Author Topic: How much is too much?  (Read 9201 times)

jeroly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
How much is too much?
« on: February 25, 2021, 09:25:27 AM »
This isn't a 'what is your number' question but rather, what is the level of net worth beyond which it's just unreasonable to have more?  In other words, at what point does 'fat FIRE' become 'fat pig FIRE?'

Let's say your number is $1 million (or $2 million or $500k - your number isn't really relevant to the discussion here), but you might understand how somebody else could be more conservative in their withdrawal rate, or want to include extra for bequests, or to fund college costs for children, or have a more opulent lifestyle than you without it becoming ridiculous (no megayachts / new Lamborghinis each year / $100 million estates, etc.).

My vote would be $10 million for a couple with a couple of kids.

Duke03

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 468
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2021, 09:33:01 AM »
I'd probably agree with you on the 10 million amount.  As a family you'd pretty have anything you'd ever want as long as you don't live on the West or East Coast hello HCOL.  For me anything over 2.5 million I don't even consider as mine as I'd never be able to reasonably spend that amount of money in my life time.  So that automatically becomes money ear marked for inheritance or charity donations when I pass ect.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2021, 09:39:04 AM »
For us it would be a sub 2% WR.* 

We've also written how to deal with such excesses (basically a Philanthropy-Management-Plan, or PMP).  In brief, should we ever reach this level we have a plan on how to give away that excess each year.  Given how easy it can be to overshoot one's retirement with market run-ups, unexpected salary gains and the general conservative nature of a 4% WR, I encourage all mustachians to include such plans in their IPS.

*I know the OP expressed his/her number if dollar terms; for us a 2% WR would be much, much less than $10MM 'stache.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6656
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2021, 09:44:29 AM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her. 

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2021, 09:51:09 AM »
I feel like it would be fairly common for a mustachian to end up with an excessive estate.  When I calculate a 4% WR (not including pensions and SS, which would cover most of our expenses based on today's) and a 7% return over 30 years, the amount blows my mind. Not a certainty, sure, but it seems likely to happen to some people on this forum.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2021, 10:09:07 AM »
There is no "fat pig FIRE" beyond "fat FIRE." There is just continuing to work/accumulate because you enjoy it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2021, 10:13:38 AM »
I feel like it would be fairly common for a mustachian to end up with an excessive estate.  When I calculate a 4% WR (not including pensions and SS, which would cover most of our expenses based on today's) and a 7% return over 30 years, the amount blows my mind. Not a certainty, sure, but it seems likely to happen to some people on this forum.

True.  What also makes me believe many will wind up with far more money than they started ER with is how little income most of us plan on earning post-retirement (and very often we model assuming this model will be $0).  Every single person I've know IRL who has retired early winds up making a non-trivial amount of money in "retirement", often by accident, including MMM.  Some people I know have made more in retirement because people keep begging them to take their money in exchange for doing what they'd probably do for free anyway. My father doesn't hit this high-water mark, but he does consult 2-3x/month for fun, and is paid enough to cover their entire discretionary budget.

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2021, 10:11:09 AM »
I think it depends on what the assets are. Real estate would be an example where you could end up as asset rich but cash poor, and you usually can’t just sell off a some shares... it’s often an all or none type of deal.

You could also have things that are depreciating, such as machinery for a family business like a farm or mining company. Or land with mineral rights... once the valuable stuff is extracted, I’m guessing the value goes down quite a bit.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2021, 10:16:36 AM »
I think that passive income of more than 100k is an awful lot.  More than 200k seems pretty excessive to me.

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: Golden, CO
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2021, 12:06:59 PM »
A similar way to ask this question is "at what amount of wealth should the state require you to donate your extra wealth either to charities of your choice or tax you nearly 100% to pay for services for those less fortunate." It's similar to an estate tax but expanded to apply while you are still alive. Personally I'm ok with choosing a number for this question but I can understand that others (Americans in particular) don't accept the premise behind it. To me, inequality=bad for a whole host of reasons related to the stability of our society, and thus we should legislate inequality by preventing people from being too rich.

As for what should that number be, I could be convinced to go as high as 30 people in an extended family still alive, 2% withdrawl rate with a $200k annual income for each. That gives me a number of $300 million. So in my opinion, no person should have more than $300 million in assets and the state should require people to share the rest of it in some way. I could get behind significantly lower numbers but I can't understand anyone pushing for a higher number.

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3342
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2021, 12:18:37 PM »
Seems like $5 million should be more than plenty of wealth for anyone. Passive income using the 4% rule would put you in the top 10% of earners; spend at a top quartile rate if you're really pessimistic about future returns.

PercentileIncome
4% WR
3.5% WR
3% WR
2% WR
top 10%$200k$5.00 million$5.71 million$6.67 million$10.0 million
top 25%$125k$3.13 million$3.57 million$4.17 million$6.25 million
median$68.4k$1.71 million$1.95 million$2.28 million$3.42 million

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2021, 12:26:31 PM »
Bezos is worth 184.6 billion and Musk $177.2.  Are we all agreed that there's no real benefit to society in having wealth at that level?

