Poll
Question:
Should every generation have to "start over"?
Option 1: Yes--Spend it all before you die.
votes: 8
Option 2: No--Parents have a responsibility to leave their kids more than they had to start.
votes: 24
I keep a painting over my desk in my office ay home. It's an oil painting done in days of yore of a large brick house. The house in particular was built long ago in central Pennsylvania, near Altoona. It was built by my great*X (I'm not sure) grandfather and was in the family for several generations. It was kinda like our Walton's Mountain. This was before I was born. My grandfather was the last one I knew who ever lived there. Eventually, it came down through inheritance, blah blah etc. The last one who owned it rented it out to try and pay the taxes and the renters burned it down for insurance money. It's been gone for 20 years now. I think the last owner was one of my grandfather's older brothers.
Anyway, one of the main problems I have with my family in the modern era is that each generation has to basically start over from scratch. Or negative, in some cases. I keep the painting there so I can see it every day and motivate myself to leave the world with more than I started with. In my case, if I leave the next generation nothing and no debts I will technically succeed, but I'm hoping for something a little better than that.
My parents' generation (boomers) all are planning to go out broke. The popular thing with all their financial planning people seems to be to make sure you spend it all before you go.
Now, it's easy for me to say with moral conviction that that's evil, considering the hand I was dealt, even though I can understand why one would want to do it. Just as it's probably easy for somebody who got a nice inheritance from their parents to say it's better for everyone to start fresh each generation. They, after all, will never have to actually worry about it.
I vote yes, but only since you frame your story around material wealth.
Parents should work to leave wealth to their children in the form of love, education, character, extended family, good connections, safety, support, etc. Each generation can naturally grow money themselves from all those advantages.
Piss on young people.
Voted no, though I don't think it's a responsibility really. Personally, I'd like to leave a patrimony for my kid(s).
Ideally not.
Pretty limited voting options. Not even a jaron.
Quote from: Jacob on April 30, 2014, 09:47:01 PM
Voted no, though I don't think it's a responsibility really. Personally, I'd like to leave a patrimony for my kid(s).
Yeah I voted no even though I disagree with the rest of that option choice. -_-
Well, there's only two possible answers, so that's fair.
I guess the corollary question would be do you think children have a responsibility to take care of their parents once they can't work anymore. The one implies the other.
You guys know I support my mother in various ways, so my opinion is at least coherent and consistent.
Quote from: MIMMy parents' generation (boomers) all are planning to go out broke. The popular thing with all their financial planning people seems to be to make sure you spend it all before you go.
I believe it. <_<
My parents are pretty cool, I'll get some money when they pass.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 08:41:52 PMThe last one who owned it rented it out to try and pay the taxes and the renters burned it down for insurance money. It's been gone for 20 years now.
Wouldn't the insurance go to the owner?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 08:41:52 PMThe last one who owned it rented it out to try and pay the taxes and the renters burned it down for insurance money. It's been gone for 20 years now.
Wouldn't the insurance go to the owner?
Renter's insurance. I doubt the owner had any tbh. I do know the renter went to jail for fraud over it though.
Since we seem to be moving into an era where money if the main way to make money it would seem by doing so you would be damning your children to slave away in the lower classes. I have definitely been thinking about this, if labor continues to be devalued and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen I sure as hell want to get my family on the winning side of that equation. But hopefully by the time I die that problem will be licked.
I am not sure it is the parent's responsibility though. Every parent leaves a rich legacy, it may not be a material one. Hopefully it will be a positive one either way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
Piss on young people.
I can see your will now:
'Upon my death I, CDM, bequeath a bucket of piss to be poured on my Niece.'
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 08:41:52 PM
Now, it's easy for me to say with moral conviction that that's evil, considering the hand I was dealt, even though I can understand why one would want to do it. Just as it's probably easy for somebody who got a nice inheritance from their parents to say it's better for everyone to start fresh each generation. They, after all, will never have to actually worry about it.
Well the average person in the modern world will not get access to inheritance from their parents until they are well into middle age. It is not like they are starting with it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
Piss on young people.
I can see your will now:
'Upon my death I, CDM, bequeath a bucket of piss to be poured on my Niece.'
'And Phillip V will be the executor of this will.'
I don't see what the advantage would be with people having to start over.
I intend to carry on increasing the value of my estate until the day I die.
I've found that having money makes it so much easier to make more; and it seems to scale, the more money you have the easier it gets to make even more. This is no doubt pretty bad for society, but I'm not going to put my family at a disadvantage in futile opposition to a long term economic change.
I'll be all about building a patrimony.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 01, 2014, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
Piss on young people.
I can see your will now:
'Upon my death I, CDM, bequeath a bucket of piss to be poured on my Niece.'
'And Phillip V will be the executor of this will.'
I think you're still young enough he'll give you your own bucket of piss. :hmm:
I think that the estate tax should take everything but, say, $500,000 per kid. I've seen enough kids growing up knowing that they will inherit enough to live well so there is no need to try very hard, and it isn't pretty. Which isn't to say that there are not lots of children of wealthy parents that get taught the same mindset that made their parents rich, but I think that, generally, people should succeed or fail based on the effort undertaken and choices made in life, not based on which parents they chose.
The estate tax is the most logical and least-distorting tax that exists. Dead people don't resent paying it. It only makes sense to maximize it (within reason). Luckily, maximizing it serves a social as well as a revenue-generation purpose.
