decides? I understand your
position perfectly and it's kind of frightening.

True, I have no dog in this fight, far from it. I just have a different
sense of right and wrong than you do.

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29073 wrote:
On 2010-12-22, Tom Gardner wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.
Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.
That's one way of looking at it, but it's THEIR OWN MONEY, to do with as
they wish.

The socialists want to steal it and give it to the undeserving.

Thanks,
Rich


Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were
going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is
there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?


Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?




There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by
conservatives and those by liberals.

Republicans are only a little less dangerous and can't be trusted with
OUR money either.


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb


It's not, how did you get that from my post? But, how many people are the
third or fourth generation on welfare? That's a symptom, not a cause. This
venue's limitations prevent me from expounding on that thought. In a
nutshell, I don't blame the people on welfare, they are in that situation
for a reason.

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Ignoramus30015" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your
benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were
going
to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?

If no tax revenues are found, something will have to be cancelled,
with mathematical certainty.

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives
and
those by liberals.

These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

i

Why not cancel the "Skateboard Museum", the African ball-washing lessons,
etc. Liberals are the very meaning of "disingenuous:

That is just plain ignorant! I'm sure you can cite these statistics?
crickets I'll tell my church's food drive people to have fun at their
social club, they fed over 500 families for Thanksgiving and more for
Christmas, how many did YOU feed? I know how much you hate God and religion
and the biggest insult I can say to you is "you are in my prayers".

[Ignoramus30015]

On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:

"Ignoramus30015" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"Ignoramus29073" wrote in message
Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined
with
poor planning.

That, and the super-rich (well over 10 mils).

Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in general,
I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes of
the unproductive leaches on society.

The typical heirs are sometimes unprodictive leeches too.

Why not make the tax voluntary? All liberals can donate all their
wealth and that would offset conservatives helping their families.

I think that this is what a few honest billionaires are doing. They
promise to give away over half of their wealth to charity.

http://givingpledge.org/

Check out their list, it is impressive.

So it is not like the billionaires never give back, they do. But some
narrow minded people never think of being grateful to the society that
enabled them to be successful.

Warren Buffett was the person who started it. Conrad Hilton said "it
is the duty of successful people to give back to the society from
which their success was derived". This is how I feel, as well.

i

So, I take it that your children will NOT receive anything from you because
you will donate everything to the government?

I am not sure how well off I will be. If it is beyond a few mils, I
will definitely leave something to charity.

You seem to think that anybody that has any money stole it from
somebody else or that if someone has something it's because somebody
else didn't get their fair share. You think the pie is one-sized.

I never said such a thing.

You are repeating stereotypes, that were conveniently supplied to you
by the "billionaires on warpath".

I think the pie is as big as the pie makers want it to be. There is
not a finite supply of wealth only finite minds that can't grasp
that. Like you say "it is not like the billionaires never give
back" and "this is what a few honest billionaires are doing.: You
imply that they TOOK something and those that don't give it back are
dishonest.

Our society enabled them to be successful. So, it is honest to give
something back.

It's only fair to confiscate wealth from families because the heirs
MIGHT be unproductive leeches? Are you the one that decides? I
understand your position perfectly and it's kind of frightening.

As a matter of fact, as Steve B said, most or at least many, are
such.

True, I have no dog in this fight, far from it. I just have a different
sense of right and wrong than you do.

I do not have a dog in this fight either. I hope to have a dog in this
fight one day. That, of course, may never materialize.

What I know is that I hope that my children will be mature persons in
the sense of being able to use the money wisely, and if that happens,
I will be happy to help them while I am still around, not just dump a
bucketful of money on them when they become "older adults".

The future is tricky, of course, and who knows what it holds. I hope
that my kids are able to become self supporting and responsible
people.

i

[Ignoramus30015]

On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were
going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is
there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs?

Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?

It's not, how did you get that from my post?

Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to
cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs? ''

i

[Rich Grise[_3_]]

Ignoramus30015 wrote:
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives
and those by liberals.

These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

Maybe, but giving to the church is entirely voluntary. Social security
isn't - it's a tax.

Problem is, it's been a Ponzi scam from the get-go. The Repugnocrats
don't necessarily want to cut everybody off cold - just put a leash on
the expenditures.

