Why Poor People are pretty much f*cked
December 9, 2003 11:30 PM Subscribe
Why Poor People are pretty much f*cked. No one can make reading about the growing gap between the rich and the poor as fun as the Onion; but other than describing the issue in humorous terms, the story makes it more accessible than your typical article in a newsmagazine.
I can hardly get behind a welfare state that punishes the unfucked by fucking all equally."
Amen to that.
posted by a3matrix at 5:24 AM on December 10, 2003
Amen to that.
posted by a3matrix at 5:24 AM on December 10, 2003
What was the most innovative idea, I mean a really good idea, or a really good rationale for an idea, that you have heard for helping the poor?
For example, in the "welfare reform" debate, food was included with monetary compensation as something to be "reformed." But that's wrong: money is limited but food is in excess. Rationally, shouldn't *everyone* in the U.S. be entitled to eat *something* nutritious every day, for free? I'm not talking about soup kitchens.
Perhaps the government could buy storage space at food stores for excess food (instead of paying to warehouse it), and then, when presented with food stamps, they could get ten times the amount of food then if it was "brand name."
Arguments that it is "unfair competition" are not true, because the poor wouldn't buy those brand name products anyway--no money--so it is *just* a choice between them eating and them not eating.
Bottom line: cost savings by not subsidizing brand name food. Break even on storage space. Poor people eat instead of not. Anyone who proposes starvation as a "motivator" to get people to work should be horsewhipped.
posted by kablam at 6:45 AM on December 10, 2003
For example, in the "welfare reform" debate, food was included with monetary compensation as something to be "reformed." But that's wrong: money is limited but food is in excess. Rationally, shouldn't *everyone* in the U.S. be entitled to eat *something* nutritious every day, for free? I'm not talking about soup kitchens.
Perhaps the government could buy storage space at food stores for excess food (instead of paying to warehouse it), and then, when presented with food stamps, they could get ten times the amount of food then if it was "brand name."
Arguments that it is "unfair competition" are not true, because the poor wouldn't buy those brand name products anyway--no money--so it is *just* a choice between them eating and them not eating.
Bottom line: cost savings by not subsidizing brand name food. Break even on storage space. Poor people eat instead of not. Anyone who proposes starvation as a "motivator" to get people to work should be horsewhipped.
posted by kablam at 6:45 AM on December 10, 2003
Expect all the rich fuckers to come out for this thread.
posted by briank at 6:52 AM on December 10, 2003
posted by briank at 6:52 AM on December 10, 2003
What was the most innovative idea, I mean a really good idea, or a really good rationale for an idea, that you have heard for helping the poor?
I always thought that Swift's Modest Proposal offered up the kind of straight talk that's lacking in today's dicussions about wealth and poverty.
(I can't believe I'm posting in this thread...)
posted by mkultra at 7:05 AM on December 10, 2003
I always thought that Swift's Modest Proposal offered up the kind of straight talk that's lacking in today's dicussions about wealth and poverty.
(I can't believe I'm posting in this thread...)
posted by mkultra at 7:05 AM on December 10, 2003
What was the most innovative idea, I mean a really good idea, or a really good rationale for an idea, that you have heard for helping the poor?
My idea is not all that innovative, but it should be obvious to those who know the facts. Cut corporate tax avoidance. Conservative estimates put the loss of tax revenue as a result of tax shelters alone at $18,000,000,000.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:09 AM on December 10, 2003
My idea is not all that innovative, but it should be obvious to those who know the facts. Cut corporate tax avoidance. Conservative estimates put the loss of tax revenue as a result of tax shelters alone at $18,000,000,000.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:09 AM on December 10, 2003
No, I don't ordinarily care for THE ONION posts cuz I pick it up every W or Th at my friendly local liquor store but this one was great...points out how the "newpapers" don't report the "news" about all the poor fucked poor people.
BTW, furiousthought, thanks, even if you were being sarcastic...I'd forgotten all about that comic and had missed tha last couple of months.
posted by kozad at 7:50 AM on December 10, 2003
BTW, furiousthought, thanks, even if you were being sarcastic...I'd forgotten all about that comic and had missed tha last couple of months.
posted by kozad at 7:50 AM on December 10, 2003
monju_bosatsu: we easily have the resources to feed the poor right now. Taking $18B from the rich would in no way guarantee the poor got anything more out of the deal. There is no connection.