Estate tax sounds like Socialism gone mad. Even Sweden doesn't have it.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 06:35:43 AM
Estate tax sounds like Socialism gone mad. Even Sweden doesn't have it.
If Sweden doesn't have it, that's another argument in favor.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:41:32 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 06:35:43 AM
Estate tax sounds like Socialism gone mad. Even Sweden doesn't have it.
If Sweden doesn't have it, that's another argument in favor.
The death penalty comes to mind. :yes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 08:41:52 PM
In my case, if I leave the next generation nothing and no debts I will technically succeed, but I'm hoping for something a little better than that.
See Ide, organizing principle. :contract:
I find the poll confusing.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
Well the average person in the modern world will not get access to inheritance from their parents until they are well into middle age. It is not like they are starting with it.
Because of this.
Judging by average life expectancy by the time my parents are gone I will be in my late fifties.
I get the feeling Mimsy is talking about a family patrimony that grows (or at least maintains) with each generation, rather than a pot of money you can put up your nose at age 18.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 01, 2014, 01:35:21 AM
I intend to carry on increasing the value of my estate until the day I die.
I've found that having money makes it so much easier to make more; and it seems to scale, the more money you have the easier it gets to make even more. This is no doubt pretty bad for society, but I'm not going to put my family at a disadvantage in futile opposition to a long term economic change.
:thumbsup:
That will be pretty much my sentiment once I have a) a family, and b) an estate of my own :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:32:19 AM
I get the feeling Mimsy is talking about a family patrimony that grows (or at least maintains) with each generation, rather than a pot of money you can put up your nose at age 18.
Yes. I'm talking about a family legacy that keeps on being there and many generations can count on it. Not necessarily something grandiose, but maybe a nest egg of some kind that the various people who need to can fall back on it and not starve or be homeless. It could be a bank account I guess, but I was really thinking more like an old farm or maybe a business in the family or something. Some kind of thing that people can build over time.
That's why I'm not, grumbler, in favor of inheritance tax on any property worth less than (insert a pretty high value here and index to inflation) and never on any farmland not under ownership or control of a publicly-traded entity.
That stuff may sound like a nice way to redistribute, but what actually happens is the little guy gets his land redistributed to who can pay when the taxes are due, and that's Monsanto, Blackstone Capital or Goldman Sachs.
Over the long term the "little guy" is likely to hit a patch where the nest egg gets zeroed out or lost. The "little guy" doesn't have the deep pockets to last through the vicissitudes of multiple generations and the potential difficulties/bad management. Unless that nest egg grows and the "little guy" becomes not little I don't think it's likely to be very enduring.
I agree with Philip V that education, support and passing on familial/cultural ideas are the best inheritance.
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:10:28 AM
Over the long term the "little guy" is likely to hit a patch where the nest egg gets zeroed out or lost. The "little guy" doesn't have the deep pockets to last through the vicissitudes of multiple generations and the potential difficulties/bad management. Unless that nest egg grows and the "little guy" becomes not little I don't think it's likely to be very enduring.
I agree with Philip V that education, support and passing on familial/cultural ideas are the best inheritance.
So since there is no 100% chance of eternal success, the concept fails?
Maybe we should just nationalize all property owned by anyone with a low net worth and give it over to Goldman now in exchange for a nice tax percentage. :P
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:10:28 AM
I agree with Philip V that education, support and passing on familial/cultural ideas are the best inheritance.
So basically give everything to your kids while you are still alive. Probably for the best, I can better use it to guilt them with then.
Quote from: Tamas on May 01, 2014, 10:12:20 AM
So since there is no 100% chance of eternal success, the concept fails?
No, but I don't think a family business or farm is the most important part of what a family provides to its children. If a family has the resources to set up such things there's nothing wrong with it. However those things can more easily be taken away than culture/education/upbringing. If you don't have those then the family nest egg isn't going to survive the mismanagement of succeeding generations anyway. For the family as a whole I think it makes sense to diversify their occupations rather than potentially have everyone tied up in and involved in one business/farm/other financial interest. If that tanks then the whole family is in big trouble.
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:18:47 AM
However those things can more easily be taken away than culture/education/upbringing. If you don't have those then the family nest egg isn't going to survive the mismanagement of succeeding generations anyway.
Well clearly the family nest egg is not worth much without the culture/education/upbringing part. I don't understand why one must be the only inheritance.
QuoteFor the family as a whole I think it makes sense to diversify their occupations rather than potentially have everyone tied up in and involved in one business/farm/other financial interest. If that tanks then the whole family is in big trouble.
Well, as I said, since one is unlikely to get your inheritance until you are late middle aged, you would already have diverse occupations.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 10:23:06 AM
Well, as I said, since one is unlikely to get your inheritance until you are late middle aged, you would already have diverse occupations.
If we are assuming a family business/farm is set up as MiM proposed then presumably members of the family would be working for/on it from a young age.
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
If we are assuming a family business/farm is set up as MiM proposed then presumably members of the family would be working for/on it from a young age.
If it is a family farm most of the members of the family will flee in terror at the thought of working for it or on it :P
Our family farm looks like it will be saved by my cousin's son, we finally found a member of the younger generation who wants to toil in rural Oklahoma.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:57:02 AM
Yes. I'm talking about a family legacy that keeps on being there and many generations can count on it. Not necessarily something grandiose, but maybe a nest egg of some kind that the various people who need to can fall back on it and not starve or be homeless. It could be a bank account I guess, but I was really thinking more like an old farm or maybe a business in the family or something. Some kind of thing that people can build over time.
That sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. For one, it'll be diluted each generation unless you only have one kid. Secondly, what makes you think your descendants will be interested in your business or farm? Perhaps your child wants to live in another city or be a doctor instead (or, Hod forbid, a lawyer).
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:10:28 AM
I agree with Philip V that education, support and passing on familial/cultural ideas are the best inheritance.
So basically give everything to your kids while you are still alive. Probably for the best, I can better use it to guilt them with then.
I certainly think it's worthwhile helping your kids out while they are young, if you can swing it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:34:33 AM
I think that the estate tax should take everything but, say, $500,000 per kid. I've seen enough kids growing up knowing that they will inherit enough to live well so there is no need to try very hard, and it isn't pretty. Which isn't to say that there are not lots of children of wealthy parents that get taught the same mindset that made their parents rich, but I think that, generally, people should succeed or fail based on the effort undertaken and choices made in life, not based on which parents they chose.
The estate tax is the most logical and least-distorting tax that exists. Dead people don't resent paying it. It only makes sense to maximize it (within reason). Luckily, maximizing it serves a social as well as a revenue-generation purpose.
Trouble with estate taxes are they are almost trivial to avoid with a modicum of planning. As such they only really affect those whose parents die young and unexpectedly, or whom are ignorant enough not to do proper estate planning.
And even $500,000, which sounds like a lot, might not be. Lets say someone owns a nice little family business selling widgets. They employ 15 people, and is worth $5 million dollars. The owner dies and unless the heir can come up with $4.5mil to cover the estate fees, the business will either be crippled with debt or have to be sold. Neither seems optimal for the overall economy.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:34:33 AM
I think that the estate tax should take everything but, say, $500,000 per kid. I've seen enough kids growing up knowing that they will inherit enough to live well so there is no need to try very hard, and it isn't pretty. Which isn't to say that there are not lots of children of wealthy parents that get taught the same mindset that made their parents rich, but I think that, generally, people should succeed or fail based on the effort undertaken and choices made in life, not based on which parents they chose.
The estate tax is the most logical and least-distorting tax that exists. Dead people don't resent paying it. It only makes sense to maximize it (within reason). Luckily, maximizing it serves a social as well as a revenue-generation purpose.
Trouble with estate taxes are they are almost trivial to avoid with a modicum of planning. As such they only really affect those whose parents die young and unexpectedly, or whom are ignorant enough not to do proper estate planning.
And even $500,000, which sounds like a lot, might not be. Lets say someone owns a nice little family business selling widgets. They employ 15 people, and is worth $5 million dollars. The owner dies and unless the heir can come up with $4.5mil to cover the estate fees, the business will either be crippled with debt or have to be sold. Neither seems optimal for the overall economy.
Heck, $500k is not even enough for a 3 bedroom house in rural Surrey, UK. OMG TEH RICH
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:32:19 AM
I get the feeling Mimsy is talking about a family patrimony that grows (or at least maintains) with each generation, rather than a pot of money you can put up your nose at age 18.
Yes. I'm talking about a family legacy that keeps on being there and many generations can count on it. Not necessarily something grandiose, but maybe a nest egg of some kind that the various people who need to can fall back on it and not starve or be homeless. It could be a bank account I guess, but I was really thinking more like an old farm or maybe a business in the family or something. Some kind of thing that people can build over time.
There are very few businesses that can thrive and prosper across the generations though. And "the family farm" can be a curse as much as it can be a blessing - farming is very capital intensive (and becoming moreso), so a farm which provided a nice income 30 years ago is completely uneconomical today.
I am very much of the view that while I have a duty to help and assist my kids, that duty is for when I'm alive. As such I'll try and ensure they get the best opportunities, the best education so they can make the most out of life. But short of putting together a seven-figure endowment, I can't see how my boys lives would be meaningfully improved if, in their 50s, they get a hundred thousand or two from me when I die.
Quote from: Tamas on May 01, 2014, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:34:33 AM
I think that the estate tax should take everything but, say, $500,000 per kid. I've seen enough kids growing up knowing that they will inherit enough to live well so there is no need to try very hard, and it isn't pretty. Which isn't to say that there are not lots of children of wealthy parents that get taught the same mindset that made their parents rich, but I think that, generally, people should succeed or fail based on the effort undertaken and choices made in life, not based on which parents they chose.
The estate tax is the most logical and least-distorting tax that exists. Dead people don't resent paying it. It only makes sense to maximize it (within reason). Luckily, maximizing it serves a social as well as a revenue-generation purpose.
Trouble with estate taxes are they are almost trivial to avoid with a modicum of planning. As such they only really affect those whose parents die young and unexpectedly, or whom are ignorant enough not to do proper estate planning.
And even $500,000, which sounds like a lot, might not be. Lets say someone owns a nice little family business selling widgets. They employ 15 people, and is worth $5 million dollars. The owner dies and unless the heir can come up with $4.5mil to cover the estate fees, the business will either be crippled with debt or have to be sold. Neither seems optimal for the overall economy.
Heck, $500k is not even enough for a 3 bedroom house in rural Surrey, UK. OMG TEH RICH
At first I read that as Surrey, BC. But you'd still be correct. :cool:
Do you plan to pay for their college? Do you plan to at least not make them pay to bury you when you kick over? Those things are totally part of it.