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2021, 01:28:44 PM »
A similar way to ask this question is "at what amount of wealth should the state require you to donate your extra wealth either to charities of your choice or tax you nearly 100% to pay for services for those less fortunate." It's similar to an estate tax but expanded to apply while you are still alive. Personally I'm ok with choosing a number for this question but I can understand that others (Americans in particular) don't accept the premise behind it. To me, inequality=bad for a whole host of reasons related to the stability of our society, and thus we should legislate inequality by preventing people from being too rich.

As for what should that number be, I could be convinced to go as high as 30 people in an extended family still alive, 2% withdrawl rate with a $200k annual income for each. That gives me a number of $300 million. So in my opinion, no person should have more than $300 million in assets and the state should require people to share the rest of it in some way. I could get behind significantly lower numbers but I can't understand anyone pushing for a higher number.

In other words, a wealth tax.

The problem I have with a wealth tax is that it’s all a mirage until you actually sell. You’re basically taxing your chickens before they’ve hatched.

As an example, let’s  say you have stock in a dot com company. Woohoo! You’re rich. You pay a wealth tax based off those share prices. Then the stock craters. Now you don’t pay the tax. But you don’t get to claw back the tax that was paid when the share prices were high. You’re paying taxes on potential, not reality.

Same issue with the net worth of Bezos and Musk (and Gates and Buffett). Those high net worths are all their stock holdings of that one company marked to market. There’s no way they could actually convert that to cash in an instant... the sudden availability of millions of shares would drive the price down on its own, and it’d probably be depressed further by people wondering why they’re suddenly divorcing themselves from the company.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2021, 01:44:29 PM »
Bezos is worth 184.6 billion and Musk $177.2.  Are we all agreed that there's no real benefit to society in having wealth at that level?

With those two it's kind of hard because their wealth is tied to their large ownership of the companies they started. Liquidating those shares and turning them into cash (which could then be taxed and or used for other things like charitable giving) is hard because dumping such a large number of shares into the market will affect the price and thus, their net worth. Also, for both companies, a lot of the perceived value is tied up in those two guys being at the top. Do AMZN shareholders want to own a company that Jeff Bezos doesn't eat, drink and breathe by?

With Bezos stepping down as CEO, I guess we'll see on that one. After Bill Gates stepped down at Microsoft, the share price flatlined for about a decade. Gates formally stepped down from the board last year and the company is solidly in good shape in a post-Gates world, but there was a lot of time lost in the woods there. Furthermore, Gates owned 49% of Microsoft when it IPO'd and it's taken him over 30 years to wind that ownership down to below 2%.

With Gates and Musk though, we at least have assurances that they will divest at least 50% of their assets to charitable causes within ten years of their death thanks to the Giving Pledge. It's more uncertain with Bezos. He hasn't signed the pledge, but his ex-wife has, shortly after the divorce was finalized. This makes me feel like not making the pledge is a conscious choice on Jeff Bezos's part.

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: Golden, CO
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2021, 02:04:35 PM »
A similar way to ask this question is "at what amount of wealth should the state require you to donate your extra wealth either to charities of your choice or tax you nearly 100% to pay for services for those less fortunate." It's similar to an estate tax but expanded to apply while you are still alive. Personally I'm ok with choosing a number for this question but I can understand that others (Americans in particular) don't accept the premise behind it. To me, inequality=bad for a whole host of reasons related to the stability of our society, and thus we should legislate inequality by preventing people from being too rich.

As for what should that number be, I could be convinced to go as high as 30 people in an extended family still alive, 2% withdrawl rate with a $200k annual income for each. That gives me a number of $300 million. So in my opinion, no person should have more than $300 million in assets and the state should require people to share the rest of it in some way. I could get behind significantly lower numbers but I can't understand anyone pushing for a higher number.

In other words, a wealth tax.

The problem I have with a wealth tax is that it’s all a mirage until you actually sell. You’re basically taxing your chickens before they’ve hatched.

As an example, let’s  say you have stock in a dot com company. Woohoo! You’re rich. You pay a wealth tax based off those share prices. Then the stock craters. Now you don’t pay the tax. But you don’t get to claw back the tax that was paid when the share prices were high. You’re paying taxes on potential, not reality.

Same issue with the net worth of Bezos and Musk (and Gates and Buffett). Those high net worths are all their stock holdings of that one company marked to market. There’s no way they could actually convert that to cash in an instant... the sudden availability of millions of shares would drive the price down on its own, and it’d probably be depressed further by people wondering why they’re suddenly divorcing themselves from the company.

The most efficient way I've heard of to deal with this is to ask people to self evaluate their assets and then the IRS can call them on it and force a transfer at the price the person stated. So for that case, if Musk (who has many billions of $ of tesla shares) says "my tesla shares are only worth 500 million, please only tax me on that amount" then the IRS can say "fair enough, here is $500 million in cash, we'll deal with selling it" and then the IRS can go and sell it slowly or whatever is most efficient.