Think of how wisely the Tobacco Settlement money was spent. This is why I distinguished between money and food. Almost everyone wants more money, only the hungry want more food.
posted by kablam at 8:51 AM on December 10, 2003
Think of how wisely the Tobacco Settlement money was spent. This is why I distinguished between money and food. Almost everyone wants more money, only the hungry want more food.
posted by kablam at 8:51 AM on December 10, 2003
"I can hardly get behind a welfare state that punishes the unfucked by fucking all equally."
What so many people fail to realize is that the problem today is not the gap between the rich and the poor, not that there are poor people in the world, not that there is inequality, not that rich people should be responsible for supporting the poor or for cleaning up after them.
The problem is that the gap is growing and will continue to grow unless measures are taken to stop the trend.
The MIDDLE CLASS is shrinking and all of those who are lucky enough to be part of that middle class now and look down on the poor and ask "why should I help them?" fail to see that they will soon enough fall into that category, or their children or grandchildren will.
This is kind of like the saying during WWII: "At first they came for the jews, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a jew. Then they came for the communists and I didn't say anything because I wasn't communist."
As long as everyone draws the line at themselves, the divide will continue to grow. I could translate it into modern terms:
"At first they came for the blue collar workers and I didn't care because I wasn't blue collar. Then they came for the low-skilled service-sector workers and I didn't care because I wasn't a low-skilled service-sector worker. Then they came for the middle-management white collar workers and I didn't say anything because I wasn't white collar middle-management. Then they came for the small business owners (think Walmart) because I wasn't a small business owner..."
For those of you who would say, "oh, that's not going to happen." IT WILL HAPPEN -- unless we put our foot down to stop it. The only problem is, we only put our feet down when the line reaches us. The problem with that is, when the line reaches you, there will be fewer people left with the power to fight for you, and they probably won't give a shit, since you didn't care about them until your neck was on the line.
For those of you who are so anti-socialism - get over it! We live in a society without which you would have nothing. No single person can build up wealth on his or her own without the support and hard work of the entire society.
There will always be inequity in the world, but that doesn't mean that as a society it is not our responsibility to work to reduce it as much as possible.
posted by PigAlien at 9:31 AM on December 10, 2003
What so many people fail to realize is that the problem today is not the gap between the rich and the poor, not that there are poor people in the world, not that there is inequality, not that rich people should be responsible for supporting the poor or for cleaning up after them.
The problem is that the gap is growing and will continue to grow unless measures are taken to stop the trend.
The MIDDLE CLASS is shrinking and all of those who are lucky enough to be part of that middle class now and look down on the poor and ask "why should I help them?" fail to see that they will soon enough fall into that category, or their children or grandchildren will.
This is kind of like the saying during WWII: "At first they came for the jews, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a jew. Then they came for the communists and I didn't say anything because I wasn't communist."
As long as everyone draws the line at themselves, the divide will continue to grow. I could translate it into modern terms:
"At first they came for the blue collar workers and I didn't care because I wasn't blue collar. Then they came for the low-skilled service-sector workers and I didn't care because I wasn't a low-skilled service-sector worker. Then they came for the middle-management white collar workers and I didn't say anything because I wasn't white collar middle-management. Then they came for the small business owners (think Walmart) because I wasn't a small business owner..."
For those of you who would say, "oh, that's not going to happen." IT WILL HAPPEN -- unless we put our foot down to stop it. The only problem is, we only put our feet down when the line reaches us. The problem with that is, when the line reaches you, there will be fewer people left with the power to fight for you, and they probably won't give a shit, since you didn't care about them until your neck was on the line.
For those of you who are so anti-socialism - get over it! We live in a society without which you would have nothing. No single person can build up wealth on his or her own without the support and hard work of the entire society.
There will always be inequity in the world, but that doesn't mean that as a society it is not our responsibility to work to reduce it as much as possible.
posted by PigAlien at 9:31 AM on December 10, 2003
For the sake of continuity, I'd linked to Get Your War On, which had in fact updated recently and was funny. Sorry 'bout the redundant sarcasm. :: walks away meekly ::
posted by furiousthought at 9:45 AM on December 10, 2003
posted by furiousthought at 9:45 AM on December 10, 2003
PigAlien: "For those of you who are so anti-socialism - get over it!"
And for those who believe in socialism, it is a dead religion. It never worked anywhere, for anything, unless somebody with deep pockets, outside the system, was paying for it. Left to its own devices it created the least happiness for the most people, and the greatest disparity between the rich and the poor, ever, with the possible exception of an absolute monarchy.