Do you plan to maybe help them from time to time with things like cars or down payments for a house? Most parents I know have done things like that. (Not mine.)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 11:07:50 AM
Do you plan to pay for their college? Do you plan to at least not make them pay to bury you when you kick over? Those things are totally part of it.
Do you plan to maybe help them from time to time with things like cars or down payments for a house? Most parents I know have done things like that. (Not mine.)
All the old people I have known/heard about are obsessed over saving at least as much as to finance their own burials. At least in Hungary. I think it is just decent human nature, considering the family as a basic unit you are supposed to support or the very least not be a burden to it.
Do you not have paupers funerals in Hungary?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2014, 11:14:00 AM
Do you not have paupers funerals in Hungary?
They just introduced something like that a few years ago, but I am blurry on details. It is kind of mess like most laws created the last 4 years.
Are there no workhouses?
;)
People do almost anything to avoid a pauper's funeral.
I really am not sure. :)
Hungarian retired people usually just stop living for all intents and purposes (rural people at least). Not much to spend on that way (wouldn't be able to go on holidays and stuff anyways), so they usually end up with some savings, usually under their pillows, which in turn make them prime targets for conmen, scammers, and just plain old robbers.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 01, 2014, 11:16:45 AM
Are there no workhouses?
;)
People do almost anything to avoid a pauper's funeral.
I thought of them after reading this rather strange story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10584884/Paupers-funerals-making-comeback-as-families-exploit-loophole-to-save-funeral-costs.html
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
If we are assuming a family business/farm is set up as MiM proposed then presumably members of the family would be working for/on it from a young age.
If it is a family farm most of the members of the family will flee in terror at the thought of working for it or on it :P
Our family farm looks like it will be saved by my cousin's son, we finally found a member of the younger generation who wants to toil in rural Oklahoma.
In my own family my grandparents had a sawmill that did reasonably well. There was no way that it could support the six children that they had. Three (one brother, two sisters) worked/managed the mill with a couple of hired employees. My father would have loved to stay and work on the mill and in fact it is his favorite thing to do when he visits there. As it turns out it was probably for the best that he didn't. My uncle's sons have had a rather acrimonious fight over ownership/management of the mill and have basically stopped talking to one another. I'm quite happy that my immediate family is not involved in dealing with any of that.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
I can't see how my boys lives would be meaningfully improved if, in their 50s, they get a hundred thousand or two from me when I die.
:huh:
Why, because they are going to be rolling in cash and so and extra couple hundred thousand won't matter. Hell, I could use a couple hundred K easily.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 12:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
I can't see how my boys lives would be meaningfully improved if, in their 50s, they get a hundred thousand or two from me when I die.
:huh:
Why, because they are going to be rolling in cash and so and extra couple hundred thousand won't matter. Hell, I could use a couple hundred K easily.
Of course they could.
But I could also use the $300-$600K in my retirement.
But I said "meaningfully improved". If my parents died today and I received $100k, would much change? Not really. I'd pay down the mortgage, chopping several years off of it. Which would be nice, but not substantially alter my life.
I am taking steps to give my boys a good shot at life - saving for their education, and timing the house payments to be over by the time post-secondary starts so I can help pay for it. But I don't see a straight cash inheritance (unless it's huge) making that much difference.
I agree that front-loading the spending is probably more efficient, yeah.
Spend more on education and on raising them, and to help them during the early years when they're trying to establish themselves in their lives and careers.
Spending $100K, say, so they can graduate university debt-free or so they can make a down-payment for a slightly bigger/nicer place when (if) they buy their first home is likely to be more useful than adding $100K+interest to their assets 30-40 (or more) years later. It also has the advantage that you get to see and enjoy the kids benefitting from the fruits of your labour.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
Trouble with estate taxes are they are almost trivial to avoid with a modicum of planning. As such they only really affect those whose parents die young and unexpectedly, or whom are ignorant enough not to do proper estate planning.
And even $500,000, which sounds like a lot, might not be. Lets say someone owns a nice little family business selling widgets. They employ 15 people, and is worth $5 million dollars. The owner dies and unless the heir can come up with $4.5mil to cover the estate fees, the business will either be crippled with debt or have to be sold. Neither seems optimal for the overall economy.
I have never understood this argument. The people who started the business didn't start with a $5 million business; they started with a loan and built up from there. If the original company can be created without the $5 million, so can the follow-on. Debt isn't crippling to a business; it is the normal state of affairs.
As far as the estate tax being easy to avoid, that is true of all taxes designed to be avoided. You would need to change some of the rules, but I'd see no problem with people giving away their estates while they are still alive, because then the recipient (or giver, depending on amount) have to pay income taxes, so society gets the benefits, and unearned wealth accumulation is impeded.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
Trouble with estate taxes are they are almost trivial to avoid with a modicum of planning. As such they only really affect those whose parents die young and unexpectedly, or whom are ignorant enough not to do proper estate planning.
And even $500,000, which sounds like a lot, might not be. Lets say someone owns a nice little family business selling widgets. They employ 15 people, and is worth $5 million dollars. The owner dies and unless the heir can come up with $4.5mil to cover the estate fees, the business will either be crippled with debt or have to be sold. Neither seems optimal for the overall economy.
I have never understood this argument. The people who started the business didn't start with a $5 million business; they started with a loan and built up from there. If the original company can be created without the $5 million, so can the follow-on. Debt isn't crippling to a business; it is the normal state of affairs.