Rdy2Fire

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2021, 02:35:08 PM »
I'd say 2.5-3 Million. Of course it all depends on what you spend but that range gives 100K a year

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2021, 02:42:13 PM »
A similar way to ask this question is "at what amount of wealth should the state require you to donate your extra wealth either to charities of your choice or tax you nearly 100% to pay for services for those less fortunate." It's similar to an estate tax but expanded to apply while you are still alive. Personally I'm ok with choosing a number for this question but I can understand that others (Americans in particular) don't accept the premise behind it. To me, inequality=bad for a whole host of reasons related to the stability of our society, and thus we should legislate inequality by preventing people from being too rich.

As for what should that number be, I could be convinced to go as high as 30 people in an extended family still alive, 2% withdrawl rate with a $200k annual income for each. That gives me a number of $300 million. So in my opinion, no person should have more than $300 million in assets and the state should require people to share the rest of it in some way. I could get behind significantly lower numbers but I can't understand anyone pushing for a higher number.

In other words, a wealth tax.

The problem I have with a wealth tax is that it’s all a mirage until you actually sell. You’re basically taxing your chickens before they’ve hatched.

As an example, let’s  say you have stock in a dot com company. Woohoo! You’re rich. You pay a wealth tax based off those share prices. Then the stock craters. Now you don’t pay the tax. But you don’t get to claw back the tax that was paid when the share prices were high. You’re paying taxes on potential, not reality.

Same issue with the net worth of Bezos and Musk (and Gates and Buffett). Those high net worths are all their stock holdings of that one company marked to market. There’s no way they could actually convert that to cash in an instant... the sudden availability of millions of shares would drive the price down on its own, and it’d probably be depressed further by people wondering why they’re suddenly divorcing themselves from the company.

Maybe this doesn't work--I'm just thinking out loud--but what if you set a cap at some level (let's say $300 million) and any assets you accumulate beyond that are diverted into something like a DAF or trust where they still own them, but don't benefit from them. Those assets could still be in the form of shares, so Bezos or Musk wouldn't have to sell up, they'd just have to put shares into this DAF/trust thing. They'd still control where the money went (but only to charities or government), they'd still have the prestige of "having" these shares, and they wouldn't have to sell their controlling stake in their company.

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2021, 02:56:06 PM »

This makes me feel like not making the pledge is a conscious choice on Jeff Bezos's part.

Probably is. He also owns Blue Origin, which is developing rockets and spacecraft. I read a couple years ago that he had been selling a billion dollars worth of Amazon stock a year to finance it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s upped it since then.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2021, 04:38:22 PM »

This makes me feel like not making the pledge is a conscious choice on Jeff Bezos's part.

Probably is. He also owns Blue Origin, which is developing rockets and spacecraft. I read a couple years ago that he had been selling a billion dollars worth of Amazon stock a year to finance it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s upped it since then.

You don’t have to guess! No point in blindly speculating...
Trades are reported to the SEC, and that is public knowledge

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2021, 05:03:16 PM »
I think it's opulent to buy more than one Ferrari a year. So $400k per year at a conservative 3% withdrawal rate comes out to $12 million. I think any more than $12 million is too much.

I don't advocate for wealth taxes, ever, but I'd be happy for a 90% inheritance tax. Wealth is yours; you've earned it. Inheritances are bullshit - you've never earned it.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6656
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2021, 05:37:15 PM »
Is there a meaningful way to set up an inheritance tax so that it isn't just funneled off during life?  If mom and dad have $100m and they know it will be taxed at 90%, won't they just give it to Junior and Junioratrix before death?  Direct gifts would trigger a gift tax, but that's still better than 90%, and I suspect there are ways to funnel it into family businesses, S-Corps, trusts, whatever to get around much of that.

I'll almost certainly be receiving an inheritance.  It's not Bezos level, but it will likely be sizable.  If there was suddenly an inheritance tax, my parents would almost certainly start writing annual checks to my spouse and me, and my sister and her spouse.  Dad kept working specifically because he had a number in mind he wanted to leave his kids.  They don't need the money. 

How do inheritance taxes prevent that sort of thing from happening?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2021, 05:51:30 PM »
Is there a meaningful way to set up an inheritance tax so that it isn't just funneled off during life?  If mom and dad have $100m and they know it will be taxed at 90%, won't they just give it to Junior and Junioratrix before death?  Direct gifts would trigger a gift tax, but that's still better than 90%, and I suspect there are ways to funnel it into family businesses, S-Corps, trusts, whatever to get around much of that.

I'll almost certainly be receiving an inheritance.  It's not Bezos level, but it will likely be sizable.  If there was suddenly an inheritance tax, my parents would almost certainly start writing annual checks to my spouse and me, and my sister and her spouse.  Dad kept working specifically because he had a number in mind he wanted to leave his kids.  They don't need the money. 

How do inheritance taxes prevent that sort of thing from happening?

