Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 04:09pm PT
|
😽
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 04:10pm PT
|
Please explain what's wrong with inherited wealth.
If you are responding to my post, I never said there was anything wrong with anything.
Here's the list I found: https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#1c3cbe307e2f
I don't know many of the names. I recognize some that I think became wealthy in their lifetimes, like the Amazon guy. I see others that did not. For sure there are certainly many people who have great wealth that they did not earn directly with their own work. Also, their grandchildren and great grandchildren etc. will probably be born with more money than most people will ever have.
At least they didn't get it though a massive con job, like my former CEO!
|
|
AKDOG
Mountain climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 04:51pm PT
|
Please explain what's wrong with inherited wealth.
Nothing (wish I had some), but when we are talking about immense wealth, one hopes that they will do something good with all this wealth. Once a long time ago a very rich man wrote:
"The day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free for him to administer during life, will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung, no matter to what uses he leave the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced. Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor."
|
|
Stewart Johnson
Mountain climber
lake forest
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 04:56pm PT
|
i wish one of these cuds would buy my local ski area and upgrade it without pressure to make a profit.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 06:25pm PT
|
If you are responding to my post, I never said there was anything wrong with anything.
No, not in particular. You mentioned it, and "inherited wealth" is one of those boogeymen of the left. I'm not attributing to you in particular any pejorative use of the term.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 06:33pm PT
|
The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced. Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor.
I agree with the first sentence but not with the idea that what it advocates will "solve the problem of the rich and the poor."
Many centuries ago, another wise man intoned: "The poor you will always have with you." History has proved him right. Centuries from now, regardless of political/economic systems that come and go, people will look back and acknowledge that he was still right.
And the terms are not absolute. The vast majority of the "poor" in the USA are vastly more wealthy than the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived (and that are living today).
So, yes, we can cheer the charitable and shame the misers. That will indeed do some good. But, nevertheless, "the poor you will always have with you."
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 06:50pm PT
|
So a bunch of people built some companies and own a bunch of stock.
Money on paper = paper. Not necessarily usable cash. Their cash in the bank does not equal the wealth # that Forbes or the activist of the week quotes.
And Income =/ wealth.
So X number of people own a gazillion shares and their value today = Y, which happens to equal the cash holding of Z billion people. Who cares? Tomorrow when the market tanks it will be different.
Its all another ploy to make "US" hate "THEM".
Stop it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 07:41pm PT
|
^^^ That.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 07:56pm PT
|
I didn't say there was anything wrong with inherited wealth but a lot of people seem to think its a great idea. I understand wanting to leave something for your kids, etc. but is there ever a point where it is too much?
When a select few are born with the wealth of a small country, how can we really say that "All men are created equal"?
|
|
originalpmac
Mountain climber
Timbers of Fennario
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:21pm PT
|
Jody, I appreciate your cop comment. Hilarious.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:30pm PT
|
For anything more than 100x the average annual salary the death tax should be, 75%$ or more. You can't take it with you and you can't give it to your no count sons either.
We're taking it back.
Including real property? If so, who gets it?
|
|
Aeriq
Sport climber
100-year Visitor
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:31pm PT
|
You material fools fail to recognize the real wealth of a life well lived.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:39pm PT
|
as envisioned in the founding of this nation
MB1, is there an oblique appeal here to some original version of "capitalism," as a guiding principle, you want to spell out more?
Thought to ponder: If education is a moral good, would federal funding of education be a sufficient goal of "capitalism" (leaving most other federal activities that seem like overreach or 'taxation is theft'... to be relegated to the states?)?
Wouldn't the federalizing of consolidation of control (power/control), also be present at the state level? I guess, why not federal bloating as opposed to state bloating?
Perhaps the more local, the easier to rectify problems (as a moral good?)?
I'm thinking here of school boards and how one community's education is another communities worst nightmare (Brown vs BoE?). Standardizing federally to a certain point seems to have historically helped 'modern' societies.
Moving fast on thoughts here, just touching the tips of the ideas. Sorry for the incompleteness.
cheers all,
M
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:48pm PT
|
The problem with inherited wealth is most of the wealth is stolen.
Such a tired old saw completely unsupported by any facts. It played well in 1789 and 1917
when it was true but don’t live in the past!
