|
A waiter is a perfectly respectable job.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:A waiter is a perfectly respectable job. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/25/are-you-betting-on-an-inheritance-to-solve-your-money-problems/
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Oh. That is pretty apt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
hahaha this is great http://www.thestar.com/life/2010/03/13/its_unseemly_how_eager_some_are_to_inherit.html quote:Wills lawyer Les Kotzer was glancing out his window when a sports car pulled up and a middle-aged man got out. The man, sporting a full-length mink coat and a Rolex, strolled into Kotzer's office with his wife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/25/are-you-betting-on-an-inheritance-to-solve-your-money-problems/ I like reading the comments on these articles where the commentators try to out-bootstraps one another and try to find holes in the other person's rags-to-riches story to prove that that guy over there is a fake but, I, I am the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:hahaha this is great I don't see anything here to be celebratory about. It's loving pathetic, for a whole host of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't see anything here to be celebratory about. It's loving pathetic, for a whole host of reasons. It is, but the language has some humour value. I would love to see a heraldic representation of the baby boomer manchild rampant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Nothing fuels the fire of millennial angst better than watching their parents blow their grandparents' money on stuff and leave nothing for the next generation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't see anything here to be celebratory about. It's loving pathetic, for a whole host of reasons. This is literally proof positive of the miracle of Canada's economic and financial ability to weather the 2008 recession. Inter generational wealth transfer, amongst a host of other bullshit economic shell games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is literally proof positive of the miracle of Canada's economic and financial ability to weather the 2008 recession. Inter generational wealth transfer, amongst a host of other bullshit economic shell games. I can't argue with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Nothing fuels the fire of millennial angst better than watching their parents blow their grandparents' money on stuff and leave nothing for the next generation. No doubts. I'm a tail-end Gen Xer with old parents (Father is over 80, mother over 70) and I'm not looking forward to inter family struggle in 5 or 10 years over inheritance/end of life issues. I can't even imagine why people would be licking their lips over getting to the money, and I'm not in any way a close family person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:No doubts. I'm a tail-end Gen Xer with old parents (Father is over 80, mother over 70) and I'm not looking forward to inter family struggle in 5 or 10 years over inheritance/end of life issues. I can't even imagine why people would be licking their lips over getting to the money, and I'm not in any way a close family person. Because they're massively in debt and getting desperate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is literally proof positive of the miracle of Canada's economic and financial ability to weather the 2008 recession. Inter generational wealth transfer, amongst a host of other bullshit economic shell games. Can't wait for my parents to die so I can pay-off my overpriced GTA condo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:How the hell do they get rid of the Aura after 20-30 years? Kafka Esq. posted:It's almost 300 meters tall. You do it like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbzVfLWQNkA&t=17s
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
etalian posted:Can't wait for my parents to die so I can pay-off my overpriced GTA condo. Well you'd be in Brad Lamb's good graces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
wow, I thought I was a crazy kook for being against intergenerational wealth transfer. It seems like such a cornerstone of our culutre, but it really is a destructive force most of the time in the economy. Thanks for making me realize I'm not alone thread!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
My cousin is a director of a fairly large Waterloo based development house. She makes so much money it is not even funny. She asked her parents (who are 67 and 70, and in good health) for her inheritance "early". Her dad was a high school English teacher his entire working life and her mother stayed at home. She earned double what he ever did while in her mid twenties. So yeah, I am not surprised at how common this is. Especially when other people are not firmly a part of the 1% like my cousin is. Edit: After a touch of research it appears she is only in the top 2%. Math You fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
What's the solution? Just really high taxes? What's the current situation? Why not just tax inheritance or money from family (living or dead) as income like any income? My solution is to be too poor to have kids, thus breaking the chain of inheritance! \/ I know MANY people of my parents generation who planned their house purchase and their entire finances around their inheritance. When their parents live too long or their nursing costs get high it can cripple them. Instead of seeing their inheritance as a potential bonus, they've already counted it to the penny and planned their debt around it. These are often people who also got the money for their downpayment or bailed out of debt by their parents earlier. Get that 800k house on a 70k income. Buy that new car to celebrate your retirement. You're getting a good 500k when your parents die and that will solve all your problems, so live it up! Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Jesus, I can't imagine basically waiting for my parents' deaths in order to get money. I'd much rather have my parents alive and live off my own money, than to have a little bit more and no parents. If I were on the other side, and my hypothetical kids were asking me for their inheritance early, I think they'd get front-row seats to the "how fast can I spend all this money?" game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Why hasn't wealth concentration gotten worse over time? It probably has in the short-term, but over a longer period (i.e. since the Oliver Twist days) the trend is clearly down. Why didn't those industrial/railroad/oil tycoon type families manage to guarantee even worse concentration of wealth post their death? And doesn't that cast at least a bit of doubt on Piketty's thesis? (I'm genuinely curious here - not refuting any claim to the contrary)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Why hasn't wealth concentration gotten worse over time? It probably has in the short-term, but over a longer period (i.e. since the Oliver Twist days) the trend is clearly down. Why didn't those industrial/railroad/oil tycoon type families manage to guarantee even worse concentration of wealth post their death? And doesn't that cast at least a bit of doubt on Piketty's thesis? His argument is that two world wars and an intervening depression wiped out a lot of accumulated wealth and allowed for a political reset that temporarily reversed the trend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Why hasn't wealth concentration gotten worse over time? It probably has in the short-term, but over a longer period (i.e. since the Oliver Twist days) the trend is clearly down. Why didn't those industrial/railroad/oil tycoon type families manage to guarantee even worse concentration of wealth post their death? And doesn't that cast at least a bit of doubt on Piketty's thesis? I haven't hit the meat of his book yet, but the introduction says (among other things) that: a- Wealth concentration has already shot right back to 1900 levels since 1975 and is showing no signs of slowing down. b- Massive shocks in the form of two world wars were responsible for the deconcentration of wealth seen from 1910 to 1975 (and the Kuznets curve is garbage).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:His argument is that two world wars and an intervening depression wiped out a lot of accumulated wealth and allowed for a political reset that temporarily reversed the trend. Interesting. I haven't read the book obviously - intending to as soon as I'm done my current one ('Average is Over' - which has some interesting things to say about the changing nature of work as computers get added into the mix, and many tasks get automated away).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
After the great depression a ton of very good financial regulations were put in place because what preceded it was a combination of insane wealth disparity and a total lack of regulations or progressive taxes. WWII also shook everything up. Over time those regulations and systems have been gutted and capitalism's concentration of wealth continued again, and now income and wealth disparity is basically back to turn of the century robber-baron days. And it's almost like a tiny group of insanely rich idiots guiding the economy strictly for their own benefit doesn't actually produce good results for the economy. But you also have poo poo like 70% of the land in england still being owned by ancestors of William the Conqueror. If you look at the who's who of the old money in any country they've generally been old money for many many generations. Income mobility is pretty low and is mostly decided by the class of your parents. But why over time is there not an end-game where just 1 person concentrates all the wealth like an economic highlander? All it takes is one lovely generation to squander the money, or at least not grow it. Generally these families simply hold steady. One generation might grow their family worth while another might lower it, but over the century they'll at least stay "super rich". Families grow and the inheritance is split more ways. Some of those people squander the money, others use it to generate more money. It's the same with companies and corporations. Most are not all that long lasting. The railroads and barons of the turn of the century faced ruin just a generation later. American Industrial giants with seemingly unstoppable wealth and power during the mid-century saw their stagnation and fall a generation later. All but the most diverse mega-corps have stood the test of time, and even then their histories often see good and bad generations, splits and mergers and anti-trust actions. Generally the world and economy is chaotic enough to not allow some single line of people or a single company to concentrate wealth continuously. They certainly try though and do everything they can to change the system in their favour to allow it. An amazing king can see his empire fractured because his heir was an idiot. Generations of old-money wealth can be quite easily squandered by talentless spoiled children. And a super successful corporation can see its self bankrupt by a change in trends or a lovely CEO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What's the solution? Just really high taxes? What's the current situation? Why not just tax inheritance or money from family (living or dead) as income like any income? That is the tax situation in Canada, with the same deductions (capital gains at 50%, etc.) and exemptions for a few things (capital gains on the deceased's primary residence, for example). In the US, the estate tax was subject to a severe Luntzing (you've probably heard the term 'death tax') and the law is considerably more complex and loopholey. Bleu fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Bleu posted:That is the tax situation in Canada, with the same deductions (capital gains at 50%, etc.) and exemptions for a few things (capital gains on the deceased's primary residence, for example).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
So if someone left me 10 million and a mansion I'd just get that, less lawyer fees and none of that would be taxed as income? Obviously I'd be taxed on the assets in the future as they sit in a bank account or investments, and I'd pay taxes on the house. But I'd never pay any sort of income tax on this massive income?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So if someone left me 10 million and a mansion I'd just get that, less lawyer fees and none of that would be taxed as income? Obviously I'd be taxed on the assets in the future as they sit in a bank account or investments, and I'd pay taxes on the house. But I'd never pay any sort of income tax on this massive income? Nope. The existence of loopholes aside, even the United States has a more enlightened inheritance taxation policy than we do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So if someone left me 10 million and a mansion I'd just get that, less lawyer fees and none of that would be taxed as income? Obviously I'd be taxed on the assets in the future as they sit in a bank account or investments, and I'd pay taxes on the house. But I'd never pay any sort of income tax on this massive income? That's because it's not income in any real sense, just like lottery winnings aren't. You can certainly argue for an inheritance tax being implemented to avoid the sorts of problems intergenerational wealth transfer creates, but doing so on the basis that it should be treated as income is a non-sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