They don’t.  And that’s always been a problem with the tax code - the affluent are both motivated and financially able to find ways around most of these taxes, whereas the less-affluent are not. It’s one of the key reasons why the estate tax was paid by vanishingly few people over the last several decades.  By one accounting fewer than 1,000 estates actually paid any estate tax in 2017, even though four times as many would - at first blush - appear eligible based on size.


Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2021, 06:00:19 PM »
Is there a meaningful way to set up an inheritance tax so that it isn't just funneled off during life?  If mom and dad have $100m and they know it will be taxed at 90%, won't they just give it to Junior and Junioratrix before death?  Direct gifts would trigger a gift tax, but that's still better than 90%, and I suspect there are ways to funnel it into family businesses, S-Corps, trusts, whatever to get around much of that.

I'll almost certainly be receiving an inheritance.  It's not Bezos level, but it will likely be sizable.  If there was suddenly an inheritance tax, my parents would almost certainly start writing annual checks to my spouse and me, and my sister and her spouse.  Dad kept working specifically because he had a number in mind he wanted to leave his kids.  They don't need the money. 

How do inheritance taxes prevent that sort of thing from happening?

Simple, tax both inheritances and gifts. And any time you buy a car or house and it's not in the name of yourself or partner, it's de facto considered a gift. So forget about buying a house and putting it in your kids' name. Of course it can be transferred to your kid in your will, but then it triggers the estate tax.

Once you do that, the only way to transfer intergenerational wealth is by selling assets at under-market prices - and that's already illegal since it avoids stamp duty, so you can't say that adds any further level of compliance risk to what we have today.

Even if an estate tax was only, say, 50% successful, it would be useful in changing the narrative. It is NOT OKAY to inherit money from your parents - it's selfish, and it represents a form of cheating in life and (much more saliently) it deprives the government of revenue which they instead have to take from honest income earners.

Plus, the advantage of having an estate tax is that it really helps with the meritocratic argument. If you can't inherit your riches like Trump, then you have a much stronger claim to being self made.

norajean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2021, 07:37:40 PM »
Depends on age. For retiring early I would say anything over $40-50 million is excessive. But it depends on what you want to use it for. If you can see a way to double that a couple times then that could have a big impact on your family and/or chosen charity.

Moustachienne

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2021, 07:47:46 PM »
For us it would be a sub 2% WR.* 

We've also written how to deal with such excesses (basically a Philanthropy-Management-Plan, or PMP).  In brief, should we ever reach this level we have a plan on how to give away that excess each year.  Given how easy it can be to overshoot one's retirement with market run-ups, unexpected salary gains and the general conservative nature of a 4% WR, I encourage all mustachians to include such plans in their IPS.

*I know the OP expressed his/her number if dollar terms; for us a 2% WR would be much, much less than $10MM 'stache.

This is exactly how we're thinking and are working on developing a robust and satisfying PMP.  We've been retired 3.5 years, the market has been hot, we've had some unexpected inheritance, and DH has been working "hobby jobs" that have earned more than expected. A 3.5% WR is not drawing down our stash at all so time to look at some thoughtful expenditures. 

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2021, 07:01:46 AM »
For me it is less of a dollar amount or percentage and more a line where you start to trade your remaining time / life for money but each day the money becomes worth less and your time / life become worth more.

Enough...  not too little where your survival becomes a hardship or burden but not too much where you have traded a rare irreplaceable commodity (your life force) for diminishing returns.

The struggle to define enough is real and one I suspect most struggle with defining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arbitrage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2021, 08:09:46 AM »
There basically is no limit.  Ok, maybe Bezos/Musk level, but it would be hard to make the actual delineation.  We have friends who make (or made, until recently - after a job switch probably are not pulling in quite as much) about $2M/year, and despite that being 20 times what they made 10 years ago - and now living a lifestyle to match - they're still eyeing their wealthier coworkers and saying "I thought i had made it, but look at what that guy has."

Granted, they're not trying to continue up the elevator to infinite wealth, but they definitely still have feelings of 'not enough.'  I'm sure that continues up the income/wealth spectrum, perhaps until the centibillionaire level.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2021, 08:59:40 AM »
Is there a meaningful way to set up an inheritance tax so that it isn't just funneled off during life?  If mom and dad have $100m and they know it will be taxed at 90%, won't they just give it to Junior and Junioratrix before death?  Direct gifts would trigger a gift tax, but that's still better than 90%, and I suspect there are ways to funnel it into family businesses, S-Corps, trusts, whatever to get around much of that.

I'll almost certainly be receiving an inheritance.  It's not Bezos level, but it will likely be sizable.  If there was suddenly an inheritance tax, my parents would almost certainly start writing annual checks to my spouse and me, and my sister and her spouse.  Dad kept working specifically because he had a number in mind he wanted to leave his kids.  They don't need the money. 

How do inheritance taxes prevent that sort of thing from happening?

Simple, tax both inheritances and gifts. And any time you buy a car or house and it's not in the name of yourself or partner, it's de facto considered a gift. So forget about buying a house and putting it in your kids' name. Of course it can be transferred to your kid in your will, but then it triggers the estate tax.