So you want to steal my black surgeon friend’s ‘stolen money’ (the grandson of a Bama sharecropper) so he can’t leave it to his kids, huh? I’ve a long litany of similar stories. Oh, how bout my Chinese-Mexican friends whose mom sold tofu from a cart on the streets of
Mexicali? That tofu got them an education and a lot of nice real estate that they shouldn’t be
allowed to pass that on to their kids? OK, comrade.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 09:52pm PT
|
I can understand people that would rather be on welfare than work for $10/h.
I can't.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 10:06pm PT
|
I'm not proposing anything really and certainly do not think that middle class inheritance should be taxed or taken, including upper middle class like doctors. (Thank you for mentioning your friend's race Reilly, that is important, lol)
I am talking about the people on the Forbes list. If you are born with with tens of billions you have more than money, you have tremendous power.
Also, there is a contradiction when we say people earned their money, yet when the great grandchild of a billionaire will probably be weather than 99% of the population even though they never even met their ancestor who did earn it.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 10:16pm PT
|
Increasing inequity of wealth and income is a Huge problem,
which we have already hashed out several times on this forum.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 10:20pm PT
|
Lituya, it's quite simple. For $10/h you can't rent an appartment, have a car, buy food and clothes, etc. but you have to do go to work and do your sh!ty job every day of the week.
Why bother?
Moose
Because all labor has dignity.
Assuming able-bodied, earn the $1732/mo and then apply for additional assistance as needed. Better yet, do outstanding work and negotiate a higher wage. Or, if that fails, unionize and negotiate collectively.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2019 - 11:56pm PT
|
For $10/h you can't rent an appartment, have a car, buy food and clothes, etc. but you have to do go to work and do your sh!ty job every day of the week.
Why bother?
"Why bother?" Uhh, because you don't have any right to be taken care of! Particular not to this or that desired standard of living!
Who says you have to have an apartment alone? Get a roommate or two. Who says that you need to have a car? Take the bus. Who says you need to shop at Marshall's rather than a thrift store? Wear hand-me-downs.
And WHO says that you are forced to do that "sh!ty" job every day of your life? WHO says that where you start out is where you are forced to end up?
I started at age 15 (almost 16) by cleaning up dog sh!t at a vet's office, because it was a "caretaker" position that came with a small room attached to the vet's office. I rode the bus to college.
I cleaned out dog and cat cages, held animals while the vet did procedures, cleaned the exam tables and rooms, and all the other sh|tty jobs. But I did it quickly, efficiently, and I expressed gratitude for the job, because it was a START. I was paid minimum wage, but it came with a room. That's it. A room.
Within a year I was a veterinary assistant, helping with surgical procedures and even doing closings. By then I was NOT making minimum wage. But I still had that room. And I still rode the bus to college.
Within a couple of years, I had saved some money. I was 18, so I could go to truck driving school. I had saved the money for it. I INVESTED in my future. Being just 18, I could only drive within the State of California; no interstate hauls. But I felt that I needed a break from college, as I had NO idea what I wanted to do with it, and I was burning money to keep attending.
So I drove US Mail rigs for several years. I worked for companies that had mail-run contracts. I started at the bottom, the sh|t runs, the middle-of-the-night runs, from Ventura to Palm Springs, all over SoCal. I drove doubles during rush hour into LA and then rush hour back out of LA. Try driving a set of doubles during LA rush hour. Every day. In and out. Talk about a sh|t job.
But I was always on time. Always. And I got about 1mpg better fuel mileage than the other drivers. I expressed gratitude to my bosses for the jobs, and I meant it. By now I was FAR from minimum wage, but I realized that a job implied that somebody had INVESTED to build something, and I had not yet built anything. I was grateful that somebody else had and that they could use me.
I earned seniority, better runs, and I started driving freight as well, which paid better. I had my own apartment and a Honda Civic. By the time I was 21, I had earned a reputation and some interstate runs. Through a friend of a friend I was offered a job driving hazardous for a Texas company that had a government contract. Starting pay: $50k per year with benefits. You know, $50k per year in the late 70s was not too shabby, not too bad for a 21-yo guy with a California High School Proficiency Exam and "some college."
I had some good friends from childhood, a couple of guys I climbed with at 14 and 15. I would talk to those guys about getting into college or going to truck driving school. Anything besides sitting around smoking weed all day. NO interest. I offered my best friend that I would pay for hist truck driving school, if he would just do it. I can still remember the conversation clear as a bell.