When I'm elected president, I'll draw a line in the sand - everybody is
entitled to have all their "contributions" returned to them, which will
require some taxation, but if you want to nail "The Evil Greedy Rich,"
simply go to an outgo tax - the really filthy rich all hide their income
anyway, and so evade the income tax - an outgo tax would tax what they
_spend_, which is what ****es everybody off anyway - hundreds of thousands
for exotic cars and diamond necklaces, and millions for old art and crap
like that. Just get rid of the income tax entirely, charge a 23% OUTGO tax.

Of course, that rate could be decreased as we pay down the debts and cut
the government back to Constitutional levels.

I don't like "The Fair Tax," because it's still a bureaucratic nightmare;
they'd have to determine your financial status to give breaks - Hell! Just
exempt food, medical supplies and equipment, and used goods, and "the Poor"
wouldn't have to pay any tax at all, except on luxuries, like smokes and
booze and restaurant food.

But, of course, that couldn't possibly happen, because if it _were_
implemented, "the Rich" would have to pay "their fair share," and we all
know the fat cat politicians and unelected bureaucrats write the rules to
exempt themselves.

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich

[cavelamb]

Ignoramus30015 wrote:

Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?
It's not, how did you get that from my post?

Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to
cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs? ''

i



That was the way it looked to me as well...

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Ignoramus30015" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the
government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans
were
going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is
there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on
government
hand-outs?

Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?

It's not, how did you get that from my post?

Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to
cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs? ''

i


You're right, those two sentences should have been in separate paragraphs
for better clarification.

In the run-up to Last November's elections, many Democrats stated that
Republicans were going to cancel Social Security and Medicare. Do you need
cites?

Wealth is confiscated by politicians and used as a carrot and a stick to buy
votes and also to threaten withdrawal of all kinds of benefits like "Earned
Income Credit", Skateboard museums, "The Grateful Dead Something-or-Another"
And thousands of other wasteful spending instances.

I just don't believe in the Government's ability or right to wipe my ass,
or anybody else's from womb to tomb. America has become a society of people
that have no self reliance and no self responsibility. Some politicians
like it this way and have greatly enriched themselves by this process. It's
just wrong! I pity the next generation.

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus30015 wrote:
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives
and those by liberals.

These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

Maybe, but giving to the church is entirely voluntary. Social security
isn't - it's a tax.

Problem is, it's been a Ponzi scam from the get-go. The Repugnocrats
don't necessarily want to cut everybody off cold - just put a leash on
the expenditures.

When I'm elected president, I'll draw a line in the sand - everybody is
entitled to have all their "contributions" returned to them, which will
require some taxation, but if you want to nail "The Evil Greedy Rich,"
simply go to an outgo tax - the really filthy rich all hide their income
anyway, and so evade the income tax - an outgo tax would tax what they
_spend_, which is what ****es everybody off anyway - hundreds of thousands
for exotic cars and diamond necklaces, and millions for old art and crap
like that. Just get rid of the income tax entirely, charge a 23% OUTGO
tax.

Of course, that rate could be decreased as we pay down the debts and cut
the government back to Constitutional levels.

I don't like "The Fair Tax," because it's still a bureaucratic nightmare;
they'd have to determine your financial status to give breaks - Hell! Just
exempt food, medical supplies and equipment, and used goods, and "the
Poor"
wouldn't have to pay any tax at all, except on luxuries, like smokes and
booze and restaurant food.

But, of course, that couldn't possibly happen, because if it _were_
implemented, "the Rich" would have to pay "their fair share," and we all
know the fat cat politicians and unelected bureaucrats write the rules to
exempt themselves.

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich



The tipping point is closer than you think, in my opinion. I have to do
books and financials in a tiny way with a lot of help but I get the basic
idea and what's going on now, the numbers are screaming, not just speaking
for themselves. Unless VERY drastic action is taken VERY quickly..........

[cavelamb]

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Ignoramus30015" wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the
government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans
were
going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is
there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on
government
hand-outs?
Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?
It's not, how did you get that from my post?
Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to
cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs? ''

i


You're right, those two sentences should have been in separate paragraphs
for better clarification.