Much of the disparity between the poor and the "rich" is nonsense anyway. There is damn little you can buy with $250M then you can't buy with $300M. Most any amount of *cash* over $1M is *wasted* unless it is reinvested.
So, what you are really complaining about is that there are a LOT of people out there who can't manipulate capital like Bill Gates. Not just *greed*, but inspiration, is what Bill Gates can afford and a grubby little socialist cant. If Bill Gates has an *idea*, he can bring it to life, but your dreams will never become reality.
Other than that, Bill Gates sleeps in one bed a night, can eat only one meal at a time, and will grow old and die, too.
But had been born in a socialist state, Windows and tens of thousands of millionaires it has created, and the hundreds of thousands of prosperous Microsoft employees it has created, and the millions who have benefitted from it, would have never been born.
Microsoft would still be a garage operation, we would be using 28K modems, at best, the Internet would be mostly in text, and our world would be far more equally retchid.
Light a taper and pray to the dead gods of socialism.
posted by kablam at 10:20 AM on December 10, 2003
And for those who believe in socialism, it is a dead religion. It never worked anywhere, for anything, unless somebody with deep pockets, outside the system, was paying for it. Left to its own devices it created the least happiness for the most people, and the greatest disparity between the rich and the poor, ever, with the possible exception of an absolute monarchy.
Much of the disparity between the poor and the "rich" is nonsense anyway. There is damn little you can buy with $250M then you can't buy with $300M. Most any amount of *cash* over $1M is *wasted* unless it is reinvested.
So, what you are really complaining about is that there are a LOT of people out there who can't manipulate capital like Bill Gates. Not just *greed*, but inspiration, is what Bill Gates can afford and a grubby little socialist cant. If Bill Gates has an *idea*, he can bring it to life, but your dreams will never become reality.
Other than that, Bill Gates sleeps in one bed a night, can eat only one meal at a time, and will grow old and die, too.
But had been born in a socialist state, Windows and tens of thousands of millionaires it has created, and the hundreds of thousands of prosperous Microsoft employees it has created, and the millions who have benefitted from it, would have never been born.
Microsoft would still be a garage operation, we would be using 28K modems, at best, the Internet would be mostly in text, and our world would be far more equally retchid.
Light a taper and pray to the dead gods of socialism.
posted by kablam at 10:20 AM on December 10, 2003
So, what you are really complaining about is that there are a LOT of people out there who can't manipulate capital like Bill Gates.
Funny, I thought the complaints where about the whole LOT of people who are starving to death, wasting away through malnutrition, losing their homes, etc. But we can talk about capital investment if you want.
posted by influx at 10:30 AM on December 10, 2003
Funny, I thought the complaints where about the whole LOT of people who are starving to death, wasting away through malnutrition, losing their homes, etc. But we can talk about capital investment if you want.
posted by influx at 10:30 AM on December 10, 2003
Well, it's kind of a false dichotomy to assume that we aren't, unless you expect the food and houses to magically appear in the hands of the people who need them. I mean, let's face it, the only kinds of things that are going to solve these problems are institutions (whether private or state I'll leave aside for now) which have a great deal of capital to throw around and are somehow generating enough income to pay for all of this.
On a side note, Bill Gates is a particularly poor example for this debate for both sides, since BG gives a great deal of money to charity - billions of dollars - but so far as I know, does so out of his personal wealth not tied up in control of Microsoft.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:43 AM on December 10, 2003
On a side note, Bill Gates is a particularly poor example for this debate for both sides, since BG gives a great deal of money to charity - billions of dollars - but so far as I know, does so out of his personal wealth not tied up in control of Microsoft.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:43 AM on December 10, 2003
probably the best way to help poor people is to slash their social services with a tax cut and then mail them a check, once.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:02 AM on December 10, 2003
posted by mcsweetie at 11:02 AM on December 10, 2003
Wealth inequality in the US declined in the period from 1948 to 1970 and, while there were many factors which accounted for this decline in inequality, government "socialist" programs (if you will) such as the GI Bill played an important role.
Since 1970, US wealth inequality has increased steadily and - lately - income mobility (less than previously believed anyway, recent studies have revealed) has been declining also.
