Observations on life

Now wealth is “unacceptable” … why?

Do you agree? Do you believe it is acceptable to cut these families down to size by taxing much of their wealth away? Do you think it is acceptable for anyone to accumulate a lot of money by doing nothing? Be careful, that’s a trick question.

Let’s say you have $2,000; perhaps a tax refund and decide to invest. In addition, now that you are age 25 it seems like a good time to start saving for the future so you add $100 a month to your nest egg. Fast forward and you are ready to retire at age 65. During those years you have invested a total of $50,000, but you have $255,100 (at only a 6.5% return). You didn’t do a thing to earn that $200,000 plus.

img_2173-1But let’s say you are one of the really fortunate few Americans and rather than starting with $2,000 you inherited $5,000,000. Using the same assumptions as above, at age 65 you have $67,076,374. You gained over $62,000,000 and did nothing for it … except take risk.

Are you envious of the lucky stiff in example two? Are his or her riches unacceptable even though both individuals did nothing to earn the bulk of their money?

What about the person who ran a business for forty years and sold it for $100,000,000 at age 65? Do we look at the $100 million as fair game for the rest of us ignoring the economic benefits created for many people over that forty years?

Whose riches are unacceptable to whom?



4 replies »

  1. Bernie’s plan to tax the rich is to raise their income tax rate. That only affects people who are trying to grow wealth.

    People who are already wealthy would be unaffected for the most part except for the capital they make on their assets. Asset taxes like estate and inheritance tax doesn’t affect them either, only their heirs.

    If you had $3 million in assets, kept it all in cash in a vault earning no interest, you could live the next 30 years on $100,000 per year and pay no income tax.The only tax you would have to worry about is inflation.

    Bernie’s plan only hurts the people who are trying to save that 3 million, not the ones who already have it.


    • Except most likely that $3 million was taxed as it was earned and that’s what’s left. If politicians truly wanted to help average people there is a lot that cold be done like changing the taxation of 401k plans. Leave contributions tax free and only tax earnings or tax distributions not as ordinary income, but capital gains, etc.


  2. Richard, you hit the nail square on the head. with this question. “What would you do take it from them?”
    That is the left’s plan, get voters to believe it is unfair for the rich to have what they have, so it is time for the government to step in and take it.
    The problem is the government elite thinks if you have $250,000 you are rich and can make it on $100,000.
    If you have $100,000 surely you can live on $50,000.
    If you have $50,000 you will be just fine with $25,000.
    Because College is “FREE” and Healthcare is “FREE” and Public Transportation is “FREE.”
    So no one but the rich government elites will need cars.
    Everyone will live in the government provided 500 sq.ft. apartments in the control zones, for “FREE.”
    The left will not be happy until the 99% are poor and the government elite control it all.
    We have a two party political system that wants to move us to a two class social system. Where everyone will be equally poor.
    The Sheeple will go right along with it, they are drinking the B.S. and Hillary Kool-Aid already.



What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s