In the run-up to Last November's elections, many Democrats stated that
Republicans were going to cancel Social Security and Medicare. Do you need
cites?

No cites needed, I have a good memory...


Wealth is confiscated by politicians and used as a carrot and a stick to buy
votes and also to threaten withdrawal of all kinds of benefits like "Earned
Income Credit", Skateboard museums, "The Grateful Dead Something-or-Another"
And thousands of other wasteful spending instances.

I just don't believe in the Government's ability or right to wipe my ass,
or anybody else's from womb to tomb. America has become a society of people
that have no self reliance and no self responsibility. Some politicians
like it this way and have greatly enriched themselves by this process. It's
just wrong! I pity the next generation.



If you think that's wrong, just wait for the terror-hysteria than should start
before the 2012 elections...



--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[cavelamb]

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus30015 wrote:
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives
and those by liberals.
These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

Maybe, but giving to the church is entirely voluntary. Social security
isn't - it's a tax.

Problem is, it's been a Ponzi scam from the get-go. The Repugnocrats
don't necessarily want to cut everybody off cold - just put a leash on
the expenditures.

When I'm elected president, I'll draw a line in the sand - everybody is
entitled to have all their "contributions" returned to them, which will
require some taxation, but if you want to nail "The Evil Greedy Rich,"
simply go to an outgo tax - the really filthy rich all hide their income
anyway, and so evade the income tax - an outgo tax would tax what they
_spend_, which is what ****es everybody off anyway - hundreds of thousands
for exotic cars and diamond necklaces, and millions for old art and crap
like that. Just get rid of the income tax entirely, charge a 23% OUTGO
tax.

Of course, that rate could be decreased as we pay down the debts and cut
the government back to Constitutional levels.

I don't like "The Fair Tax," because it's still a bureaucratic nightmare;
they'd have to determine your financial status to give breaks - Hell! Just
exempt food, medical supplies and equipment, and used goods, and "the
Poor"
wouldn't have to pay any tax at all, except on luxuries, like smokes and
booze and restaurant food.

But, of course, that couldn't possibly happen, because if it _were_
implemented, "the Rich" would have to pay "their fair share," and we all
know the fat cat politicians and unelected bureaucrats write the rules to
exempt themselves.

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich



The tipping point is closer than you think, in my opinion. I have to do
books and financials in a tiny way with a lot of help but I get the basic
idea and what's going on now, the numbers are screaming, not just speaking
for themselves. Unless VERY drastic action is taken VERY quickly..........




Our opinions differ some.
I personally think the tipping point is already _past_...


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[Martin Eastburn]

The talk was to start a self insured program something like an IRA but
make it mandatory. e.g. a persons money goes into it as does the
companies. It is guarded.

The idea was the next generation would better plan on after work days
than many now. Companies in the past had retirements. Many of those
canceled them. My Dad's retirement with AT&T was transferred to a baby
Bell and in several years his retirement for over 40 years of work
was canceled. He was full of foresight, living in the depression - and
had a personal retirement he himself did by his own money.

Getting the US off SS would be good if a viable solution was there.

Martin

On 12/23/2010 7:36 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-23, Tom wrote:
wrote in message
Tom Gardner wrote:
Not "give" it, they use it to buy votes and dependency on the
government.
"If you don't vote for Democrats, those stingy Republicans will cancel
your benefits!" Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans
were
going to cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is
there anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on
government
hand-outs?

Help me understand, Tom, how Social Security, which people paid into all
their working lives, is a government handout?

It's not, how did you get that from my post?

Because you said so.

``Didn't you see in the last election how Republicans were going to
cancel social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks? Is there
anybody that doesn't see the generational dependence on government
hand-outs? ''

i


You're right, those two sentences should have been in separate paragraphs
for better clarification.

In the run-up to Last November's elections, many Democrats stated that
Republicans were going to cancel Social Security and Medicare. Do you need
cites?

Wealth is confiscated by politicians and used as a carrot and a stick to buy
votes and also to threaten withdrawal of all kinds of benefits like "Earned
Income Credit", Skateboard museums, "The Grateful Dead Something-or-Another"
And thousands of other wasteful spending instances.