As far as the estate tax being easy to avoid, that is true of all taxes designed to be avoided. You would need to change some of the rules, but I'd see no problem with people giving away their estates while they are still alive, because then the recipient (or giver, depending on amount) have to pay income taxes, so society gets the benefits, and unearned wealth accumulation is impeded.
:huh:
For the first part - the company presumably grew, organically over the years, into the $5mil business. Some level of debt may not be crippling to a business, ut debt equal to 95% of the value of the company often is. Look up the sordid history of leveraged buyouts for the problems that arise.
For the second part "you would just need to change some of the rules" sounds so easy when you say it, but oh-so-hard to put into practice. There are typically also ways to hand over assets (and control of a company) without triggering gift taxes (or so I understand, we don't tax gifts in Canada)...
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 12:26:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 12:15:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
I can't see how my boys lives would be meaningfully improved if, in their 50s, they get a hundred thousand or two from me when I die.
:huh:
Why, because they are going to be rolling in cash and so and extra couple hundred thousand won't matter. Hell, I could use a couple hundred K easily.
Of course they could.
But I could also use the $300-$600K in my retirement.
But I said "meaningfully improved". If my parents died today and I received $100k, would much change? Not really. I'd pay down the mortgage, chopping several years off of it. Which would be nice, but not substantially alter my life.
I am taking steps to give my boys a good shot at life - saving for their education, and timing the house payments to be over by the time post-secondary starts so I can help pay for it. But I don't see a straight cash inheritance (unless it's huge) making that much difference.
That 100k would save your kids from having to go to the UofM
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 12:35:43 PM
I agree that front-loading the spending is probably more efficient, yeah.
Spend more on education and on raising them, and to help them during the early years when they're trying to establish themselves in their lives and careers.
Spending $100K, say, so they can graduate university debt-free or so they can make a down-payment for a slightly bigger/nicer place when (if) they buy their first home is likely to be more useful than adding $100K+interest to their assets 30-40 (or more) years later. It also has the advantage that you get to see and enjoy the kids benefitting from the fruits of your labour.
The theory is that if BB gets money he doesnt really need he will spend it on his kids. That is what I was getting at with me being able to use another 200k right about now given that age and stage of my kids.
And, if I understand MiM correctly, that is the kind of intergenerational help he is talking about.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:32:19 AM
I get the feeling Mimsy is talking about a family patrimony that grows (or at least maintains) with each generation, rather than a pot of money you can put up your nose at age 18.
Yes. I'm talking about a family legacy that keeps on being there and many generations can count on it. Not necessarily something grandiose, but maybe a nest egg of some kind that the various people who need to can fall back on it and not starve or be homeless. It could be a bank account I guess, but I was really thinking more like an old farm or maybe a business in the family or something. Some kind of thing that people can build over time.
That's why I'm not, grumbler, in favor of inheritance tax on any property worth less than (insert a pretty high value here and index to inflation) and never on any farmland not under ownership or control of a publicly-traded entity.
That stuff may sound like a nice way to redistribute, but what actually happens is the little guy gets his land redistributed to who can pay when the taxes are due, and that's Monsanto, Blackstone Capital or Goldman Sachs.
When corporations die, their estates should be taxed at 100%. :angry:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 01, 2014, 01:48:07 PM
When corporations die, their estates should be taxed at 100%. :angry:
:lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 01, 2014, 11:16:45 AM
Are there no workhouses?
;)
People do almost anything to avoid a pauper's funeral.
I want to be left to rot in the street.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 12:35:43 PM
I agree that front-loading the spending is probably more efficient, yeah.
Spend more on education and on raising them, and to help them during the early years when they're trying to establish themselves in their lives and careers.
Spending $100K, say, so they can graduate university debt-free or so they can make a down-payment for a slightly bigger/nicer place when (if) they buy their first home is likely to be more useful than adding $100K+interest to their assets 30-40 (or more) years later. It also has the advantage that you get to see and enjoy the kids benefitting from the fruits of your labour.
The theory is that if BB gets money he doesnt really need he will spend it on his kids. That is what I was getting at with me being able to use another 200k right about now given that age and stage of my kids.
And, if I understand MiM correctly, that is the kind of intergenerational help he is talking about.
So the inheritance is left for the children but is likely going to be spent on the grandchildren? That makes sense too.
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 02:20:15 PM
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
That is why an estate tax works so well. Nobody owns an estate. No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead. No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 02:20:15 PM
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
That is why an estate tax works so well. Nobody owns an estate. No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead. No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.
Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way. :hmm:
So what? There are a lot of people who see it that people like you or I are useless employees doing a job that shouldn't be done. Big whoop.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 02:20:15 PM
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
That is why an estate tax works so well. Nobody owns an estate. No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead. No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.
Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way. :hmm:
But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 02:20:15 PM
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
That is why an estate tax works so well. Nobody owns an estate. No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead. No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.
Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way. :hmm:
But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
So if you are rich enough, you just go to Canada or wherever and take care of it that way. Only the middle classes would have their estates taxed. You know, like how most of this stuff tends to go.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 01, 2014, 02:20:15 PM
The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!
That is why an estate tax works so well. Nobody owns an estate. No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead. No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.
Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way. :hmm:
But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
I am pretty sure the Americans have their fair share of ways to avoid the tax.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
I am pretty sure the Americans have their fair share of ways to avoid the tax.
