Hawke wrote:



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?
It doesn't matter where you draw the line. It is THAT you draw a line
in the sand, and can't justify it, that I see as a problem.


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.
Oh COME ON.
That is exactly what you said, specifically that we were worse off now
than we were in the 50s and at the turn of the previous century. The
discussion even digressed back to the medieval guilds when you made
another statement.

Unless you mean from 2000 on. Then it would be true because Americans
lost trillions in wealth from their homes
No they didn't, that "Wealth" was largely never there. Yes they
THOUGHT it was.
and retirement portfolios when
That I will agree with.
the economic crisis hit.


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.

No, the commonly held idea of an estate, matches almost exactly that
which you say the lawyers call it.


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.
Logic error,...........
If I make a lot of money, I will STILL have a "good sized estate" if
I die young. More than if I die old.


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.


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.
You don't have to own it to have exclusive use and control of it.
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.
There you go again, making assumptions. I don't think it is the age
they are, it is where and when they were brought up.
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.

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.
I don't blame them, they made a choice. [ I made a different one, and
now OWN my house and cars.]

That doesn't mean they were not successful, which is what you claimed.


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.
And it's still irrelevant.
jk