I just don't believe in the Government's ability or right to wipe my ass,
or anybody else's from womb to tomb. America has become a society of people
that have no self reliance and no self responsibility. Some politicians
like it this way and have greatly enriched themselves by this process. It's
just wrong! I pity the next generation.

[Hawke[_3_]]

On 12/22/2010 6:17 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2010-12-22, Tom wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth
redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children. If both parents and children are productive persons, then
inheritance is distributing wealth from productive persons to
prductive. If the children are not productive, then inheritance means
distributing wealth from productive to unproductive.

Productive is a big word, too. I am productive when it comes to
computer programming. If, hypothetically, my parents owned a large
farm, then I would not be a productive owner of said farm. If I did
not sell it, the hypothetical farm would probably decline.

On balance, based on my economics education, I think that auctioning
off a part of an estate to the highest bidder, leads to more
productive use of the property than passing wholly to children, who
are essentially random persons (winners of the ovarian lottery) when
it comes to managing property.

Since taking 100% of the wealth at death is a too big deterrent to
saving, the golden middle probably lies somewhere in between taxing
all and taxing nothing. Personally, I think that the fairest tax is
somewhere under 50%, but close, I would settle on 45%.

Regular people, like you and me (yes I have seen your factory on
google maps and go to such factory auctions often), are not impacted by
current thresholds of estate taxes. Those somewhat above the
threshold, can do a lot to reduce their estate tax bill.

i

I think the death tax only applies to very unexpected deaths combined with
poor planning. Anybody with half a brain can avoid it completely. But in
general, I'm against politicians using confiscated wealth to buy the votes
of the unproductive leaches on society. Why not make the tax voluntary?
All liberals can donate all their wealth and that would offset conservatives
helping their families.




Sorry, but most Americans don't like the idea of great estates being
passed from one generation to future ones, which guarantees that an
enduring aristocratic class is created and maintained by passing
unearned wealth on to the lucky few who were related to someone who made
a lot of money in their life. Besides that, once you are dead you don't
have rights. Your money is not yours anymore. What happens to it is
decided by law. Children have limited rights to what their parents had
when alive. As Americans and part of the American legal system the
people have decided that if you have an estate, and only 2% do, then
that estate is subject to being taxed. If you actually knew what happens
when you allow wealth to be handed down from one generation to the next
you would think differently. They did that for hundreds of years in
Europe and all it did was cause a lot of class problems. Problems we
don't have because we would rather break up the big estates when we can.
It sounds real good to be against the government "taking" estate money
but in the real world it's a lot better than letting billionaires set up
their relatives for generations to come. That may be good for the lucky
few but it's bad for the country.

Hawke

[Hawke[_3_]]

On 12/23/2010 1:47 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

Why not make the tax voluntary? All liberals can donate all their
wealth and that would offset conservatives helping their families.

I think that this is what a few honest billionaires are doing. They
promise to give away over half of their wealth to charity.

http://givingpledge.org/

Check out their list, it is impressive.

So it is not like the billionaires never give back, they do. But some
narrow minded people never think of being grateful to the society that
enabled them to be successful.

Warren Buffett was the person who started it. Conrad Hilton said "it
is the duty of successful people to give back to the society from
which their success was derived". This is how I feel, as well.

i

So, I take it that your children will NOT receive anything from you because
you will donate everything to the government? You seem to think that
anybody that has any money stole it from somebody else or that if someone
has something it's because somebody else didn't get their fair share. You
think the pie is one-sized. I think the pie is as big as the pie makers
want it to be. There is not a finite supply of wealth only finite minds
that can't grasp that. Like you say "it is not like the billionaires never
give back" and "this is what a few honest billionaires are doing.: You
imply that they TOOK something and those that don't give it back are
dishonest.

It's only fair to confiscate wealth from families because the heirs MIGHT be
unproductive leeches? Are you the one that decides? I understand your
position perfectly and it's kind of frightening.

True, I have no dog in this fight, far from it. I just have a different
sense of right and wrong than you do.

That's only because your understanding of the issue is so limited.
Taxing estates is not theft even though that is what right wing talk
radio people have told you.