Trying to fool the IRS is a dangerous game. They can destroy you in many nefarious ways.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 03:50:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
So if you are rich enough, you just go to Canada or wherever and take care of it that way. Only the middle classes would have their estates taxed. You know, like how most of this stuff tends to go.
I find it very odd, the ingrained notion that rich people can avoid taxes regardless of the will of the U.S. government to tax them.
If we can kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or blow up a guy in Yemen with a drone-launched Hellfire missile, we can enforce our tax code.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 03:50:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
So if you are rich enough, you just go to Canada or wherever and take care of it that way. Only the middle classes would have their estates taxed. You know, like how most of this stuff tends to go.
I'm sure you know that US citizens get taxed on their income anywhere in the world. :console:
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 04:15:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 03:50:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.
So if you are rich enough, you just go to Canada or wherever and take care of it that way. Only the middle classes would have their estates taxed. You know, like how most of this stuff tends to go.
I'm sure you know that US citizens get taxed on their income anywhere in the world. :console:
Yes, of course we do :ph34r:
Norway has a nice little out for companies: The Norwegian Foreign Company, which you can register. The pros: No taxes for the first three financial years, and no taxes until you turn a profit. The cons? No idea. I pay my taxes gladly. Now that I am sober, I am sure Norway needs my income tax more than ever, after I took away 10 % of the indirect taxes.
Estate tax is a very good thing when used on very large estates, IMO. I just hate it for smallholders. In that case, it's not a leveler, it exacerbates the rich/poor gap. Even in cases where the beneficiaries get an ok living from it, so what. That's one more job someone else can have. What's the point in taking away their coffee shop and making them work for Starbucks instead? Society gets no benefit from that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
I am pretty sure the Americans have their fair share of ways to avoid the tax.
Trying to fool the IRS is a dangerous game. They can destroy you in many nefarious ways.
Tax avoidance is legal.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 04:49:34 PM
Estate tax is a very good thing when used on very large estates, IMO. I just hate it for smallholders. In that case, it's not a leveler, it exacerbates the rich/poor gap. Even in cases where the beneficiaries get an ok living from it, so what. That's one more job someone else can have. What's the point in taking away their coffee shop and making them work for Starbucks instead? Society gets no benefit from that.
No one is taking away anyone's coffee shop. Billy and Susie have never owned the shop, and Bob and Sally, who used to own it, are dead.
Billy and Susie can choose to either sell the shop for $2 million and pocket their $500k apiece, or they can borrow $1 million and, combined with their prospective shares of the estate, buy the shop from the estate.
There is the risk that the bank will foreclose on them if they don't make their payments, and the bank will then take away their shop and make them work for Starbucks, but bankruptcy laws actually serve society well. Bob and Sally also lived with this risk.
Also, something like 35 or 40 percent of the single-family homes in my city are currently owned by hedge funds. I'm not blaming that on inheritance, but it's just one more thing to not do if we don't have to.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 05:31:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 04:49:34 PM
Estate tax is a very good thing when used on very large estates, IMO. I just hate it for smallholders. In that case, it's not a leveler, it exacerbates the rich/poor gap. Even in cases where the beneficiaries get an ok living from it, so what. That's one more job someone else can have. What's the point in taking away their coffee shop and making them work for Starbucks instead? Society gets no benefit from that.
No one is taking away anyone's coffee shop. Billy and Susie have never owned the shop, and Bob and Sally, who used to own it, are dead.
Billy and Susie can choose to either sell the shop for $2 million and pocket their $500k apiece, or they can borrow $1 million and, combined with their prospective shares of the estate, buy the shop from the estate.
There is the risk that the bank will foreclose on them if they don't make their payments, and the bank will then take away their shop and make them work for Starbucks, but bankruptcy laws actually serve society well. Bob and Sally also lived with this risk.
There's always that risk. Why add more? Hell, they might not even want the shop. But if they do, we should let them have it. Society would get more taxes in the long run if they are successful anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 05:34:54 PM
There's always that risk. Why add more? Hell, they might not even want the shop. But if they do, we should let them have it. Society would get more taxes in the long run if they are successful anyway.
I don't understand the question. Are you asking why societies collect taxes? Are you suggesting that, instead of collecting taxes, "we should let" people just keep their money? That society will get more taxes in the long run if we don't collect taxes?
That corner coffee store will be owned by someone, if not by Billy and Susie. Whoever that someone is will have a mortgage and will pay taxes. I see no reason to gift the store to Billy and Susie. If Bob and Sally wanted them to have it, they should have sold or gifted it to them (in which case other applicable taxes would be paid and society comes out ahead).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
Also, something like 35 or 40 percent of the single-family homes in my city are currently owned by hedge funds. I'm not blaming that on inheritance, but it's just one more thing to not do if we don't have to.
:lol: Also, something like 18 inches of rain fell in my town over the last month. I'm not blaming that on insufficient inheritance taxes, but why not implement a 100% inheritance tax to be sure?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
Also, something like 35 or 40 percent of the single-family homes in my city are currently owned by hedge funds. I'm not blaming that on inheritance, but it's just one more thing to not do if we don't have to.
I don't really see what this has to do with anything.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 05:34:54 PM
There's always that risk. Why add more? Hell, they might not even want the shop. But if they do, we should let them have it. Society would get more taxes in the long run if they are successful anyway.