This trend points toward the "Brazilification" of the US, with the continued shriveling of the US middle class until we see the emergence of a majority underclass in the next few decades (with a truly destitute subclass nipping at the underclass' heels). What will this mean? Look toward Brazil's grotesquely swollen private security industry which, lately, has been entering the domestic market there, since most businesses in Brazil are now fortresses and so criminals have taken to targeting the Brazilian affluent in their homes.
The US CIA's website has a nice section, also, on the correlation between societal inequality and destabilization - crime social strife, and sometimes civil war.
posted by troutfishing at 11:26 AM on December 10, 2003
Since 1970, US wealth inequality has increased steadily and - lately - income mobility (less than previously believed anyway, recent studies have revealed) has been declining also.
This trend points toward the "Brazilification" of the US, with the continued shriveling of the US middle class until we see the emergence of a majority underclass in the next few decades (with a truly destitute subclass nipping at the underclass' heels). What will this mean? Look toward Brazil's grotesquely swollen private security industry which, lately, has been entering the domestic market there, since most businesses in Brazil are now fortresses and so criminals have taken to targeting the Brazilian affluent in their homes.
The US CIA's website has a nice section, also, on the correlation between societal inequality and destabilization - crime social strife, and sometimes civil war.
posted by troutfishing at 11:26 AM on December 10, 2003
I wish this item were not so damn true.
Maybe the answer at least partly lies in the next item, turning abandoned property into urban food sources. Urban co-ops of the "fucked" would at least take care of their own by providing jobs and nutritious food to the community. It's sure better for everyone than factory farming and farm subsidies in rural wastelands hundreds of miles away.
posted by ilsa at 12:34 PM on December 10, 2003
Maybe the answer at least partly lies in the next item, turning abandoned property into urban food sources. Urban co-ops of the "fucked" would at least take care of their own by providing jobs and nutritious food to the community. It's sure better for everyone than factory farming and farm subsidies in rural wastelands hundreds of miles away.
posted by ilsa at 12:34 PM on December 10, 2003
And for those who believe in socialism, it is a dead religion. It never worked anywhere, for anything
On what planet?
Most governments on this one ARE a mix of capitalism and socialism. Ever hear of Social Security?
I only hope the announcement of my death is as premature.
Dream on, or better yet don't bogart that stuff!
posted by nofundy at 12:55 PM on December 10, 2003
On what planet?
Most governments on this one ARE a mix of capitalism and socialism. Ever hear of Social Security?
I only hope the announcement of my death is as premature.
Dream on, or better yet don't bogart that stuff!
posted by nofundy at 12:55 PM on December 10, 2003
Light a taper and pray to the dead gods of socialism.
*lights taper, dances with hobnailed boots on socialism's cold grave*
posted by hama7 at 1:37 PM on December 10, 2003
*lights taper, dances with hobnailed boots on socialism's cold grave*
posted by hama7 at 1:37 PM on December 10, 2003
Anyone who thinks socialism doesn't work or is dead needs to study some political science. Socialism is not the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea or Cuba. Those countries are dictatorships, whether of the party or of the person (and still kicking and not dead, I might add). Socialism is merely a term deriving from 'social' meaning society. We are living in a society, and I don't think the most conservative, right-wing bible-thumper would deny that. Any government that derives its power from the people and has consideration of the people and contributes to the welfare of the people is a socialist government.
posted by PigAlien at 2:06 PM on December 10, 2003
posted by PigAlien at 2:06 PM on December 10, 2003
troutfishing: "...until we see the emergence of a majority underclass in the next few decades (with a truly destitute subclass nipping at the underclass' heels)."
Such impressive pessimism! Reminiscent of Paul Ehrlich who is now known less for his book 'The Population Bomb', then for the fact that virtually *nothing* he ever predicted came to pass, and by a wide margin.
I have NO idea where you get such a bizarre idea about the US from. The vast majority of our "underclass" are illegal aliens, of whom even a large percentage are on the fast track to improve their *own* lives, not wait around for government to do it.
In just my city alone, in two decades has gone from almost exclusively anglo to a 50/50 split with Mexicans. At the same time our standard of living goes up, and considerably.
People who were illegal aliens in their youth are now middle class, and their children are rapidly losing their affiliation with Mexico. And now we are integrating Guatemalans, who are behaving in the same industrious way.
I'm guessing you did a straight-line extrapolation from the massive layoffs of the 2000 recession, assuming not just no new jobs, but the continuation of massive layoffs.
But I've got news for you.
posted by kablam at 2:10 PM on December 10, 2003
Such impressive pessimism! Reminiscent of Paul Ehrlich who is now known less for his book 'The Population Bomb', then for the fact that virtually *nothing* he ever predicted came to pass, and by a wide margin.