Hawke

[Hawke[_3_]]

On 12/22/2010 8:20 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Ignoramus29073 wrote:
On 2010-12-22, Tom wrote:
All that wealth has been taxed already. The nose in the tent will
expand
to 100% death tax in short order if some have their way. It's simple
wealth redistribution from the productive to the unproductive.

Any inheritance IS redistribution of wealth, from parents to
children.

That's one way of looking at it, but it's THEIR OWN MONEY, to do with as
they wish.

The socialists want to steal it and give it to the undeserving.

Thanks,
Rich


It's not their money anymore once they're dead. Once you die everything
you owned becomes somebody else's. It's just a question of deciding who
gets it.

Hawke

[Hawke[_3_]]

On 12/23/2010 7:20 AM, RBnDFW wrote:

Of course, some small businesses and farmers would get hurt from a
$3.5 million rate. And there may be other good arguments for ditching
the estate tax. But it€„¢s misleading to say farmers and small
businesses would bear the brunt of the tax. Unless of course, Paris
Hilton€„¢s brief stint on €œSimple Life€Â� makes her a farmer.

The real victim of the Democratic proposal would be wealthy
shareholders and the stock market. Yet strangely, we don€„¢t see
politicians championing the rights of the stock market and big
shareholders in their death-tax crusade.

Do you think the estate tax rate threshold go to $5 million or $3.5
million?

Neither. The right number is Zero.
It's their money, they've paid taxes on it. They should be able to leave
it to whomever they wish.
I'm sure the Hollywood Democrat millionaires name the US Treasury in
their wills, correct?

History has already shown that is a dumb idea. If you knew what happens
when the rich can do what they please with their estates you would know
better. But you clearly don't know what the danger of unlimited passing
of wealth from one generation to the next brings with it. Learn some
history. Your opinion won't be as ignorant if you do.

Hawke

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
The talk was to start a self insured program something like an IRA but
make it mandatory. e.g. a persons money goes into it as does the
companies. It is guarded.

The idea was the next generation would better plan on after work days
than many now. Companies in the past had retirements. Many of those
canceled them. My Dad's retirement with AT&T was transferred to a baby
Bell and in several years his retirement for over 40 years of work
was canceled. He was full of foresight, living in the depression - and
had a personal retirement he himself did by his own money.

Getting the US off SS would be good if a viable solution was there.

Martin


My father told my when I was a kid, NOT to count on a dime of Social
Security, that money is already been spent and the "lock box" is full of
IOUs. He also said NOT to count on Medicare or any other Government program
because the spending is unsustainable. Sage advice! For my parents, every
dime they owned, and then some, WAS consumed with healthcare costs. They
were "notch" babies and only received a fraction of their rightful Social
Security. The Democrats instituted the "notch" and I'll never forgive them.

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus30015 wrote:
On 2010-12-23, Tom Gardner wrote:

There's no law against people donating extra money over and above
taxes.
But it seems that Democrats want to donate OTHER people's money, not
their
own. Look at the statistics for charitable donations by conservatives
and those by liberals.
These statistics are skewed by religious conservatives "giving" to
their churches, which are essentially social clubs for themselves (at
best).

Maybe, but giving to the church is entirely voluntary. Social security
isn't - it's a tax.

Problem is, it's been a Ponzi scam from the get-go. The Repugnocrats
don't necessarily want to cut everybody off cold - just put a leash on
the expenditures.

When I'm elected president, I'll draw a line in the sand - everybody is
entitled to have all their "contributions" returned to them, which will
require some taxation, but if you want to nail "The Evil Greedy Rich,"
simply go to an outgo tax - the really filthy rich all hide their income
anyway, and so evade the income tax - an outgo tax would tax what they
_spend_, which is what ****es everybody off anyway - hundreds of
thousands
for exotic cars and diamond necklaces, and millions for old art and crap
like that. Just get rid of the income tax entirely, charge a 23% OUTGO
tax.

Of course, that rate could be decreased as we pay down the debts and cut
the government back to Constitutional levels.

I don't like "The Fair Tax," because it's still a bureaucratic
nightmare;
they'd have to determine your financial status to give breaks - Hell!
Just
exempt food, medical supplies and equipment, and used goods, and "the
Poor"
wouldn't have to pay any tax at all, except on luxuries, like smokes and
booze and restaurant food.