I don't understand the question. Are you asking why societies collect taxes? Are you suggesting that, instead of collecting taxes, "we should let" people just keep their money? That society will get more taxes in the long run if we don't collect taxes?
That corner coffee store will be owned by someone, if not by Billy and Susie. Whoever that someone is will have a mortgage and will pay taxes. I see no reason to gift the store to Billy and Susie. If Bob and Sally wanted them to have it, they should have sold or gifted it to them (in which case other applicable taxes would be paid and society comes out ahead).
If Billy and Susie keep the shop, they will pay income taxes and sales taxes just like mom and pop did while they operate the business. If Billy and Susie sell the shop, they will pay tax on the sale of capital assets. An extra tax in this case is simply not required. We'll get money from Billy and Susie no matter what they do.
You aren't gifting anything since the store isn't yours to gift.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 05:44:53 PM
If Billy and Susie keep the shop, they will pay income taxes and sales taxes just like mom and pop did while they operate the business. If Billy and Susie sell the shop, they will pay tax on the sale of capital assets. An extra tax in this case is simply not required. We'll get money from Billy and Susie no matter what they do.
Whoever runs the shop will pay income taxes and sales taxes and whatnot. If Billy and Susie, or anyone else, sells the shop, they will pay capital gains taxes. Since the government is getting money from the estate under my proposal, though, all of those federal tax burdens will be less because the federal government will have to raise less money outside the estate tax regime.
QuoteYou aren't gifting anything since the store isn't yours to gift.
It is no-one's to gift. It's now part of an estate, and no one owns an estate. Even the executor can't just give away assets of the estate.
Billy and Susie should have gotten their STEM degrees and good jobs instead of slacking around and working in Mom and Dad's coffee shop learning to draw roses in the Latte.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:06:14 PM
Whoever runs the shop will pay income taxes and sales taxes and whatnot. If Billy and Susie, or anyone else, sells the shop, they will pay capital gains taxes. Since the government is getting money from the estate under my proposal, though, all of those federal tax burdens will be less because the federal government will have to raise less money outside the estate tax regime.
Ah but there is an interest for everyone that assets stay in the hands of smallholders rather than going to the rich. IMO, that means the tax structure should reflect that and not make it harder for the smallholders to keep it. If you don't believe that, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure Blackstone will be happy to buy up your house when you die in several centuries. Just don't will it to them directly because they probably have ways to avoid the taxes. :P
I have several elaborate treasure maps that lead to ED ANGER'S SILVER.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 06:21:22 PM
Ah but there is an interest for everyone that assets stay in the hands of smallholders rather than going to the rich. IMO, that means the tax structure should reflect that and not make it harder for the smallholders to keep it. If you don't believe that, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure Blackstone will be happy to buy up your house when you die in several centuries. Just don't will it to them directly because they probably have ways to avoid the taxes. :P
:lol: Dude, the rich can't pass along their wealth to their kids under my scheme, either. I don't know why you would believe that a $500,000 share of a $200 million estate makes someone "rich" while poor Billy and Susue are poor because they only have a $500,000 cut each of a $2 million estate.
And I don't know anyone named Blackstone and don't care if he or she buys my house when I am dead. That dog just won't hunt.
I plan to be a vengeful ghost if I have descendants.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
And I don't know anyone named Blackstone and don't care if he or she buys my house when I am dead. That dog just won't hunt.
Pretty sure Blackstone is a company, not a dog.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 10:27:56 PM
Well, there's only two possible answers, so that's fair.
NOt really.
I don't think parents should spend it all before they die. Nor do I think they need to leave them more than they had. There must be an inbetween.
Quote from: Josephus on May 01, 2014, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 30, 2014, 10:27:56 PM
Well, there's only two possible answers, so that's fair.
NOt really.
I don't think parents should spend it all before they die. Nor do I think they need to leave them more than they had. There must be an inbetween.
A point between "leave nothing" and "leave more than you started with"?
Hmm... what could that be?
oK...maybe I misunderstand the question then. :blush:
never mind carry on....
although I do find this a bit ambiguous
Parents have a responsibility to leave their kids more than they had to start.
than who had to start? The parents?The Kids? Start what?
I took it to mean parents should leave their kids more than THEY, the parents had, when they started out as grown ups.
It seems pretty simple Jo Jo.
You inherit 100K. You're supposed to leave more than 100K to your offspring.
Though Mimsy forgot to factor in inflation.
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
And I don't know anyone named Blackstone and don't care if he or she buys my house when I am dead. That dog just won't hunt.
Pretty sure Blackstone is a company, not a dog.
Why should I fear that some company I have never heard of will want to buy my house several centuries from now?
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 07:45:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
And I don't know anyone named Blackstone and don't care if he or she buys my house when I am dead. That dog just won't hunt.
Pretty sure Blackstone is a company, not a dog.
Why should I fear that some company I have never heard of will want to buy my house several centuries from now?
Because you'll likely still be alive?
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 07:14:46 PM
A point between "leave nothing" and "leave more than you started with"?
Hmm... what could that be?
A point between "spend it all" and "parents have a responsibility." What if they have no such responsibility and they also don't spend it all? Or if they have a responsibility and spend it all anyway? There are lots of spaces between the apples and the oranges.
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 07:45:39 PM
Why should I fear that some company I have never heard of will want to buy my house several centuries from now?
Because you'll likely still be alive?
And...???