I have NO idea where you get such a bizarre idea about the US from. The vast majority of our "underclass" are illegal aliens, of whom even a large percentage are on the fast track to improve their *own* lives, not wait around for government to do it.
In just my city alone, in two decades has gone from almost exclusively anglo to a 50/50 split with Mexicans. At the same time our standard of living goes up, and considerably.
People who were illegal aliens in their youth are now middle class, and their children are rapidly losing their affiliation with Mexico. And now we are integrating Guatemalans, who are behaving in the same industrious way.
I'm guessing you did a straight-line extrapolation from the massive layoffs of the 2000 recession, assuming not just no new jobs, but the continuation of massive layoffs.
But I've got news for you.
posted by kablam at 2:10 PM on December 10, 2003
In just my city alone, in two decades has gone from almost exclusively anglo to a 50/50 split with Mexicans. At the same time our standard of living goes up, and considerably.
Yeah, isn't it great how we can exploit the work of illegal aliens to improve our life styles?
posted by kaibutsu at 4:09 PM on December 10, 2003
Yeah, isn't it great how we can exploit the work of illegal aliens to improve our life styles?
posted by kaibutsu at 4:09 PM on December 10, 2003
reads like a businessweek article :D compare!
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 34.6 million Americans were living below the poverty line in 2002.
cf: "More than a quarter of the labor force, about 34 million workers, is trapped in low-wage, often dead-end jobs, according to a new book entitled Low-Wage America: How Employers Are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace."
America's increasingly rigid class system worsens the situation for the poor.
"After analyzing the economic performance of U.S. households over the past several decades, we concluded that class mobility, while steady in the '70s and '80s, declined in the '90s," Park said.
cf: "...the number of workers progressing upward began to slip in the 1970s, when the post-World War II productivity boom ran out of steam. Upward mobility diminished even more in the 1980s as globalization and technology slammed blue-collar wages.
"MANY EXPERTS expected the trend to reverse as productivity rebounded during the heated economy of the 1990s... But new research suggests that, surprisingly, the best economy in 30 years did little to get America's vaunted upward mobility back on track."
"About 40 percent of families ended the decade in the same economic strata in which they began it. That's up from about 35 percent in the '80s. That's good news for those sittin' pretty, but it spells 'fuck you' to the poor."
cf: "...Some 40% of families didn't change income brackets over the decade, vs. 37% in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s, according to the authors' analysis of annual longitudinal surveys by the University of Michigan."
posted by kliuless at 5:59 PM on December 10, 2003
According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 34.6 million Americans were living below the poverty line in 2002.
cf: "More than a quarter of the labor force, about 34 million workers, is trapped in low-wage, often dead-end jobs, according to a new book entitled Low-Wage America: How Employers Are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace."
America's increasingly rigid class system worsens the situation for the poor.
"After analyzing the economic performance of U.S. households over the past several decades, we concluded that class mobility, while steady in the '70s and '80s, declined in the '90s," Park said.
cf: "...the number of workers progressing upward began to slip in the 1970s, when the post-World War II productivity boom ran out of steam. Upward mobility diminished even more in the 1980s as globalization and technology slammed blue-collar wages.
"MANY EXPERTS expected the trend to reverse as productivity rebounded during the heated economy of the 1990s... But new research suggests that, surprisingly, the best economy in 30 years did little to get America's vaunted upward mobility back on track."
"About 40 percent of families ended the decade in the same economic strata in which they began it. That's up from about 35 percent in the '80s. That's good news for those sittin' pretty, but it spells 'fuck you' to the poor."
cf: "...Some 40% of families didn't change income brackets over the decade, vs. 37% in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s, according to the authors' analysis of annual longitudinal surveys by the University of Michigan."
posted by kliuless at 5:59 PM on December 10, 2003
All you cheerleaders for the rich who think if you're nice to your betters you might get in on the deal some day should play the percentages and realize you're _much_ more likely to end up with nothing than you are to end up having to worry about the estate tax, if you start from being middle class. It's self-preservation, think for 5 seconds.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:06 PM on December 10, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 7:06 PM on December 10, 2003
All you cheerleaders for the rich ... It's self-preservation, think for 5 seconds.