But, of course, that couldn't possibly happen, because if it _were_
implemented, "the Rich" would have to pay "their fair share," and we all
know the fat cat politicians and unelected bureaucrats write the rules
to
exempt themselves.

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the
former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich



The tipping point is closer than you think, in my opinion. I have to do
books and financials in a tiny way with a lot of help but I get the basic
idea and what's going on now, the numbers are screaming, not just
speaking for themselves. Unless VERY drastic action is taken VERY
quickly..........


Our opinions differ some.
I personally think the tipping point is already _past_...


--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb


Don't you thing the Chinese will continue to pump money into the system out
of the goodness of their hearts? Don't you think that taxing the **** out
of wealthiest 2% of the citizens will pay off the national debt? Don't you
think printed money has full value? Don't you think that confiscating
estates will pay for all the government give-away programs? Some people
believe ALL that!

[cavelamb]

Tom Gardner wrote:

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the
former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich


The tipping point is closer than you think, in my opinion. I have to do
books and financials in a tiny way with a lot of help but I get the basic
idea and what's going on now, the numbers are screaming, not just
speaking for themselves. Unless VERY drastic action is taken VERY
quickly.........

(Tom)

Our opinions differ some.
I personally think the tipping point is already _past_...



Don't you thing the Chinese will continue to pump money into the system out
of the goodness of their hearts? Don't you think that taxing the **** out
of wealthiest 2% of the citizens will pay off the national debt? Don't you
think printed money has full value? Don't you think that confiscating
estates will pay for all the government give-away programs? Some people
believe ALL that!


(Tom)


No... Unfortunately I don't believe any of that.

Not that anything I believe matters...


For what ever it may be worth, what people believe they believe, in this
particular respect, means nothing.

The People have no say in this.

Events will unfold _as they have been set in motion_.

We are at that awkward point where we have stepped off the cliff - and found
nothing there to step on.

Like Wilie Coyote, we make the dramatic pause, wave bye-bye, and plummet into
the abyss.



But then, I'm an optimist at heart.

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[Tom Gardner[_15_]]

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Tom Gardner wrote:

Oh, well - before too long, unless the TP can actually rein in
spending,
the country's going down the same socialist toilet that flushed the
former
Soviet Union.

Thanks,
Rich


The tipping point is closer than you think, in my opinion. I have to
do books and financials in a tiny way with a lot of help but I get the
basic idea and what's going on now, the numbers are screaming, not just
speaking for themselves. Unless VERY drastic action is taken VERY
quickly.........

(Tom)
Our opinions differ some.
I personally think the tipping point is already _past_...


Don't you thing the Chinese will continue to pump money into the system
out of the goodness of their hearts? Don't you think that taxing the
**** out of wealthiest 2% of the citizens will pay off the national debt?
Don't you think printed money has full value? Don't you think that
confiscating estates will pay for all the government give-away programs?
Some people believe ALL that!
(Tom)


No... Unfortunately I don't believe any of that.

Not that anything I believe matters...


For what ever it may be worth, what people believe they believe, in this
particular respect, means nothing.

The People have no say in this.

Events will unfold _as they have been set in motion_.

We are at that awkward point where we have stepped off the cliff - and
found
nothing there to step on.

Like Wilie Coyote, we make the dramatic pause, wave bye-bye, and plummet
into
the abyss.



But then, I'm an optimist at heart.

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb


We might as well try to learn how to fly on the way down.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 24, 1:08*am, Hawke wrote:

History has already shown that is a dumb idea. If you knew what happens
when the rich can do what they please with their estates you would know
better. But you clearly don't know what the danger of unlimited passing
of wealth from one generation to the next brings with it. Learn some
history. Your opinion won't be as ignorant if you do.

Hawke

That is the Democratic line. Have you ever been in a public library?

From Wiki

A Carnegie library is a library built with money donated by Scottish-
American businessman and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. More than
2,500 Carnegie libraries were built, including some belonging to
public and university library systems.