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:35:21 PM
It seems pretty simple Jo Jo.
You inherit 100K. You're supposed to leave more than 100K to your offspring.
Though Mimsy forgot to factor in inflation.
What if I inherit 100 K and leave half and spend half.? Can I do that for my kids?
Obviously I'm missing somehting. Not sure why it's black and white, either, or.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:35:21 PM
It seems pretty simple Jo Jo.
You inherit 100K. You're supposed to leave more than 100K to your offspring.
Though Mimsy forgot to factor in inflation.
By the way my three year old niece calls me Jo Jo.
Quote from: Josephus on May 01, 2014, 08:08:21 PM
What if I inherit 100 K and leave half and spend half.? Can I do that for my kids?
By Mimsy's standards you've failed in your obligation. You're supposed to grow the patrimony.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 07:45:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 01, 2014, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 06:33:48 PM
And I don't know anyone named Blackstone and don't care if he or she buys my house when I am dead. That dog just won't hunt.
Pretty sure Blackstone is a company, not a dog.
Why should I fear that some company I have never heard of will want to buy my house several centuries from now?
You should fear a company that can become corporeal and hunt.
Quote from: Josephus on May 01, 2014, 08:08:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 07:35:21 PM
It seems pretty simple Jo Jo.
You inherit 100K. You're supposed to leave more than 100K to your offspring.
Though Mimsy forgot to factor in inflation.
What if I inherit 100 K and leave half and spend half.? Can I do that for my kids?
Obviously I'm missing somehting. Not sure why it's black and white, either, or.
Then you have lost 50% of the family's wealth.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2014, 09:29:53 PM
Piss on young people.
I can see your will now:
'Upon my death I, CDM, bequeath a bucket of piss to be poured on my Niece.'
My nieces were already worth more financially as they were gestating in the womb than I ever will be. They won't need my peanuts. The local animal shelter gets my estate.
Your sister more successful too? I feel you. There is not a person on Earth I resent more than my sister--every break I didn't get, she did; every mistake I made, she didn't (or she didn't pay for it).
Tide may be turning. She recently quit her job to go travel out West on her savings. :wacko: Honestly, she's such a privileged little bitch. <_<
Is she going to be living in a van?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 02, 2014, 05:47:09 AM
every break I didn't get, she did; every mistake I made, she didn't (or she didn't pay for it).
The same is true of my brother, but strangely I don't resent him at all. We get along perfectly and I talk to him more (almost daily) than anyone else in my family other than Princesca. :hmm:
Bear in mind that "resent" isn't the same as "hate" or anything. I love my sister and wish her to have a life 95%-105% as good as mine.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 02, 2014, 05:47:09 AM
Your sister more successful too? I feel you. There is not a person on Earth I resent more than my sister--every break I didn't get, she did; every mistake I made, she didn't (or she didn't pay for it).
Tide may be turning. She recently quit her job to go travel out West on her savings. :wacko: Honestly, she's such a privileged little bitch. <_<
VISION QUEST TO THE WEST PART II
Quote from: Ideologue on May 02, 2014, 07:27:30 AM
Bear in mind that "resent" isn't the same as "hate" or anything. I love my sister and wish her to have a life 95%-105% as good as mine.
thats so mean.
Fuck no.
The kids of rich parents have so much more open to them in life.
Giving them everything on a plate isn't good, they will grow up to be dickheads, but they should be supported in some way.
Quote from: HVC on May 02, 2014, 08:21:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 02, 2014, 07:27:30 AM
Bear in mind that "resent" isn't the same as "hate" or anything. I love my sister and wish her to have a life 95%-105% as good as mine.
thats so mean.
I was thinking more along the lines I go up, not she goes down. :lol:
I don't have it nearly as bad as one of my step-sisters, though.
She has a certificate in phlembotemy (if I'm spelling that right), and works for around $10 an hour, though I think it's less (though with pay differentials it can be more--anyway, you take the point).
Her husband, who was a decent guy but honestly a bit of a loser, died a couple of years ago, at something like age 34.
She's got an unattractive body plan--she's overweight even for her frame, but her frame is legitimately huge. She's like 6'1" and broad-shouldered.
Her biological sister, my other step-sister, is a nurse anesthetist, works 35 hours a week for over $120k, has a husband who makes almost as much, has already paid off her substantial student loans, owns a near-mansion, and has two great kids.
Meanwhile, stepsister 1 lives, essentially, at my parents' sufferance at an unrealistically low rent in their other house. And her new boyfriend just broke up with her.
That's a number on the soul right there. :(
She should change her name to Brienne, train in the knightly crafts and swear allegiance to the Starks.
...are you ok?
Yeah, the Starks are mostly dead.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 03, 2014, 06:13:07 AM
Her biological sister, my other step-sister, is a nurse anesthetist
I heard a radio spot by some association of nurse anesthetists, and the chick could not pronounce it properly. Kept leaving out the "h". All I could think was, "If you can't even say it properly, how can you do it properly?"
Yeah, the chick in the commercial was a professional anesthetist. Bleh.
Shouldn't nurses be good Christians?
In fairness, some people might have problems with "th" sounds?
But my other step-sister isn't terribly bright, either. She's smarter than I gave her credit for years ago--though to what extent I should give her credit for basically just doing what her mom and aunt did the same way I did more-or-less what my dad did, except it worked out for her, is debatable--but ultimately she's not the intellectual type.