Once you do that, the only way to transfer intergenerational wealth is by selling assets at under-market prices - and that's already illegal since it avoids stamp duty, so you can't say that adds any further level of compliance risk to what we have today.

Even if an estate tax was only, say, 50% successful, it would be useful in changing the narrative. It is NOT OKAY to inherit money from your parents - it's selfish, and it represents a form of cheating in life and (much more saliently) it deprives the government of revenue which they instead have to take from honest income earners.

Plus, the advantage of having an estate tax is that it really helps with the meritocratic argument. If you can't inherit your riches like Trump, then you have a much stronger claim to being self made.

Why do you think leaving money or assets to your children is cheating?    You worked hard to acquire those assets.    Should you not be able to do what you like with them?

Furthermore, why do you think the government should be entitled to so much of your money?   In Canada, for example, you can easily pay 50% marginal tax rate.    Now there's talk of taxing any after tax wealth you have remaining.   And we also pay 13% sales tax and perhaps 1% property tax on our home.

Not to complain about taxes!   I'm really just interested in your thought process.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2492
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2021, 10:44:31 AM »

Even if an estate tax was only, say, 50% successful, it would be useful in changing the narrative. It is NOT OKAY to inherit money from your parents - it's selfish, and it represents a form of cheating in life and (much more saliently) it deprives the government of revenue which they instead have to take from honest income earners.

Plus, the advantage of having an estate tax is that it really helps with the meritocratic argument. If you can't inherit your riches like Trump, then you have a much stronger claim to being self made.

The way you have this worded comes off that when people die, every dollar should go to the government.

You don’t feel like there’s any grey area, or threshold?

I have a hard time feeling like the government is deserving of everyone’s money and assets when they die. They aren’t necessarily the best stewards of our money to begin with. Not to mention, they already received taxes once when the income was made.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any sort of inheritance tax. But if a person works hard their whole life and has a medium amount of $ left over when they die, it’s not unreasonable that a portion of that money could be passed along to their family, designated charity, etc.

For reference, I don’t plan on receiving an inheritance nor have a specific plan to leave a sum.

I have a hard time generalizing people that leave or receive an inheritance to be “selfish” or “cheaters.” Most are probably pretty nice, normal people.

flyingaway

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 464
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2021, 09:13:43 PM »
How much is too much! The sky is the limit if money comes easy.

If I had $10M, I would like to have $20M. Believe me, I can find ways to spend that much money.

However, I will retire long before I have $10M and I don't even dream about it.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2021, 03:08:53 AM »

Even if an estate tax was only, say, 50% successful, it would be useful in changing the narrative. It is NOT OKAY to inherit money from your parents - it's selfish, and it represents a form of cheating in life and (much more saliently) it deprives the government of revenue which they instead have to take from honest income earners.

Plus, the advantage of having an estate tax is that it really helps with the meritocratic argument. If you can't inherit your riches like Trump, then you have a much stronger claim to being self made.

The way you have this worded comes off that when people die, every dollar should go to the government.

You don’t feel like there’s any grey area, or threshold?

I have a hard time feeling like the government is deserving of everyone’s money and assets when they die. They aren’t necessarily the best stewards of our money to begin with. Not to mention, they already received taxes once when the income was made.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any sort of inheritance tax. But if a person works hard their whole life and has a medium amount of $ left over when they die, it’s not unreasonable that a portion of that money could be passed along to their family, designated charity, etc.

For reference, I don’t plan on receiving an inheritance nor have a specific plan to leave a sum.

I have a hard time generalizing people that leave or receive an inheritance to be “selfish” or “cheaters.” Most are probably pretty nice, normal people.

I think it's cheating not for the person giving it away but it's cheating for the recipient. It's getting an unfair leg up in life. We need to fund a certain level of services for the people who can't find a market job, and we also need to fund a certain level of "equality of opportunity" tools (meal vouchers for poor kids, tuition and music lessons for the same, etc) and that money obviously has to come from somewhere. Much better to tax an inheritance than income, since income is earned by the person deriving the benefit - a gift/inheritance is not. If we have to tax, I'd rather tax inheritance than income. Doing what I suggest (an estate tax) would mean less income taxes which would benefit all of us who do honest toil.

I'm fine for a nominal amount of estate (say $100k) to pass through unhindered and maybe a 30% rate on $100k to $500k but anything over $500k should be 90% imo. Why would you ever want to give your child $500k anyway, would ruin his or her desire to achieve something for himself or herself.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2021, 05:15:56 AM »

Even if an estate tax was only, say, 50% successful, it would be useful in changing the narrative. It is NOT OKAY to inherit money from your parents - it's selfish, and it represents a form of cheating in life and (much more saliently) it deprives the government of revenue which they instead have to take from honest income earners.

Plus, the advantage of having an estate tax is that it really helps with the meritocratic argument. If you can't inherit your riches like Trump, then you have a much stronger claim to being self made.

The way you have this worded comes off that when people die, every dollar should go to the government.

You don’t feel like there’s any grey area, or threshold?