Milords, please excuse him! He is only a lowly serf, and doesn't show proper respect for his betters. We only live to serve you, milords!
posted by moonbiter at 8:01 PM on December 10, 2003
Milords, please excuse him! He is only a lowly serf, and doesn't show proper respect for his betters. We only live to serve you, milords!
posted by moonbiter at 8:01 PM on December 10, 2003
Space Coyote: well, on the plus side, if I ever do earn enough to worry about the estate tax, it will be because the socialists are in power again and have lowered the threshold of high taxes to just above street beggars.
I like the concept of inheritance. I don't sneer at it like those who call it "life's lottery." People who resent prosperity in others have deeper problems then poverty.
posted by kablam at 8:28 PM on December 10, 2003
I like the concept of inheritance. I don't sneer at it like those who call it "life's lottery." People who resent prosperity in others have deeper problems then poverty.
posted by kablam at 8:28 PM on December 10, 2003
kablam - I believe that you are smart enough to reference the stats I'm referring to. Am I wrong? Or are you really unaware of the changing income distribution profile in the US ? You could start with this metafilter thread
posted by troutfishing at 8:41 PM on December 10, 2003
posted by troutfishing at 8:41 PM on December 10, 2003
kablam: it has been demonstrated many times that people prefer to have, say $100 when their neighbors have $90 than to have $110 when their neighbors have $120. Is that a resentment of prosperity?
posted by Ptrin at 8:44 PM on December 10, 2003
posted by Ptrin at 8:44 PM on December 10, 2003
People who resent prosperity in others have deeper problems then poverty.
It's not so much that many of us resent prosperity so much as it is the fact that there is this gigantically huge gap of income that exists between rich and the rest of us in America. Some of us feel that those who benefit so much from the way our society is structured might want to show some noblesse oblige.
posted by moonbiter at 9:21 PM on December 10, 2003
It's not so much that many of us resent prosperity so much as it is the fact that there is this gigantically huge gap of income that exists between rich and the rest of us in America. Some of us feel that those who benefit so much from the way our society is structured might want to show some noblesse oblige.
posted by moonbiter at 9:21 PM on December 10, 2003
As far as I can tell, people who are actually rich are largely in favor of the estate tax. It seems to be the people who only hope of having the tax affect them who disapprove of it.
posted by hattifattener at 11:14 PM on December 10, 2003
posted by hattifattener at 11:14 PM on December 10, 2003
No one resents people for simply being rich. People resent those who have power over them, and for the most part, rich people have the power in this country. People resent those who have power over them even more when they feel that power is being used to benefit those who already have power even more, which is what is happening in the United States. Sure, that's what's always happened, but that doesn't mean there aren't degrees of scale, and right now the degrees of scale are getting worse to the rich people's benefit. This is a democracy, everyone should benefit.
posted by PigAlien at 6:47 AM on December 11, 2003
posted by PigAlien at 6:47 AM on December 11, 2003
Ha! Being against estate taxes is a joke.
The current exemption is One Meeeeelion Dollars. Raise your hand if you've got that? Yeah I thought so. Probably a half dozen hands in all MeFi-land are effected by estate taxes. If you have a million dollar estate and can't liberate a couple thousand for estate planning, you have much bigger problems that what happens after you are dead.
Do not bring up the land rich but cash poor rancher or farmer unless you have statistics on exactly how many of those end up "selling the property 'cause Pa up and died" in any given year. Nobody I've ever talked to about the issue seems to have anything in the way of cold hard facts, leading me to suspect the number is quite low.
posted by ilsa at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2003
The current exemption is One Meeeeelion Dollars. Raise your hand if you've got that? Yeah I thought so. Probably a half dozen hands in all MeFi-land are effected by estate taxes. If you have a million dollar estate and can't liberate a couple thousand for estate planning, you have much bigger problems that what happens after you are dead.
Do not bring up the land rich but cash poor rancher or farmer unless you have statistics on exactly how many of those end up "selling the property 'cause Pa up and died" in any given year. Nobody I've ever talked to about the issue seems to have anything in the way of cold hard facts, leading me to suspect the number is quite low.
posted by ilsa at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2003
Ha! Being against estate taxes is a joke.
Ha Ha. (not laughing)
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
posted by hama7 at 8:22 PM on December 12, 2003
Ha Ha. (not laughing)
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
posted by hama7 at 8:22 PM on December 12, 2003
« Older The fabulous ruins of Detroit | Yin Yu Tang - a Chinese home preservation project Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ElvisJesus at 2:54 AM on December 10, 2003