I'm not really a financial guy, but isn't income income? Doesn't matter if it's my boss giving me a wage, my mom giving me 5,000 for looking after the house for a month, or a long forgotten uncle leaving me a massive bag of cash with a dollar sign on the side? It's all "me getting money", it's incoming money, income. If I get $500,000 in an inheritance that should be taxed just as if my boss decided to pay me 500k that year. What am I missing that would make this bad? Obviously it would bump me up to a pretty high tax bracket for that year, but it's still a huge lump of money no different than if my boss decided to give me a 500k bonus for wearing extra shiny shoes that quarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not really a financial guy, but isn't income income? Doesn't matter if it's my boss giving me a wage, my mom giving me 5,000 for looking after the house for a month, or a long forgotten uncle leaving me a massive bag of cash with a dollar sign on the side? It's all "me getting money", it's incoming money, income. presumably labor and some kind of contract but I'm not a finance guy either, and I agree with you besides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not really a financial guy, but isn't income income? Doesn't matter if it's my boss giving me a wage, my mom giving me 5,000 for looking after the house for a month, or a long forgotten uncle leaving me a massive bag of cash with a dollar sign on the side? It's all "me getting money", it's incoming money, income. Well the thing that you're missing (and I'm not arguing whether this is fair or right or whatever) is that the estate has presumably already been taxed as income at some point. In the case where you inherit non-cash assets the deceased will have to pay income/capital gains tax as if they'd been liquidated and in the case where you inherit cash presumably it has already been taxed somewhere along the line. Again, not saying it is right or fair, just that is traditionally the rationale for it. Same goes for capital gains being taxed at 50%. edit: this just goes for inhertiances. No idea what the justification is for not taxing lottery earnings. I guess unless they expect to keep all that cash under their pillows they will have to pay taxes on at least a portion of it. leftist heap fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not really a financial guy, but isn't income income? Doesn't matter if it's my boss giving me a wage, my mom giving me 5,000 for looking after the house for a month, or a long forgotten uncle leaving me a massive bag of cash with a dollar sign on the side? It's all "me getting money", it's incoming money, income. Income has a precise definition, and PT6A is right to call out this distinction. It's not that inheritances shouldn't be taxed (I think they should - to avoid massive intergenerational wealth transfers as mentioned) but you'd have to call it an estate tax or similar, and treat it thusly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:Again, not saying it is right or fair, just that is traditionally the rationale for it. Same goes for capital gains being taxed at 50%. I know you're not arguing otherwise, but I actually think capital gains at 50% (as well as zero capital gains tax on principal residence) is one of the more questionable and unfair treatments in the tax code. It seems insane to me that someone who realizes a $50k gain in their stock portfolio pays half the tax of a $50k salary (light dividend tax treatment at least makes some sense, given that the corp+dividend tax is approximately, but not exactly, equal to the individual's marginal rate).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:edit: this just goes for inhertiances. No idea what the justification is for not taxing lottery earnings. I guess unless they expect to keep all that cash under their pillows they will have to pay taxes on at least a portion of it. The taxation on the lottery winnings occurred before you won it as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The taxation on the lottery winnings occurred before you won it as I understand it. Also: you can't deduct the 'loss' on the 'investment'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
quote:
http://vancouvercondo.info/2014/04/cmhc-one-home-is-enough.html Phone postin so I can't link the exact comment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So if someone left me 10 million and a mansion I'd just get that, less lawyer fees and none of that would be taxed as income? Obviously I'd be taxed on the assets in the future as they sit in a bank account or investments, and I'd pay taxes on the house. But I'd never pay any sort of income tax on this massive income? Why should it he income? Presumably your benefactor paid tax on it when they earned it in the first place. Lexicon posted:I know you're not arguing otherwise, but I actually think capital gains at 50% (as well as zero capital gains tax on principal residence) is one of the more questionable and unfair treatments in the tax code. It seems insane to me that someone who realizes a $50k gain in their stock portfolio pays half the tax of a $50k salary (light dividend tax treatment at least makes some sense, given that the corp+dividend tax is approximately, but not exactly, equal to the individual's marginal rate). Cap gains rate is to incentivize investment. Investment boosts economic growth and should be something that the government, as a rule, wants to encourage. I'm curious why you think that parents leaving estates to their kids and this transfer not being taxed is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:I'm curious why you think that parents leaving estates to their kids and this transfer not being taxed is a bad thing. It allows for the concentration of wealth in certain families, and works against the general concepts of both economic equality and meritocracy. I don't think it's the people getting $50,000, or even $500,000, that folks here are particularly concerned about. If we make an inheritance tax exemption up to a certain level, and either tax the rest progressively and/or allow for "deductions" based on bequeathing a certain amount of your estate to charity, I think it would strike a good balance between people wanting to pass on their estate to their children (or anyone else; if I'm pre-deceased by my parents, right now my assets would be divided among my close personal friends and some charities -- should those be handled differently because it "breaks up" the wealth instead of concentrating it in a family?).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
PT6A posted:That's because it's not income in any real sense, just like lottery winnings aren't. You can certainly argue for an inheritance tax being implemented to avoid the sorts of problems intergenerational wealth transfer creates, but doing so on the basis that it should be treated as income is a non-sequitur. Aren't lottery winnings not taxed because the government already makes so much money off the IPLC anyways? Lottery winnings are taxed in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