I have a hard time feeling like the government is deserving of everyone’s money and assets when they die. They aren’t necessarily the best stewards of our money to begin with. Not to mention, they already received taxes once when the income was made.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any sort of inheritance tax. But if a person works hard their whole life and has a medium amount of $ left over when they die, it’s not unreasonable that a portion of that money could be passed along to their family, designated charity, etc.

For reference, I don’t plan on receiving an inheritance nor have a specific plan to leave a sum.

I have a hard time generalizing people that leave or receive an inheritance to be “selfish” or “cheaters.” Most are probably pretty nice, normal people.

I think it's cheating not for the person giving it away but it's cheating for the recipient. It's getting an unfair leg up in life. We need to fund a certain level of services for the people who can't find a market job, and we also need to fund a certain level of "equality of opportunity" tools (meal vouchers for poor kids, tuition and music lessons for the same, etc) and that money obviously has to come from somewhere. Much better to tax an inheritance than income, since income is earned by the person deriving the benefit - a gift/inheritance is not. If we have to tax, I'd rather tax inheritance than income. Doing what I suggest (an estate tax) would mean less income taxes which would benefit all of us who do honest toil.

I'm fine for a nominal amount of estate (say $100k) to pass through unhindered and maybe a 30% rate on $100k to $500k but anything over $500k should be 90% imo. Why would you ever want to give your child $500k anyway, would ruin his or her desire to achieve something for himself or herself.

By that rationale it is “cheating” to be born to affluent parents.  Those individuals get things handed to them they did not earn and the rest of us don’t get.  It’s unfair for parents to pay for their children’s university education, or to give them a car, or offer them the family business. Should we ban that too?

While we are at it, is seems outright unfair to be born white and male   

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2021, 05:34:30 AM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2021, 06:13:04 AM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her.

You have named catastrophic health situations that would eat up $10 million pretty fast if that couple you’re talking about are in their 50s. No $10 million it’s not excessive at all for an ALS type of disease as well as a child who needs lifelong care.

Fishindude

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3075
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2021, 07:27:11 AM »
How much is too much! The sky is the limit if money comes easy.

If I had $10M, I would like to have $20M. Believe me, I can find ways to spend that much money.

However, I will retire long before I have $10M and I don't even dream about it.

This is my opinion also.
I could and would do a bunch of really cool things with hundreds of millions of dollars.   For one, I would purchase vast areas of real estate to keep unspoiled and undeveloped.
Would also be very generous with family, friends, and community, and do large charities for causes that interest us.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17393
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2021, 07:59:47 AM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her.

You have named catastrophic health situations that would eat up $10 million pretty fast if that couple you’re talking about are in their 50s. No $10 million it’s not excessive at all for an ALS type of disease as well as a child who needs lifelong care.

I'm curious about this as someone with a serious and lifelong disease that's expensive to treat, and several immediate family with serious illnesses that are expensive to treat.

This is the reason I intend to have an extra 1-2M saved, because I can see needing tens of thousands of extra medical costs. But I live in Canada, is it really that much more expensive in the US to treat these types of conditions? Such that one couldn't live off of the 400K/yr that 10M would produce?

If that's true then how does anyone in the US with a serious chronic condition survive?

HipGnosis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2021, 08:28:16 AM »
I think it's opulent to buy more than one Ferrari a year. So $400k per year at a conservative 3% withdrawal rate comes out to $12 million. I think any more than $12 million is too much.

But Ferrari's are high maintenance, so you also need/want a Lamborghini.  And maybe a McLaren.
And, of course, you need more formal vehicles too;  Rolls, Bentley, Range Rover...

Quote
I don't advocate for wealth taxes, ever, but I'd be happy for a 90% inheritance tax. Wealth is yours; you've earned it. Inheritances are bullshit - you've never earned it.
But lots of kids that grow up with a silver spoon don't know how to earn their own silver polish.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2021, 09:11:26 AM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

Well strengthening meritocracy is a worthwhile objective.

However, I'm a 50 something professional engineer with a good career.   Any inheritance will come too late to have much effect on my development as a person.    I'm already FI, so I don't need the money and I've demonstrated the basic discipline not to spend a windfall on stupid shit.      So my parent's estate will have nothing to do with my success in life.    Their outlook and work ethic certainly did, but there's no way to tax outlook and work ethic.

Tell us, if you were to receive a 1M AUD inheritance, would you donate 900K of it to the government in order to live up to your ideals?

« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 09:19:05 AM by scottish »

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17393
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2021, 09:56:38 AM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

Well strengthening meritocracy is a worthwhile objective.

However, I'm a 50 something professional engineer with a good career.   Any inheritance will come too late to have much effect on my development as a person.    I'm already FI, so I don't need the money and I've demonstrated the basic discipline not to spend a windfall on stupid shit.      So my parent's estate will have nothing to do with my success in life.    Their outlook and work ethic certainly did, but there's no way to tax outlook and work ethic.

Tell us, if you were to receive a 1M AUD inheritance, would you donate 900K of it to the government in order to live up to your ideals?