"Gary, come on man, you've got nothing, and you're going nowhere. It'll take a few weeks of training, and I'll talk to my boss about getting you a start."
"Thanks, but no thanks! I got NO desire to do the years of sh|t you did. I'll just be doing the same sh|t." (Big toke on a joint.)
"It ain't that bad, man, and it doesn't last forever. You got to start at the bottom, but you don't stay there. You pay some dues, and you're golden. Sh|t, man, I just got offered a job with a company that hauls hazardous for the government. I start at $50k a year. You hear me? $50k to start. YOU can be there in a few years."
"Nah, man. You know, I got some things working...."
Decades later I looked Gary up. He was living within a block of where he was during that conversation. He was a fat, useless lump with multiple kids from multiple mothers, still just sitting around smoking dope and drinking beer. It was literally like a cartoon having that last conversation with him. That was, I don't know, almost 20 years ago. I've never seen him since. He looked like death warmed over then, same age as me. "We the people" support his baby-mammas and kids. Of course, none of the mammas can work either.
I want back to school, then grad school. I taught, and I saved money. I started a business that now serves some of the most prestigious universities in the world. I have employees, and they share the ethos of our company. We ALL take "sub-standard" salaries, because we realize that every dime our company takes comes directly from the pockets of students (typically in the form of debt) and from taxpayers or constituents.
We're being approached by investors now. Not interested! A potential customer just asked me, "Are you even going to be around in five years? I mean, with your trajectory, I would expect you to get bought out. But we aren't looking to go with one of the two big vendors or a company that's just going to get bought by one of them. So, what's your five-year plan?"
I explain: "We are going to be here. We don't treat our schools like commodities, and we're not seeking to just make enough of a 'splash' that we can get bought out and just cash in. I plan to be doing this until the day I die, because I love what we do." And that's not marketing hype.
Yeah, I could "cash out" and get "comfortably well off," I suppose. But I'm really not interested in that. I do love what we do, and it's not about the money. We're doing well enough on our salaries. But, you know what? IF I did sell out for some reason and rake in the "big bucks," there would be many people on this site that would say that I had become just another "fat cat," that "you didn't build that," and all that other tripe.
But none of those "critics" would have spent the countless hours, late nights, wee hours of the morning, building and updating complicated enterprise systems, then supporting them, improving them, and creating those jobs that, fortunately, our employees are grateful for. And, thus, we have a product and a company to support it that our schools and their students are grateful for.
I started out cleaning up dog and cat sh|t. And don't give me the whole "white privilege" gig. That was the height of affirmative action. My black friends got free rides while I went into debt for school. I was turned down for more jobs than I can count because I didn't have the preferred gender or skin-color. I went through the whole process to join the San Bernardino Police Force, and at the final interview I was LITERALLY told, "I would love to bring you on, but I just don't have any slots open for a white male. We're keeping your file, and we'll call you if we can find a spot." Looking back, it was for the best! But don't tell me that I don't know what it is to be "underprivileged" and "discriminated against" on the basis of my race and gender. That sword cuts ALL ways! If there was "systematic discrimination," I, too, experienced it.
The whole liberal mindset revolves around a pity-party. "Why bother" to work for $10 per hour, because you can't enjoy a particular lifestyle right out of the gate. "Better to be on welfare." Well, THAT is what's wrong with welfare!
Gary could have moved up, and I would have even helped him do it! No desire. Now we just have more mouths that "we the people" get to feed. Gary was good for one thing: Self-gratification. Sadly, he bred that mindset into his kids as well. Generation after generation of people believing that "somebody gots to pay for all this," as they claim perpetual victimhood.
There ARE a FEW genuinely underprivileged people in the USA. But they are few and far between. MOST of the "underprivileged" are not suffering from systemic repression or genuine lack of opportunity. They are suffering from a fatal case of instant-gratification syndrome. They want this or that NOW, so they are always "working something..." but nothing ever happens. Decades go by, and they are right where they started, because they never STARTED!
There are jobs everywhere you look! START at the bottom, and save and sacrifice to not stay there. DO a good job, and express an attitude of gratitude, and just see how fast you rise far beyond minimum wage! Minimum wage is NOT to start or have a family! It's not supposed to LAST!
