patrick.net

The use of that term immediate identifies you as a brainwashed supporter of hereditary aristocracy in America.

Why shouldn't I be able to retire on my parents' money? Why shouldn't I be able to, upon my death, pass the money I have accrued to my children so that they can live better instead of being wage slaves in the rat race?

If you have a real gain and didn't do anything productive to get it, that seems a worthy object of taxation.

But I agree that any gain below inflation should not be taxed, because it's not a real gain.

The best tax is on non-productive rent-seeking, specifically land ownership.

The worst tax is on productive work. So the worst tax is the tax on wages you actually earned.

1. For a regular investor (not an insider) investing is a lot of work, and many of his investments are at risk of loss (and do lose value). E.g. in my case I was "underemployed" in 2001 and had a luxury to spend days and weeks analyzing the stock market bubble and learning how to invest. As a result I still carry some nicely appreciated positions (mostly, gold mining stocks and mutual funds).

2. If you want to be 'fair', you need to propose equal treatment of gains and losses. The way it is now, they happily tax your gains, but limit your loss deduction to $3K/yr. I know a few people that still were not able to deduct they market bubble losses from 2000-2001.

anon12366 says

Why shouldn't I be able to retire on my parents' money? Why shouldn't I be able to, upon my death, pass the money I have accrued to my children so that they can live better instead of being wage slaves in the rat race?

Because the rest of us don't want your kids controlling our labor. That's an aristocracy/kleptocracy, not a democracy.

anon12366 says

The use of that term immediate identifies you as a brainwashed supporter of hereditary aristocracy in America.

Why shouldn't I be able to retire on my parents' money? Why shouldn't I be able to, upon my death, pass the money I have accrued to my children so that they can live better instead of being wage slaves in the rat race?

"Being wage slaves" is what your parents used to call "working for a living". The last thing the world needs is more trust fund slackers.

bdrasin says

"Being wage slaves" is what your parents used to call "working for a living". The last thing the world needs is more trust fund slackers.

Alameda CA? Everybody's a wage slave... look at real estate prices ESPECIALLY the people who work for a living. I don't want to pay health care,retirement, or second home mortgages for greedy Cali baby boomer "middle class" retirees with a million dollars in home equity in the middle of a reinflating housing bubble.

Personally, in my opinion being able to live off dividend income whether they be off of individual equities, or bond mutual funds is the true american dream instead of being the homeowner. However, bond mutual funds have always been taxed as ordinary income (municipal bond funds being the exception) so it's not as though one is living high on the hog off of this cash flow via tax advantages. Well, you can always keep them in the roth ira and not pay tax, but then you can't touch the "earnings" unless you r 59.5 and had the account open for 5 years. In which case, you can't really quit the "rat race." As far as pure capital gains oriented funds go, they tend to be much more volatile and while they do enjoy favorable tax structure, they have a much bigger speculative feel of "paper wins" and "paper losses" till cashed out.

anon12366 says

bdrasin says

"Being wage slaves" is what your parents used to call "working for a living". The last thing the world needs is more trust fund slackers.

Alameda CA? Everybody's a wage slave... look at real estate prices ESPECIALLY the people who work for a living. I don't want to pay health care,retirement, or second home mortgages for greedy Cali baby boomer "middle class" retirees with a million dollars in home equity in the middle of a reinflating housing bubble.

Don't look at me, I rent.

anon12366 says

I don't want to pay health care,retirement, or second home mortgages for greedy Cali baby boomer "middle class" retirees with a million dollars in home equity in the middle of a reinflating housing bubble.

You can always move to the Rust Belt. Here in Corning-Elmira you can buy a modest house for $100k in a safe neighborhood. For $200k you can have a large and very nice house.

Just be sure you have a good job lined up before you move here, of course.
;-)

wthrfrk80 says

anon12366 says

I don't want to pay health care,retirement, or second home mortgages for greedy Cali baby boomer "middle class" retirees with a million dollars in home equity in the middle of a reinflating housing bubble.

You can always move to the Rust Belt. Here in Corning-Elmira you can buy a modest house for $100k in a safe neighborhood. For $200k you can have a large and very nice house.

Just be sure you have a good job lined up before you move here, of course.

;-)

You know who should be living in cheap housing in the middle of nowhere? Retirees, baby boomer hippies... not young working adults with families.

Do you know who should be "house poor"? Unemployed, government assistance-dependent retirees, not mortgage-indebted young working adults with families and children.

anon12366 says

You know who should be living in cheap housing in the middle of nowhere? Retirees, baby boomer hippies... not young working adults with families.

Agree. But this is America!

Yeah, Corning-Elmira is a bit isolated. Other Rust Belt cities have more to do.

Then there are places like Dallas/Fort-Worth, Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago that have a "moderate" cost of living and still have plenty of urban amenities.