Yeah, for the vast majority of people, it's not inheritance that gives people privilege and advantage in terms of success in the world.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6656
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2021, 10:06:17 AM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her.

You have named catastrophic health situations that would eat up $10 million pretty fast if that couple you’re talking about are in their 50s. No $10 million it’s not excessive at all for an ALS type of disease as well as a child who needs lifelong care.

Right, and that's my point about what is "too much".  Although this couple is in their late 70s, I think.  But their disabled son is in his 40s, so he presumably has decades left of benefitting from very expensive assistance. 

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6656
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2021, 10:31:21 AM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her.

You have named catastrophic health situations that would eat up $10 million pretty fast if that couple you’re talking about are in their 50s. No $10 million it’s not excessive at all for an ALS type of disease as well as a child who needs lifelong care.

I'm curious about this as someone with a serious and lifelong disease that's expensive to treat, and several immediate family with serious illnesses that are expensive to treat.

This is the reason I intend to have an extra 1-2M saved, because I can see needing tens of thousands of extra medical costs. But I live in Canada, is it really that much more expensive in the US to treat these types of conditions? Such that one couldn't live off of the 400K/yr that 10M would produce?

If that's true then how does anyone in the US with a serious chronic condition survive?

Well, there are places that will take you if you have no money.  They will semi-reliably change your diaper a few times a day and bathe you most days of the week and bring you food that is at least somewhat better than you'd eat in prison. 

But in this case, they will be bringing in someone to their home.   A couple decades ago, my family looked in to full time, live-in care for my grandmother who had many issues but was not so unwell that she couldn't stay in her home, with help.  Medication management, bathing, and just being there in case she needed anything.  Just that alone, for unskilled labor (so not a certified nurse) was going to be over $100,000 a year, and I'm guess the cost of that has gone up and is closer to $150k.  And that's before any costs for actual care or medication.

Older people do get government health insurance (Medicare) and that will cover the basics.  But the basics are less than most people would want for themselves or their loved one. 

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2021, 11:13:53 AM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

Well strengthening meritocracy is a worthwhile objective.

However, I'm a 50 something professional engineer with a good career.   Any inheritance will come too late to have much effect on my development as a person.    I'm already FI, so I don't need the money and I've demonstrated the basic discipline not to spend a windfall on stupid shit.      So my parent's estate will have nothing to do with my success in life.    Their outlook and work ethic certainly did, but there's no way to tax outlook and work ethic.

Tell us, if you were to receive a 1M AUD inheritance, would you donate 900K of it to the government in order to live up to your ideals?

My inheritance will be something like $3m AUD and I couldn't care less what happens to it.  As long as it gets used productively. So sure, I'd donate $2.7m of it to taxes without a second thought as long as everyone else had to do the same proportionally. Heck I'd donate all $3m of it if everyone else had to do the same with their inheritances. To me an inheritance is cheating. I've never planned what to do with the money and if/when it happens I have no idea what I'd use the money for.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15961
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2021, 11:21:02 AM »
I have talked my parents into not giving me any inheritance at all.

rmorris50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2021, 11:33:33 AM »
My spouse and I are DINKS, 46 and 51 and worth 2.7m, none of which is inherited. I would be very resentful if the government started wealth taxing it because it was deemed excessive, after being pushed by society and the tax code to save as much as possible so as to have a secure retirement. It would be kinda perverse to have a tax code that both penalizes me now for touching my money too early, yet also has a wealth tax on it because I accumulated to much. Most of our money is in taxed advantaged accounts.I can’t cash flow 100k a year without incurring tax penalties for many more years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

L8_apex

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2021, 11:36:42 AM »
Seems to me that there can't be any kind of "one size fits all" answer to this question.  Especially because not everybody here is operating on the premise of the 4% rule.  I for one have zero money in the stock market.  My investments are/were in Notes Receivable and RE.  With the run-up in real estate prices, my net worth is approaching a doubling from when I ERd.  But as the rents I'm collecting have gone up just a few hundred dollars, the net worth vs income don't scale together.  So how meaningful is it for me or somebody to say "my NW is $3 million", if you don't also know that my tax return says I made $35k in income last year?


Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2021, 11:39:26 AM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

Well strengthening meritocracy is a worthwhile objective.

However, I'm a 50 something professional engineer with a good career.   Any inheritance will come too late to have much effect on my development as a person.    I'm already FI, so I don't need the money and I've demonstrated the basic discipline not to spend a windfall on stupid shit.      So my parent's estate will have nothing to do with my success in life.    Their outlook and work ethic certainly did, but there's no way to tax outlook and work ethic.

Tell us, if you were to receive a 1M AUD inheritance, would you donate 900K of it to the government in order to live up to your ideals?

Yeah, for the vast majority of people, it's not inheritance that gives people privilege and advantage in terms of success in the world.

Yes, but... your parents’ and grandparents’ inherited wealth makes an awful lot of difference.