The "secret" to building something is sooooo simple, and nobody is "keeping anybody down." WORK HARD, and delay gratification so that you can INVEST in your own future. But this "why bother" mentality is one I have ZERO sympathy for. None, nada, ZIP.
And all this talk of wealth redistribution is ALWAYS based on some arbitrary line beyond which "we" decide that "you have too much." BS! It's not OURS to decide. And all these lines are arbitrary and unprincipled.
I was asked about "capitalism." My "answer" is that I suspect that what I mean by the term is not what the liberals here mean by it.
My brief story is what I mean by it: Work hard and invest in your own future. BUILD something. OWN something, because you built it. Expand the value of your offerings, so that others can join you in that building project.
But, see, at the end of the day, our employees go home. They have a "security" that I don't have. And if more work needs doing, my two partners and I do the work that still needs doing. So, they are getting everything they agreed to. And they won't begrudge me my millions if I decided to cash out, because they know that "their" jobs were not something that THEY created.
"Capitalism"? Well, consider this question as I do. I own a company that has intrinsic value in a market niche that does well in good times and bad. When you grasp the difference between intrinsic value and fiat currency, you'll instantly realize why "cashing out" is not an appealing proposition! There is no "ultimate security" in anything, but consider, for example, my taking "cash out" and then investing in, say stocks.
WHY would I invest in stock in a company that I don't know personally and have no control over, when I'd be taking that very money from a company that I already own? That's not a better risk/return proposition. But, see, ALL investment is a risk/return proposition, whether you're investing in a house, a company, a portfolio of stocks, or putting yourself through truck driving school... ALL of these investments involve delayed gratification and risk.
There is a VAST difference in mindset between those that create jobs and those that perform jobs. But there is no "us/them" divide in genuine capitalism. Yes, I own the company, and employees work for my partners and I. They get exactly what we agreed upon, and they do for the company exactly what we agreed upon. They may come and go over time. The company remains, and those jobs remain. Building a company and creating jobs involves a level of hard work and delayed gratification that almost no employees want to engage in. That's FINE. Not everybody has the risk tolerance to be an entrepreneur. I'm grateful to have great employees!
So, there's my "capitalism" in a nutshell. It IS about ownership. It IS about owning the "means of production," intellectual property, and all that "bad, capitalistic" stuff. It IS about building something that I OWN (as much as "ownership" is still sort of a bit of a thing in this country). So, this whole "Why bother? Just suck on the teat of the taxpayers and churn out more kids to increase the welfare check," is a massive pile of steaming snake-sh|t.
Corporate welfare is NO better. "Too big to fail" is a line that should have gotten the speakers of it hung in the streets, imo. And EVERY big corporation that needs taxpayer bailouts or ongoing subsidies should have EVERY upper-manager in jail rather than moved into the Fed or given cabinet positions! If you've so raped your company that it is failing but "too big to fail," then you've engaged in a level of at least negligence that should be criminal. The Japanese still have the honor to commit Seppuku over that sort of thing. But, nooooo... here we just bail them out and give the pricks bonuses!
Well, there it is, my rant about "capitalism." I felt like my "back story" might help put a context around the arguments I make. I'm committed to "capitalism," both from my educational background and from my personal life experiences. For the vast, VAST majority (I mean with virtually no exceptions) of people of all races, colors, religions, genders, and sexual orientations, the formula is very simple: Work hard, be grateful, and delay gratification; and you'll do just fine and increase wealth in this country.
But don't expect "Why bother" to get ANY traction with me. That's a non-starter because it implies people BEING non-starters and being encouraged to be non-starters.
|
|
hamie
Social climber
Thekoots
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2019 - 12:24am PT
|
What is wrong with inherited wealth? Is that a serious question?
This will be the first time that I have commented in a non-climbing thread, but.......
Some time last year I read a short newspaper article about a 27 year old member of the British aristocracy, who was visiting Canada. Lucky us. I don't remember his title--lord? duke? earl? viscount? or??? He had inherited his family's 'wealth' of some 19 billion pounds.
I have no idea where this 'wealth' came from. Perhaps his greatx40 grandfather, 100s of years ago, had taken part in one of the Crusades to subdue Islam, or in some campaign against the unruly Scots, or in any of the many battles with the French or Spanish, and had been rewarded accordingly. Who knows?
The notion that a 27 year old is worth 19 billion pounds, just because, does not sit well with me. Perhaps I am old fashioned.
Inherited titles run a close second.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!