Of the 2,509 such libraries funded between 1883 and 1929, 1,689 were
built in the United States, 660 in Britain and Ireland, 125 in Canada,
and others in Australia, New Zealand, Serbia, the Caribbean, and Fiji.
[citation needed] Very few towns that requested a grant and agreed to
his terms were refused. When the last grant was made in 1919, there
were 3,500 libraries in the United States, nearly half of them built
with construction grants paid by Carnegie.[citation needed]

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Dec 24, 1:00*am, Hawke wrote:


It's not their money anymore once they're dead. Once you die everything
you owned becomes somebody else's. It's just a question of deciding who
gets it.

Hawke

No. It is a question of who decides who gets it. Is it the
government or the person that had the money?

Dan

[Karl Townsend]

The People have no say in this.

Events will unfold _as they have been set in motion_.

We are at that awkward point where we have stepped off the cliff - and
found
nothing there to step on.

Like Wilie Coyote, we make the dramatic pause, wave bye-bye, and plummet
into
the abyss.



But then, I'm an optimist at heart.

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb


We might as well try to learn how to fly on the way down.

Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

[cavelamb]

Karl Townsend wrote:
The People have no say in this.

Events will unfold _as they have been set in motion_.

We are at that awkward point where we have stepped off the cliff - and
found
nothing there to step on.

Like Wilie Coyote, we make the dramatic pause, wave bye-bye, and plummet
into
the abyss.



But then, I'm an optimist at heart.

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

We might as well try to learn how to fly on the way down.

Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl


Dear Lord preserve us, Karl, I have no clues at all.







--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

[Ignoramus4253]

On 2010-12-24, Karl Townsend wrote:
We might as well try to learn how to fly on the way down.

Richard pretty well sums up my view of our situation.

I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?


Karl, I have most of my money (besides the house, of course) in
stocks. I have no idea what they will do next, but their earnings
yield is much more favorable than bond yields.

Note that prior to 2008, I had relatively little money in stocks, so I
am not some kind of a perennial bull. I swung into stocks in late
2008/early 2009.

I do not think of myself as a great market timer, I just go by price
and buy whatever looks cheap to me. Bonds are very expensive, yielding
basically nothing over the risk premium.

My kids UTMA accounts are 100% in stocks.

If stocks become expensive again, various stupid financial advisors
start recommending buying stocks regardless of price, etc, I will bail
out.

I have no idea what gold will do, but definitely count me out of that
party.

i

[[email protected]]

On Dec 24, 5:09*pm, Karl Townsend
wrote:


I'm near retirement and have a fairly good amount of savings. But I
feel paralyzed as to where to put it. I've lost all confidence in the
stock market. I'm told bonds are over bought and will collapse when
interest rates take off. I've got too much hid under the mattress and
more guns, gold, and machine tools than I should have. I'd rather not
spend my final decade or so on this planet in total poverty.

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

Iggy gave some good advice. Recently I have read a couple of books
that I think have good advice. One is by Johathan Clements and is
entitled " You've Lost it, Now What ?" and the other is " Stocks for
the Long Run " by Jeremy Siegel. I thought the last book was going
to offer advice about specific stocks, but it does not.

Clements wrote for the WSJ for a number of years. Siegel is a Univ of
PA professor.

The time to buy stocks is when people have lost all confidence in the
stock market.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Dec 24, 5:09*pm, Karl Townsend
wrote:

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

If you want specific advice , look at the following mutual funds. And
do not put all your money in just one fund.

VEIEX , VMGIX, VISGX, VFSVX, and VFINX.

Dan

[Ignoramus4253]

On 2010-12-24, wrote:
On Dec 24, 5:09?pm, Karl Townsend
wrote:

What should a prudent small guy do?

Karl

If you want specific advice , look at the following mutual funds. And
do not put all your money in just one fund.

VEIEX , VMGIX, VISGX, VFSVX, and VFINX.

Dan

My kids UTMA accounts are in VFINX. (part is in other stock funds).

Vanguard is one of the VERY few honest financial enterprises, that is,
not out to get me when I am not looking.

If I had enough savings to live on dividends from stocks, I would be
very comfortable having almost all my net worth in stocks, AT THE
CURRENT PRICES. If stocks rise in price and are again recommended as a
sure way to be wealthy, then I would, out of contrarian reasons, bail
out.

i