On 2/25/2012 10:58 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/25/2012 11:07 AM, jk wrote:


And what is that dividing line? Some where, between 1:1 and 100:1 you
say crosses the line between fair and unfair. Again I ask just WHERE.

Sorry but I don't have the perfect number to give you right off the top
of my head. I don't think there is one ratio you would use across the
board.
Fair enough
To be fair I think you should go on a case by case basis.
I might even buy that, since each case is indeed different. I will
point out that doing that invites corruption.

It's like having judges decide things. They can be corrupt or they can
be fair you take your chances. The main thing is that most people do
think the guys on top are getting paid too well. When you know the upper
class has seen its income climb very well over the years and everyone
else's incomes are flat you can see why they think that.


I can
tell you that the boss getting 500 times what the average worker gets is
out of line. They don't pay bosses like that in Japan and India. They
didn't pay them like that here either. But then now we have the boards
of all the big companies comprised of other CEOs from different companies.
And I will grant that it is a problem. I don't agree that 500 is in
and of itself, out of line, or that 50 is even "in line".

You might be able to make a case that 500 times what a worker makes is
fair but some get far more than that. Is is not unfair that some of them
are getting much more than 500 times what the workers get?


As for what success people have just look up how many people leave an
estate of more than 100K when they die.
Truly irrelevant. Especially if you are not going to adjust that
number for both location and year. In fact not doing that adjustment
truly destroys one of your little arguments.

No it doesn't.
Oh it certainly does, but it was the argument that people are worse
off now than in earlier times.

I don't recall saying people are worse off now than in earlier times.
Unless you mean from 2000 on. Then it would be true because Americans
lost trillions in wealth from their homes and retirement portfolios when
the economic crisis hit. I saw where Hispanics were hit particularly
hard because they had most of their wealth in their homes. When they
lost value it cost them a ton.

My argument isn't an argument it's an observation of what
is. The reality is that over 90% of Americans don't have an "estate" to
leave on their demise. I just saw recently on CNN that the average net
worth of blacks in the U.S. is less than 6,000.

I am relaying the facts to you about how poor Americans are. Their home
is their most valuable asset. It is usually about all they own worth
anything. Only 2% of people are able to live well just on what assets
they have to retire on. Only 2% leave an estate. Now maybe I'm wrong and
it's 3% but my point is the same. Only a tiny percentage of people are
leaving any substantial money when they croak. If you don't think that's
true then do some research and tell us otherwise.


If you don't inflation adjust those numbers, I think you will find
that a LOT more people leave 100K+ estates than did in say 1950. But
what does that mean, NOTHING, since you can't buy a load of bread for
what you paid for one in 1950.''


Look, most people would not call 100K an estate. Most people leave
nothing or close to it.


Which "most" are you talking about in which line?
I think that the "most people" who leave nothing, would be the same
"Most people " who DO think that $100k IS an estate, and a good one.

It all depends on the terminology. To most people an estate means one
thing to lawyers it means something else. To lawyers any assets you have
when you die becomes part of your estate. It could be ten bucks. But the
commonly held idea of what is an estate is a lot of wealth.


If you are successful then you
should have a lot of money left when you die.


I disagree. If I am successful, I will die happy, contented, leaving
my wife well off, leaving no estate for the government to tax.

You say that but when you get very successful it gets harder and harder
to spend it all. Newly rich people spend a lot initially but as time
goes by they spend less. If you make a lot of money you probably won't
be able to spend it all and you will wind up with a good sized estate.
Unless you die young.


Arguable. There are lots of ways to transfer wealth that don't do
that.

We aren't talking about tricky ways to hide wealth or divest it before
death. I'm saying if you made a lot of money you will most likely have
an estate to leave your kids.

Or you will give it to them before you go, or tell them to earn their
own damn money, and spend it all.

Any way you slice it if you make a large amount it's likely you won't
spend it all and you'll wind up with surplus assets that would go into
your estate when you die. Most of us are not going to have much to go
into our estate.


Having a good adviser means that on your demise there is nothing to show
for it? I don't think so. I think it's the opposite. With good advice
and tax planners you should have a lot to show for it.

You would have a lot to show for it, but no actual estate for the
government to tax.

I don't know how you could still own the assets and not have it go into
your estate when you die. You would have to divest of the assets before
your death to avoid all taxes.


I don't see why you SHOULD leave an estate.

That's just a matter of personal opinion. Most people do want to leave
something to their kids. It's up to the individual though.

They have children they care about? If you aren't going to leave your
estate to them then who? Or what, just spend it up frivolously in your
eighties or nineties?
Why not.

My parents are in their 80s. Some would call them rich. You can barely
get them to spend any of their money on anything. You would probably be
the same at that age.


A house is usually about all most people have.


And if they held on to it, rather than trying to float at the top of a
housing bubble, that is likely to exceed your 100K number.

Could be. But then if they had a house worth 180K and owed 80 or 100K on
it and had three kids they wouldn't be leaving each kid very much money.


Do you have any idea what the average price of a house is in America?
Yes, and California too.

I checked the figures out yesterday.


It's like mid 150K and most people have a mortgage on them.


But if they held on to the house and did not get a second and third,
it is small relative to the value of the house.

That's a pretty big But! Most people took money out of their homes when
they went way up.

So you can
see most people's homes don't have all that much equity in them to leave
when they die.

That is because they took the equity out, and largely spent it.
Which is the middle class way of screwing the tax man.

Or of having a better life by spending more money on themselves. Can you
blame them? I can't.

That doesn't mean they were not successful.

My figure came from the National Association of Realtors.
Did I tell you I used to be a real estate agent?
No, but I don't see that it is relevant.

I just said that to let you know that having been a real estate agent I
know something about real estate.

Hawke