I was startled a few years ago to read that much of the land in England is still owned by the families that received it as a result of the Norman Conquest.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 12:01:03 PM by Cranky »

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2021, 11:46:14 AM »
More to the point, that inherited wealth could be used to fund greater levels of spending that would provide greater equality of opportunity...while also decreasing our reliance on income tax.

So more people can play the game and then people can keep more of their winnings from the game. Seems like a win-win to me.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2021, 12:18:29 PM »
Why wait until a person dies?  Why not tax assets instead of earnings, and at increasingly higher percentages based on NW?  Wouldn’t that accomplish the same thing, albeit far more quickly?

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2021, 12:19:48 PM »
I've really been working lately on not judging others, so I read the question from that lens.  I'm not sure what the point is of examining this, other than to judge others.

Also, friends of my parents have a lot of money.  If I had to guess, I'd say that their NW is probably more than your $10m threshold.  They have to adult children. 

One of their sons is pretty significantly disabled.  He lives (thanks in part to their money) in a community that is semi-independent living.  I don't know the details, but I believe he has his own home but is provided with services, check-ins, and resources as needed.  He can hold basic jobs (bagger at a grocery store, that sort of thing).  They also live in a very HCOL area, but that is where they worked, and now it is where both of their children and their grandchildren live.  I'm sure they could find similar services for their son (though perhaps not in a LCOL area as this seems pretty specialized and unlikely to be in smaller communities), but that would mean moving away from their other child and grandchildren.  Is it excessive for them to want to leave enough money that he is taken care of for life and never becomes a financial burden on his sibling, and so that the sibling can use money to--to some extent--relieve himself of some of the responsibilites so he can care for his own family (spouse and 2 kids)? 

Oh, and the husband in the family has come down with a devastating, debilitating disease.  (Similar to ALS)  His mody is slowly failing him.  As it turns out, some of their many dollars are going to go toward caring for him: bringing in a daily nurse to get him in and out of the shower, to the bathroom, etc.  Of course they didn't know this would happen and didn't specifically plan for it, but they did plan to be able to cover whatever might come up--more than most people do--because they wanted to be dead certain their son was cared for after they were gone.

So, is their $10m+ unreasonable?  Are they "FAT pigs"?  Not in my book.

You never know what someone's life looks like, especially at a quick glance.  Rather than spending time deciding what is unreasonable for other people, spend it figuring out what is most reasonable for you. To my cousin who makes >$15k/year ad is pretty happy, I suspect most people here would have numbers that look pretty excessive to her.

You have named catastrophic health situations that would eat up $10 million pretty fast if that couple you’re talking about are in their 50s. No $10 million it’s not excessive at all for an ALS type of disease as well as a child who needs lifelong care.

I'm curious about this as someone with a serious and lifelong disease that's expensive to treat, and several immediate family with serious illnesses that are expensive to treat.

This is the reason I intend to have an extra 1-2M saved, because I can see needing tens of thousands of extra medical costs. But I live in Canada, is it really that much more expensive in the US to treat these types of conditions? Such that one couldn't live off of the 400K/yr that 10M would produce?

If that's true then how does anyone in the US with a serious chronic condition survive?
It’s not so much treatment of the health condition, it’s maintaining a living situation that is high-quality for adults who need some ( or lots of ) custodial care..

What are all the social services and living support services available to Canadians for custodial care? What is the nursing home situation in Canada? Are those free?

We used to have a poster on here who talked extensively about her own disability and her child’s disability and it seems to me she chased piece meal services which varied from province to province. She seldom had anything good to say about them.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 01:35:56 PM by iris lily »

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2492
Re: How much is too much?
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2021, 12:45:33 PM »
We can't eliminate all disparity in upbringing and genes but we can eliminate the financial ones if we so choose. That way society moves closer to a true meritocracy where each child genuinely has the opportunity to succeed.

I'd like a society where no child can say that he or she didn't have access to a good education, a modicum of private tuition, free meals (for poor kids), access to a good school and sporting facilities, and so on. Tax estates and we can get that closer to a reality.

Well strengthening meritocracy is a worthwhile objective.

However, I'm a 50 something professional engineer with a good career.   Any inheritance will come too late to have much effect on my development as a person.    I'm already FI, so I don't need the money and I've demonstrated the basic discipline not to spend a windfall on stupid shit.      So my parent's estate will have nothing to do with my success in life.    Their outlook and work ethic certainly did, but there's no way to tax outlook and work ethic.

Tell us, if you were to receive a 1M AUD inheritance, would you donate 900K of it to the government in order to live up to your ideals?

My inheritance will be something like $3m AUD and I couldn't care less what happens to it.  As long as it gets used productively. So sure, I'd donate $2.7m of it to taxes without a second thought as long as everyone else had to do the same proportionally. Heck I'd donate all $3m of it if everyone else had to do the same with their inheritances. To me an inheritance is cheating. I've never planned what to do with the money and if/when it happens I have no idea what I'd use the money for.

Maybe you feel the government in Australia will use your money productively, however I don’t think most American counterparts would share the same sentiment.

Forced selective donation would be one thing... check to the government? That’s questionable.